Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

• Ten Forward. Why is it actually not featured yet? SmokeDetector created a perfect article here, with all information available on it, to my knowledge. Ottens 06:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

• Guinan. (Self nomination). Heavily expanded over the past few days. Ottens 11:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Scimitar 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support AmdrBoltz 18:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support zsingaya 21:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose until concerns regarding excessive image use are resolved. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Assimilation - I read this thoroughly the other day and found it to be extremely well written; I highly reccomend for FA candidacy. — THOR 16:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Rebel Strike 16:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Ottens 17:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Needs more in-line citations to indicate information sources (some of the information presented I don't recognise from any Borg episodes). Some minor content problems have only just been raised on the talk page (by THOR himself!) - these issues must be resolved before it can be supported. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Opposed; basicly the same reasoning, I merged this with Borg assimilation a few weeks back and I didn't give it a hard canon check. Until the info can be clearly referenced I think it should stay unfeatured. Tyrant 18:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

• Klaa. Minor charcter, self nomination. Written in five edits or less (!!), several months ago; upon recent review, the quality still seems to stand. --Gvsualan 20:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- due to several spelling and grammatical errors. --Defiant | Talk 08:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why did I not see this coming? This is just petty. There are no spelling errors, much less "several" and the grammar is better than a lot of other stuff that has successfully passed through here. In fact, the more I look at this, it almost seems to be something of a personal attack, which I do believe is uncalled for in M/A. --Gvsualan 08:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I support this article, but if the two of you could stop throwing mud it would make me happy. Tyrant 12:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
  • Support, but I'm not sure why the second or third images of Klaa are needed (with respect to the image use policy)... the third one in particular is not very clear and they really don't show anything new that can't be seen in the first image. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 04:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed the last picture -- despite the poor quality, it was the best image of Todd Bryant's character from ST6, which is mentioned in the article. Additionally, I still think the 2nd picture of Klaa at the scope balances the article out -- as in: the article is long enough to support a second picture of Klaa placed in it to balance the article out from being too "top heavy". The fact that Klaa is sitting at the weapons scope goes along quite well with the theme that he was "thirsting for a target that would fight back." But I do have an alternative in mind as well to put in it's place. --Gvsualan 06:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Re: Tyrant -- Frankly, I agree. But then again, I've made no personal attacks here. All I've done is simply state that the "oppose" is purely based on a personal nature and that there are no spelling errors, nor any glaring grammarical errors to warrant an obviously biased vote. In reality, that alone should void the vote. --Gvsualan 06:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but neither have I made any personal attacks. I wouldn't oppose a nomination unless I could back it up. If you want me to list grammatical and spelling errors found in this article, I'd be quite happy to do that. Just tell me where, and I'll get started! --Defiant | Talk 10:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• You're welcome to do so, but I think it would be much more useful if you went in and attempted to fix the errors on your own. :) -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 19:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've corrected most of the errors, but I still have a problem with the article - in quite a few places, Klaa's actions are stated, not his ship's. For example, "he made his intentions to attack clear, by approaching the Enterprise fully cloaked." His ship was cloaked, not Klaa himself! I don't know how to change this, however. The errors that I knew how to correct, I have. --Defiant | Talk 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• How's - "As his ship approached the system, Klaa made the intentions to attack clear, by approaching with his cruisers cloaking device engaged and it's weapons fully charged." sound? It sound to me more in the ballpark. And although it did somewhat sound like Klaa had a cloaking device, it is awefully difficult to talk Klaa without mentioning his ship. (Also, just a minor observation but [[United Federation of Planets|Federation]] is unnecessary, as both United Federation of Planets and Federation end up at the same page...so its somewhat redundant. --Gvsualan 22:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would like to see a table with biographical information before this becomes a featured articleJaz
  • Not all characters that have been nominiated in the past have tables, nor is it written anywhere that they are required. Unless it is for a major character with a lot of history, it tends to add more clutter to the page than help it. --Gvsualan 22:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Added the table and divisions (the divisions I'm not perfectly happy with, could someone maybe rename them?) but for some reason, in my opinion Articles always look better with divisors. Was thinking of the last one as "Demotion". - AJHalliwell 01:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support AmdrBoltz 01:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. On a sidenote, I would like to add that the two only objections I've read so far just don't make any sense. 1. The spelling and grammer seems perfect. 2. A sidebar with "biographical information" would just end up with a lot of "Unknowns". We don't know Klaa's birthdate, nor his place of birth, nor the names of his parents, etc. Such a sidebar wouldn't add any value to the article, therefore. Ottens 17:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only grammarical errors in the article were a few issues with tense or plural, nothing big. So how does one known when a consensus has been determined? The supports clearly outweigh the opposes, especially in respect to what was opposed. --Gvsualan 17:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Will those opposed please re-evaulate. There is no reason we cannot make this a featured article with this much community interest. If anyone still has problems, fix them! Tyrant 18:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
• Frankly, I am insulted by this remark - "On a sidenote, I would like to add that the two only objections I've read so far just don't make any sense. 1. The spelling and grammer seems perfect." The spelling and grammar have been changed since the opposition was made. Why not research the history of an issue before ignorantly stating that it doesn't "make any sense"!
• However, I now choose to support this article since problems with the spelling and/or grammar in the article are now much more minor than they were when I originally opposed the nomination. --Defiant | Talk 23:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support to end this discussion. Excelsior 12:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)