Talk:A Night in Sickbay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.
 
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Dogs (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

I've changed the "analysis" section back, to reflect a more neutral POV. I understand that it can be difficult to keep personal opinions out of these things, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to try and be objective. If you can cite some specific examples of these fan complaints please do so.Multiverse 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed the analysis section to be more factual and removed online survey. There have been loads of online surveys, and citing one makes no sense, especially as a link to ratings (when the survey is not about ratings, but about a small group of people feel about each episode). Complaints remain uncited and not factual.

Screen shot[edit]

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

I added a second screen shot to this episode's article. This image shows Archer at the climax of the Kreetassan apology ritual.

I had intended to give this image file a name referencing the Enterprise series and the episode number, but something went amiss while I was uploading the screen shot, and I couldn't figure out how to rename it afterwards. If anyone else would like to give this file a more appropriate name, please be my guest.

Also, I realize that some people might object to the idea of having more than one screen shot per episode. In that case, I would propose that this picture of Archer doing his apology to the Kreetassans is more representative of the episode than the other picture of Archer and Phlox, holding nets, trying to catch a loose bat in Sickbay. But I'd be perfectly happy to see both screen shots stay.

Richwales 03:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Enterprise - S2E05 - A Night in Sickbay.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Enterprise - S2E05 - A Night in Sickbay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I think the criticism section should be deleted entirely. This is not a blog. I enjoyed that episode. This doesn't mean I can insert that into the article.

Also, if the caption is going to describe Archer tending to Porthos, I think the picture should portray this. Besides, Porthos is cuter then butterfly nets.

Lots42 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Kreetassan Apology Closeup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Kreetassan Apology Closeup.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Beagle picture[edit]

I've added a generic image of a Beagle as there isn't one of Breezy who mostly played Porthos during this episode. However, if anyone has an image of Breezy then please swap out the current Beagle image with that. The one current there is simply better than nothing at all. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Night in Sickbay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Initial comments will be posted within the next 24 hours. --1ST7 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

  1. Well-written
    A. Prose: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    • Bakula also explained in an interview with the website TrekWeb that the episode had Porthos featured as a background character throughout and that it was about Archer having to spend a night in sickbay with Phlox, "We find out a lot of stuff about [Phlox] that we may not have wanted to know; like what he does when he's in his off hours… he has things to cut and trim!" This phrase is a little awkward.
    • I've changed it to: "Bakula also explained in an interview with the website TrekWeb that the episode featured Archer's dog Porthos as a background character and it was also about Archer spending a night in sickbay with Phlox. He said that this meant that the viewer will "find out a lot of stuff about [Phlox] that we may not have wanted to know; like what he does when he's in his off hours... he has things to cut and trim!"" Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • In order to prepare for the scene where Porthos leaps out of an immersion tank and into Archer's arms, Rowe had a mock-up created so he could practice it with Breezy, he said that "By the time we went into it on that one day to prep on set with Scott, she was jumping out of it into my arms, but I had to make sure that she's going to jump out and do it into Scott's arms." This is a run-on sentence.
    • I've split it into two sentences - with the second starting at "He said that..." Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The review by "Herc" for the website Ain't It Cool News, said that the it was good to find out how Porthos got his name, and the sexual tension between Archer and T'Pol. This phrase is also awkward.
    • I thought that breaking it into two sentences didn't improve it, so I've reworded it and fixed the tense issue. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • He felt that he made a mockery out of the characters and that some of the situations were just ridiculous. Who made a mockery out of the characters?
    • Yep, that phrasing was rubbish! I've checked the source once again and reworded it to: "He felt that the episode made a mockery out of the characters and that some of the situations they were placed in were just ridiculous." Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The lead is slightly confusing. Please take the "Breezy" parentheses out of Captain Jonathan Archer's (Scott Bakula) dog Porthos (Breezy) and just explain in the next paragraph that the dog was portrayed mainly by a Beagle named Breezy.
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • I've removed that paragraph per note above. Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    • "TrekWeb" appears to be a fan site. Can you get a better source to cover that information?
    • TrekWeb is a fan site. But it is one of only four fansites which are linked to from the official Star Trek website, and due to the involvement with the cast and crew of the various series, the project considers them to be a reliable source (Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Sources). Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Please add a citation for the ratings figures in the latter half of the second paragraph of "Reception and home media release".
    • I've removed the second paragraph - it was added after the GA nomination by an IP user. There was a cite in the middle of it, but it was to a source I wouldn't consider reliable. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    • Article is focused and appears to cover all of the main aspects of the topic.
  4. Neutral:
  5. Stable:
    • No edit wars, etc.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

