Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)

Self-nomination.

Deep Space 9

Self-nomination. A detailed article about the history of DS9, plus a description of its structure. It could probably use some minor additions for incidental facts and the like, but it's complete enough to deserve Featured Article status! -- Dan Carlson 20:00, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Seconded. Ottens 20:15, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Genesis Planet

A lengthy description that accurately covers the events surrounding this complex planet. -- Dan Carlson 17:56, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Seconded. Ottens 17:59, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• I don´t know. When I read the article, I got the disinct feeling that it was more or less a transcript of the movie, focussing on the Genesis planet. It isn´t so much as I´d sort that information for an encyclopdia. Take for instance the mention of the Genesis effect using protomatter and not being stable. It´s mentioned between two less important paragraphs. Maybe it just needs to be resorted a little. -- Redge 20:04, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Xindi superweapon

A comprehensive description of the Xindi planet-killer and its two prototypes, plus the events leading up to its destruction. (I've done some work on this article.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Seconded. I did a lot of work on this before I registered under my guise of 66.42.235.131. --Steve 17:35, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Seconded. Ottens 10:02, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Seconded. -- Redge 20:04, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Romulan

A good description of the Romulan species, it's history and culture. Ottens 13:19, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Seconded. -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Nominations with objections

Klingon blade weapons

An exceptional detailed article on minor equipment. Ottens 10:01, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Opposed. That article should be split up, with one article for each of the different weapons. -- Dan Carlson 16:32, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

USS Equinox

Self-nomination. A detailed analysis of the ship's voyage - IMO, a change from the (somewhat necessarily) formulaic nature of the starship entries. -- Michael Warren 00:51, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Seconded. Nice detail for a "generic" starship article. -- Dan Carlson 16:35, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Opposed. It's a very good article, especially for a ship only mentioned in two eppisodes. However, the ammount of info available is irrelevant when featuring an article. And IMO this article does not messure up with the rest of the featured articles. No offence, how could it with so little info to go on. It's good, but not good enough to be featured. -- Redge 15:39, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • The article is not of the same type as other featured articles, so should not be compared with them. I believe this article meets the majority of criteria that are covered in Memory Alpha:The perfect article. On amount of info available and length, I refer you to the point This may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject. However, where such information is available, it should always be included. -- Michael Warren 18:31, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • I still think that this article qualifies for Featured Article status. As long as it's well-written and of reasonable length, I think it's acceptable. (Articles that are just two or three paragraphs wouldn't be long enough, IMO, but something longer should.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Miles O'Brien

Self-nomination. You didn't think I'd do all that work and not nominate it, did you? ;) Highly detailed description of the character, with good layout and division of information. Maybe one or two more pretty pictures to go in, but is essentially complete. -- Michael Warren 00:51, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)

• Seconded. -- Dan Carlson 16:35, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Seconded again. Thirded, if you will. --Fox Mulder 17:52, 2 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Opposed. Maybe it can be nominated later, but first I would try and clean up some of the red inkt on this page. Also, I'm not seeing any source whatsoever. And finally, I can't find any note on why he was never promoted beyond the rank of Chief Petty Officer, which is very odd indeed, since as the Chief Engineer of DS9, he should at least have been Lieutenant, if not Commander. If you can correct this first, it will make a fine featured article. -- Redge 15:39, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • O'Brien is an enlisted officer. He cannot have an officer's rank (despite the rank pip mistakes) because of this. He was promoted from Chief to Master Chief in transferring to DS9, a fact which is mentioned in the article. And what do you mean by source? I wrote this myself. If you're referring to references, I can add some in, but I don't particularly like them in the article, because they clutter up the writing, IMO.
  • The fact that other articles linked off this page have not been created does not mean the article is bad, it means that it builds the web well, and allows further expansion of the wiki by offering new articles to create. Judge the content, not the links. -- Michael Warren 18:31, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Vote is yes. If you make an article with lots of red links a featured article, chances are they are going to be all turned blue faster than if you didn't. Also, there's no place for speculation about what rank O'Brien should be unless you mean there should be additional background info. O'Brien was explicitly stated to be a Chief Petty Officer from TNG:"Family" on and they have maintained that in dialogue whenever mentioned afterwards, even though his insignia remained inconsistent. Lack of speculation is not a detractor from this article --Captainmike 21:15, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Very well, but at the very least you really should incorporate references. They may not be very good for style, layout and overall readability of the article (pardon my spelling), but they really are necessary and also usefull to find episodes that are relevant tot the character. Supose someone wants to know where you base those conclusions on, or someone wants to find out more about O'Brien and is looking for relevant episodes? -- Redge 12:50, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)
• Maybe it does need references, but I'll go ahead and second it anyway. --Steve 17:47, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)