Talk:Heroes and Demons

Why quote Screen Rant?

Screen Rant is a clickbait website that is riddled with typos, factual errors, uncited claims, and outright fabrications. The site's writers are not fact-checked, and their Star Trek coverage in particular is often highly inaccurate. Why does Wikipedia include commentary from an untrusted source like Screen Rant?

Is this not wrong?

The text currently says, "As the doctor investigates further, he realizes that within the containment field into which the protostar samples were transported that alien energy lifeforms were also beamed into the ship but one managed to escape through a breach during the process."

Is this not wrong? After he is attacked, loses an arm, and transported out of the holodeck, an analysis of this tricorder readings by Bilanna working with Janeway, I think, reveals certain life-like patterns that, I think, the doctor had suspected. So it was Bilanna and Janeway, I think, who made the life form discovery, not the doctor. Will someone please check this and make changes accordingly? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One error in Heroes and Demons is that the Doctor, on the basis of having read (and presumably memorized) the actual Beowulf epic, recognizes Freya the moment she appears. Except Freya does not appear in the original epic, she has been added to the StarTrek version to provide some romance that does not exist in the Anglo-Saxon saga. Sussmanbern (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heroes and Demons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I should be able to review soon. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "This episode was the first in Voyager's run..." Why is this information relevant to the first paragraph of the lead, and what is your definition of "significant involvement"?

• I've removed it from the lead, after re-reading it, I don't think it was warranted to mention it so prominently. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• When talking about the composer's nomination—I would remove the word "subsequently", as it implies to me, reading it, that the two were somehow connected.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Be sure that your information in the lead follows the structure of your reception section. Also, you don't seem to have any info from the "cast and crew response" subsection in the lead.

• Added. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you make that third paragraph any longer, I would recommend splitting it into two paras.

• I ended up merging the first and second paragraphs because after removing that sentence from the first paragraph it looked just silly due to the disparity in the sizes. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comma after "Caretaker", as I thought this was a different episode from the pilot with your current punctuation.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "the former story editor for Star Trek: The Next Generation during the final two seasons" Is this sourced in that next ref?

• Yep, it was an interview with him specifically about his work on this episode. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The initial idea" add: for the episode.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "needing to be rectified" is redundant, and just saying "the main issue" would suffice.

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would link to Albert Schweitzer in the Production section.

• I'd linked in to it in the plot, but you're right, this is a better place for it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• There's a free file of Shankar on Commons—File:NarenShankar.png. I don't know about you, but I think that would be more helpful than a picture of a Beowulf manuscript.

• I didn't think to search for that, I've swapped it out as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lighthearted should not be two words; it's either without any spaces or "light-hearted"

• Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would prefer "appeared in" to "gained" when talking about roles.

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can you split up the sentence beginning "'Heroes and Demons' was significant for McCarthy" into two sentences? Even though it may not technically be a run-on sentence, it's a jumble to read.

• Sure, I've split into two. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "This was finally used..." Once again, the sentence kind of seems like you're saying that because the piece was included in the episode, he submitted it for Emmy consideration. I assume that's not the case based on the source...?

• I've changed the end of the sentence to remove the link between the two. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The sets were magnificent-the forest set was beautiful" Typically, there should be an en or em dash in place of that hyphen, but if that's how it was transcribed in the source, I would add a [sic]

• Wasn't intentional, I've copied and pasted another dash from elsewhere in the article and run the dash fixing tool just to make certain. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm assuming there were no online reviews to be found?

• I don't know how I missed those, but I've added it now. TrekToday is part of TrekNation, which is one of four unofficial sites which are linked to from the official Star Trek website (or at least were in the previous design, they changed it a couple of months ago and I haven't checked it since). Their news stories were also linked directly to on the official website back in 2004 or so. Jammer's is a bit more unusual - the Voyager team considered his reviews so important during their run that he was brought over to LA to pitch episode ideas directly to the producers. None of them got picked up, but it showed why his opinion was considered important. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• We've been through this on a few of your other Star Trek articles, and I accepted them as significant viewpoints. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would place "Home media release" as a subsection of Reception, but it's up to you.

• Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Refs look good.

@Miyagawa: That's all I have! You always create very solid articles into which you've seem to have put a lot of research. If you fix this, I will gladly pass. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: I think I've covered everything now that I've added those online reviews. Let me know if there is anything else. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: Wonderful! I can certainly pass now. Wonderful work! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Episode & production numbers

Stop changing the episode numbers because you watched this on Netflix, Netflix is not the owner. Netflix lists all episodes as (n), but the makers and current owner CBS lists all episodes as (n+1), because the first episode is considered as episode 1 & 2. CptBearguy (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)