I'm going to place this article on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues. Thanks for your work on this article! --1ST7 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
All of the changes are good. The article now looks ready for promotion, so I'm going to pass it. Congratulations, and thanks again for your work on it. --1ST7 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

SF Debris[edit]

Pinging User:Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici - I note that your recent edits have cited the website SF Debris. I do not believe that the website meets the reliability criteria and instead actually meets the description set out at WP:QUESTIONABLE as there appears to be no editorial oversight - simply put, it appears to be a self published website with no reasoning why it should be considered reliable. Because of this, the text you've previously inserted is tantamount to original research. Also, I note that you cited through to the Enterprise episode list - you shouldn't cite other articles in articles per WP:CIRCULAR. Could you possibly explain how SF Debris meets the reliability criteria and we can clear this whole thing up. Miyagawa (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

SF Debris is a prominent Star Trek reviewer...to the point that when he described the main villain of Enterprise Season 1 as "Future Guy", it became an internet fan nickname and - as it turns out - Berman and Braga didn't have an official name for "Future Guy", and actually adopted SF Debris' fan-nickname, beginning to refer to him as "Future Guy" themselves. [1]
That being said, I'd like to use the quote from SF Debris that "the ratings sank like a stone" after this, but it is not a requirement. I simply want to point out that a glance at the ratings list demonstrates this trend - but that might be "original research" on my part. So yes, SF Debris is a fairly prominent Trek reviewer - he's famously the person who named "Future Guy" - but I may need to cite him to avoid original research.
You see, SF Debris point was succinct and obvious: ratings don't drop the week of a bad episode, as if viewers quickly reach for their remotes to change the channel. Ratings drop off after a bad episode, the week after, as a reaction to the immediately preceding one. The result was that the Enterprise writers tried to wave off any direct correlation between the disaster of "A Night in Sickbay" and the subsequent - subsequent - ratings drop. Simply looking at a list, it becomes obvious that *the ratings dropped like a stone* after ANIS and never recovered. This is one of the most clear-cut correlations between ratings and a bad episode we've seen.
Thus the point isn't reading into it that much: ratings were strong the weak it aired, because WHEN in history do people flip channels halfway through? Rather, watching this episode start to finish made people give up on the franchise. I was there: it was confirming that all of the problems in Season 1 would never be fixed - sophomoric sex jokes, inconsistent characterization, simply bad writing - but indeed, the writers shoved it in at high levels. Maybe the network was more to blame, I'm not sure.
I digress: it isn't much original research to point out that ratings dropped after this, but even if Original Research, in that case we should cite SF Debris, who IS a fairly major online Trek reviewer whom even the writers have referred to (even adopting some of his nicknames for characters - as explained on Memory Alpha). And SF Debris' point was succinct, not particularly "opinionated" - a massive ratings drop began immediately after this episode aired, so logically, it became the "high water mark" of Season 2 by default. I...hope this is enough to include the citation.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Memory Alpha isn't a reliable source either - the claim that SF Debris was the source for Future Guy is uncited there too and so it doesn't ascertain the notability of the review. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I should say though - that actually saying that the ratings went down after this episode wouldn't be original research as long as it can be cited - although the season article might be a better place to give the whole picture. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)