Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages

Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Revision as of 04:43, 22 May 2005 by Defiant (talk | contribs) (added Vahklas to the list of "nominations without objections")
View source

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

  • Vahklas -- Self-nomination. Extensive information with relevant images. --Defiant | Talk 04:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Gannet Brooks -- Self-nomination. Extensive information regarding this character. --Defiant | Talk 17:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. — THOR 18:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support AmdrBoltz 18:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Cloaking device -- I really like this article. Plenty of detail on the history of the cloak, its development and its variants as well as lots of references.--Scimitar 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, I nominated this a while back. Since then I think a lot of work has been done to satisfy the original complaintes that were lodged. — THOR 21:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - I agree this article is great! Its got loads of information about cloaking, and is packed with references to episodes. Well done to everyone who contributed to this article! zsingaya 16:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - Agreed. -- Dmsdbo 22:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Terran Empire ranks -- A great article that has grown a lot due to both registered and unregistered contributions. I've done all the graphics I can for it, but there are three broken picture links. However, I think the article is already a superior source of information, and the remaining three pictures are already being laid out. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Well written with great artwork. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - I love the rank pictures that have been produced recently, they really add to this article. zsingaya 15:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, this is a beautifully written article and the pictures are used perfectly. Definitely worthy of being featured, IMHO.--Scimitar 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Skagaran -- Exhaustive information on this alien species. Anything more would just be speculation! --Defiant | Talk 00:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Opposed This looks more like a page for the town of North Star and its history then for the Skagarans. Its greatly written, but it's not really about the subject in my opinion. -AJHalliwell 05:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC) (after editing) As this is a featured artical canidate, I won't do anything without notification, but I suggest this page be moved put on "North Star (colony)". -AJHalliwell
    • Neutral -- Why do you think that? Is it because of the images, or the text alone? --Defiant | Talk 08:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral --While my opinion of this artical has increased, I'm still not sure it should be a "Featured Artical". So on the fact that I can't decide, I withdraw my oppose, and put this back under "no objections".-AJHalliwell 02:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Leonard H. McCoy -- This article seems to have been extensively added to over the last few days by an unregistered contributor. I and some others have done a bit of cleanup and some wiki work. The big question: is it ready for the featured article status? I happen to say yes - anything that can be added would be largely a bonus at this stage, I think -- Dmsdbo 01:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Reservations - I think this article is already pretty good, but it looks like (from the editing page) that certain sections were ear-marked for expansion, but were never completed. These include more references to TOS: "The Man Trap", TAS: "The Ambergris Element", "Once Upon a Planet", and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The pictures were not arranged near to the specific parts of the text, but I've corrrected this. zsingaya 16:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Second - Dmsdbo, thank you for the nomination! I appreciate your taking notice of the additions I made over the past few days. I noted your request for bonus additions, and expanded on the "later career" section, as well. I hope this helps. I am not savvy with pictures, however, and would appreciate some help--can anyone add a picture or two of McCoy at work? Operating or healing someone? Having a drink with the captain? Is there a picture depository we can draw from? Thank you! -- CMO 16:52, 4 May 2005 (EST)
    • Opposed- I would like to think I got the ball rolling on this article, and it still hasn't fulfilled the expectations I had for it when I introduced the <!--NOTES--> within the article for what would be nice to have added to it. IMHO, it still needs additions from "The Ambergris Element", "Once Upon a Planet", and more on Star Trek VI. --Gvsualan 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that is an unfair assessment of the article. What has already been included puts some other main cast featured articles, such as Miles O'Brien, in a lower tier. There has to be a difference between necessary additions and improvements. -- Dmsdbo 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I meant no disrespect to previous contributors, and give them full marks for what they have done before me. We're all working together on this project, and I think we all feel elated when someone takes notice of our work. As for the TAS episodes, I myself have not seen these two and did not wish to contribute something I knew nothing about. Let me put out the call: has anyone seen these episodes enough to make a quick contribution to them? -- CMO 10:20, 5 May 2005 (EST)
    • Fine, in the interest everyone making a big deal out of this and since this is a community effort...I'll add the TAS stuff later and give it my approval now. I'm not trying to be an ass, and yes, we do have lesser articles with featured status. However, those articles were given approval a long time ago and we, as writers, have been able to greatly improve our skills since then and therefore should be expected to have higher overall standards. We shouldnt have the frame of "well this is better than that one?", we should be asking "is it as good as this one?". --Gvsualan 15:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I’ve seen those episodes. No problem, I’ve added the information to the article. Gvsualan, despite your retraction, you’re displaying a very bad attitude about this, talking about “getting the ball rolling” and “YOUR expectations” for the article. I think that Dmsdbo and CMO have done some fine work on the article for McCoy! I don’t understand why you didn’t add the TAS information yourself, but that’s no reason to hold it up in the first place. You were right about one thing, this is a free public site where ANYONE can make changes! Please take YOUR expectations to your own site and let us get back to enjoying this site we create together! --User: 24.47.59.222 , 21:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I did no work on the McCoy article -- most was done by CMO and Gvsualan. Unregistered users should not be posting here, and I only left the comment because you contributed information to the article that was desired. If you wish you wish to participate further please register. If this is a registered user, you should remember to sign in! -- Dmsdbo 21:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Some people are taking these objections to heart! There is plenty of information already for the article to be made Featured, IMHO. When it is featured, there's nothing to stop someone adding more stuff later on. zsingaya 08:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with zsingaya. Let's all play nice together, now.  :) -- CMO 13:14, 7 May 2005 (EST)
      • Now the new additions have been made, I'm giving my Support for this article - there's so much information about McCoy on this page! zsingaya 16:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

