Jump to content

Talk:Kir'Shara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKir'Shara has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starKir'Shara is part of the Star Trek: Enterprise (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2014Good article nomineeListed
May 25, 2016Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 29, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that elements in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Kir'Shara" have been compared to the Nag Hammadi library and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code?
Current status: Good article


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kir'Shara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Miyagawa (talk)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn  09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


1: Well-written

Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done
      • Major Point 1: Plot "In this episode, Enterprise is caught in a crossfire … to the rest of the Vulcan High Council." (summarised well in the lead)
      • Major Point 2: Production "It was writer Michael Sussman's third episode … returned as Shran." & "The episode was shot across seven days … episode "Amok Time"." (summarised well in the lead)
      • Major Point 3: Themes ""Kir'Shara" and the Vulcan arc showed themes … compared to the Nag Hammadi library." (summarised well in the lead)
      • Major Point 4: Reception and home media release "originally aired on December 3, 2004." & "The episode received a Nielsen rating … mixed opinions regarding the ending of the episode." (summarised well in the lead)
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
      • Major Point 1: Plot "In this episode, Enterprise is caught in a crossfire … to the rest of the Vulcan High Council." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
      • Major Point 2: Production "It was writer Michael Sussman's third episode … returned as Shran." & "The episode was shot across seven days … episode "Amok Time"." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
      • Major Point 3: Themes ""Kir'Shara" and the Vulcan arc showed themes … compared to the Nag Hammadi library." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
      • Major Point 4: Reception and home media release "originally aired on December 3, 2004." & "The episode received a Nielsen rating … mixed opinions regarding the ending of the episode." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
        • "Kir'Shara" is the tenth episode of the fourth season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Enterprise, and originally aired on December 3, 2004.
        • Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
        • The part "and originally aired on December 3, 2004" can be moved somewhere down the lead.
      • Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
      • Check for Biographies: NA
      • Check for Organisms: NA
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
      • Use a different heading for section Reception and home media release. There is only a short paragraph dealing with home media release – "The first home media release … is due on April 1, 2014.". I recommend Reception.
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
      • Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. (WP:BETTER)
      • Fix "The first home media release … is due on April 1, 2014." in the Reception section.
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications:  Done
    • Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None
    • Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
    • Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done
    • Check for Links to sister projects: None
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done
 Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done
    • Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done
    • Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done
    • Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done
    • Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done
    • Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
  2. Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done
    • Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done
    • Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done
    • Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done
    • Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done
    • Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done
    • Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done
None


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done

Check for WP:RS:  Done

Cross-checked with other FA & FL: Tasha Yar, List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members‎ & List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine cast members

  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
    • "finally grows up and becomes a Star Trek series this week".[14] (Random check on source 14, successful, " Enterprise finally grows up and becomes a Star Trek series this week. The series has slowly been creeping up on my anticipation list with every episode this season, each hour making me eager for the next. ")
    • "far from a perfectly executed Trek story but they get enough right to make it a lot easier to overlook the few things they miss."[14] (Random check on source 14, successful, "Kir'Shara is far from a perfectly executed Trek story but they get enough right to make it a lot easier to overlook the few things they miss. There's a looseness to the series this season, almost like they know there's only a slim chance of getting renewed so they might as well do what they want instead of what they think will sell.")
    • "this could become some of the best Star Trek ever made".[14] (Random check on source 14, successful, "It is truly ironic that this could become some of the best Star Trek ever made and that it will be seen by the smallest audience in the franchise's history.")
    • "suddenly makes sense of years of previously incomprehensible Vulcan policy" … .[7]
    • "absolutely gripping episode" except for the "ludicrousness of the ending".[16]
    • "I suppose the Romulans had to show up at some point, I guess Vulcan is as good a place as any."[16]
    • "pointless",[16]
    • "not perfect, but good" with an "intriguing" ending.[17]
  1. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  2. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None


5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes


6: Images (None)

Images:
(NA)

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):
  2. Check for copyright status:
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):


As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:

  • Fix first sentence of the lead.
  • Fix heading for the section Reception and home media release.
  • Fix short paragraphs.


This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. I’m putting the article on hold. All the best, --Seabuckthorn  20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I've made those couple of edits as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn  03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details please

[edit]

Congratulations on this article's promotion to GA! As a WP editor who hasn't watched much Star Trek, though, may I make one suggestion? At present it's unclear what the Kir'Shara is; as far as I can tell, all that's said about it here is that "contains the original word of Surak." Are we talking about some kind of book, or recording, or inscription, or box, or what? I'd imagine that a short definition or description would be appropriate for the plot summary (and probably the lead as well), since the episode is named after this artifact.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is such a simple thing to explain the meaning of an episode title but it is so obvious people often forget to include it. That got me thinking too that the appearance of the object should be described, so only 7 years later your request had been addressed. Since the Plot section must be kept short I went ahead and added a footnote describing the relic as a tetrahedron or triangular pyramid.[1] A text description is necessary but it would be better if the article included both text and an image. I added a request to the page heading that an image be added to the article, and I think it would be a good idea if it was an image of the Kir'Shara, ideally a split image showing both the inactive relic and the version glowing and projecting text, would best enhance reader understanding of the episode.
If we had more information perhaps the prop could also be described in the Production section.[2](Archive) -- 109.79.169.104 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Archer activating the Kir'Shara[3][4][5] might be a good choice to represent the episode but I'd be hesitant to use an image from near the end of the episode. -- 109.79.78.84 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kir'Shara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war and WMD

[edit]

Part of the plot sounds like the allegations of wmd in Iraq (which had started a year before airing), and I'm surprised that this hasn't been taken up by any sources at that time. --Tilman (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]