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.
This article is within the scope of 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.
Anyone know why this episode is called Daedalus? I kept expecting to see a Daedalus-class starship! I am guessing it's something to do with the mythical Daedalus. It would be nice if someone in-the-know could write a couple of sentences about it on the main page. E.g. "The name of this episode gets its name from...". Marky1981 09:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The title of the episode is a reference to the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. Daedalus devised wax wings which his son used without caution. He flew too close to the sun, had his wings melt off and then fell to his death. This is paralleled by Emory letting his son use the transporter without fully analyzing the risks first.
Archer refers to a talk with his father on the day he entered flight training. However in the episode "Borderland" it is established that his father died of Clarke's Syndrome when he was 12. It is doubtful that flight training in Starfleet began at an age below 12.
The episode includes the line "worship your shadow", a reference to Lexx, where this line is featured heavily.
You said you were going to fix the plot more than a week ago and there's still no mention of the major subplot and its continuity with the previous episode, Kir'Shara. Specifically, the confirmation of the remission of T'Pol's Pa'nar syndrome and her relationship with Trip. I should also point out that the plot summary in the lead is weak (when "the crew of the Enterprise help Dr. Emory Erickson conduct experimental transporter tests, a dangerous anomaly is detected on board") and the critical reception in the lead is ambiguous ("received positively due to the character development"). Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi - don't know if this is the protocol here (being the first time I have involved myself with a GA review), but I think the outstanding review issues have been fully addressed within my recent plot-centric edits to the article [and, actually, it was those recent edits that got this page on my watchlist, which made me aware of, and led me to this review].) Jabberjawjapan (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jabberjawjapan: you didn't ping me and I don't have this on my watchlist, so I can only assume that you and the nom would prefer a different reviewer. Otherwise, I'm happy to revisit it. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not particularly fussed who reviews this - as I said, I am unfamiliar with the GA process, who has what pages watched, etc etc, and was endeavouring to be helpful. If you would like to revisit it, and that fits with the protocols, then please feel free to do so! Jabberjawjapan (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. BenLinus1214talk 01:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Comments
Looking at the last GAN, the main reason for failing was on the plot section—it apparently left out a major subplot. Can you tell me about how that has been fixed? I've never seen this episode (or that much Star Trek, for that matter), so could you just fill me in? Thanks.
The main problem with the article is that its reviews are not from reliable sources—one is a fan site and one seems to just be a hobby site by one unnotable person. So I'm putting it on hold for now. If you cannot find any more reviews, I'm afraid that this won't be able to become a GA. Sorry. :( BenLinus1214talk 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. Following the previous review, another editor (who has kindly been doing this to all the Enterprise articles) re-wrote the entire plot section directly after watching the episode. As for the fan site/review, you're quite right to bring these up (although I haven't been asked about them for a while). TrekNation is generally used as a reliable source not so much because of the current website but because historically it actually formed the news portion of the official Star Trek website. So you'd click on news on one version of the site and it'd take you out to TrekNation. As it stands now, it remains one of only four fan sites which are linked to directly from the official website (although sadly, one of those four was taken offline earlier in the year - but I haven't used it here). Jammer's Reviews is used for a different purpose. He originally created his review website during the original run of Voyager back in the late 90s and his reviews were considered so important at the time by the writers for the series that he was flown out to LA and asked to pitch story ideas. None of them were taken up, but based on that event we've been using him as a credible source for reviews only as the crew thought highly enough of them to take him seriously. Miyagawa (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. The article now meets the reliable sources criterion, which in turn now fulfills my scope concerns. Pass. BenLinus1214talk 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)