  • Elizabeth Cutler -- self-nomination. An article I feel safe in saying I 'fleshed-out' and am very proud of. It's been tweaked quite extensively since then, and I feel it meets FA qualifications. — THOR 23:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Ottens 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Mild oppose. I think it needs the references linked to the text they refer to, rather than having them at the foot of article. Once done, would be delighted to support. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Rather than, or in addition to? — THOR 16:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Moot point now, I suppose; Defiant took the initiative and worked the article over quite well. Are those the inclusions you were referring to? — THOR 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree, it's not a moot point - the references at the bottom could still be removed. --Defiant | Talk 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
        • O...kay. and done. I just assumed when you made the edits of 20050515, you had changed/added/removed everything you wanted; but not the refrences section? — THOR 13:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Personally, I prefer the references section at the bottom of the page. My comment was regarding Michael Warren's criticism, not an indication of my own opinion. --Defiant | Talk 13:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Starfleet uniform -- I read this article a few days ago and I think that it covers all of the bases very well without waffling on. A lot of the minor alterations made to uniforms as well as the variants are included as well. Pictures are appropriately used as well giving a visual of what the uniforms look like too.--Scimitar 22:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support I've done a fair degree of work on the uniforms and ranks articles, I find a lot of them are finally coming into their own (after many were long-term PNAs due to the large amount of disorganized or inappropriately added information). This would be great recognition to all the work on them -- since it involves a synthesis of registered archivists (like myself and a few co-conspirators) and cleaned up information from many, many, of our non-registered friends -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, I love this article. I did a lot of work on it that, while removed, spurned a very nice change in formatting for the article. — THOR 23:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Ottens 21:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Great work and very comprehensive. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Mild oppose - needs more detail on the dress uniforms (23rd century examples are missing entirely) and field uniforms (ST5, DS9 and VOY all feature these). There are several variants and types brought up on the talk page that should really be included. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Defiant class -- I'm frankly surprised that this isn't a featured article. Plenty of information, beautifully laid out and appropriate use of pictures. Just as well written as the featured Sovereign class, Galaxy class and Intrepid class articles, IMHO.--Scimitar 18:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, I agree this is at least as good as the Intrepid-class article. All the major parts of the ship are well represented. zsingaya 08:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • After having re-read the sections on the tactical information, its become obvious that hardly any of it has actually come from on-screen information. I know inclusion of information from the technical manuals is accepted, but I thought it should be in italics, and it shouldn't make up the majority of an article. zsingaya 16:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Considering I wrote the bulk of the article, it wouldnt be really fair to vote. The main reason of objection at the time was that the article did not include in-line references, if I recall correctly... Anyhow, nice to see it featured now. Ottens 15:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, could use a bit more fleshing out but otherwise as good as the other class articles listed. -- Dmsdbo 00:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Opposed. I gave this a wiki markup, I think that should be a required part of final acceptance/completion. --Gvsualan 10:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, on second thoughts I'm going to have to agree with Ottens below, there is a LOT of DS9 Tech Manual stuff in there and that needs to be more clearly pointed out. --Gvsualan 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I last voted on this a week ago, and I still see no one has clarified which information came from the DS9 Tech Manual and so on. Since I did not add the info, nor do I have the DS9 tech manual, I cannot make such a contribution. --Gvsualan 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I also don't have a DS9 techical manual, but I'm sure that all the information that isn't followed up by a reference to an episode, must come from the manual. Most of this is pure conjecture, but worthy of noting on the page because it fills in the gaps. zsingaya 06:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Most is based on on-screen evidence. The part on the Warhead is, of course, from the Tech Manual, since its usage was never seen on the show. The rest is all either mentioned on the show or based upon on-screen observation.
        • "I gave this a wiki markup, I think that should be a required part of final acceptance/completion." Well, now that you gave it a wiki markup, it's part of the article... I dont really see your point of objection there. Ottens 11:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Because you are not reading the right objection. Try the 2 comments below that. My concerns are were in partial agreement with your comment about the significant amount of DS9 Tech Man contributions, etc, that are not referenced. --Gvsualan 15:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Gvsualan. The section with the technical data should be followed up with references to specific episodes, or a reference to the manual, or not be included at all. zsingaya 08:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Whenever the Tech. Manual was used, a reference is included. I added a reference to "physical arrangment", since apparently I forget to add it there. For the rest, referenced are included whenever possible. As I pointed out before, for some paragraphs, I have no reference, since I do not remember from heart in which episode such detail was mentioned. Ottens 09:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Trials and Tribble-ations -- This page has good background info on the episode, and it provides a good summary. It's as extensive as any of the other episode pages that have been added.--docdude316 15:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support -- rebelstrike 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wary, having become accustomed to Defiant's terribly in-depth and sectioned out episodic articles; I'm afraid this one doesn't yet measure up. But I'm worried that I'm holding it to too high of a standard perhaps and that maybe Defiant's articles go above and beyond a standard of excellence that this article still meets. For now, I'll posture to be neutral. — THOR 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Reservations - I agree with THOR, and I think the summary should have sections, IE: Act 1, Act 2 etc. Defiant's style of episodes should be the standard to which all episode articles should be tested, IMHO. zsingaya 18:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Against - Not only is it much shorter and less detailed than the summaries provided by Defiant, the choppy style does not work towards its advantage. It is a solid start, but must be widely fleshed out. -- Dmsdbo 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - simply due to summary length. Whilst I don't share the same beliefs with regards to the inclusion of headings (I certainly don't like using them in my own episode summaries), there needs to be more detail. Compare with Sacrifice of Angels or Storm Front. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Starship Down -- Its a well written article and has a good structure to it. -- rebelstrike 22:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose, its well written but would certainly benefit from images; at least one or two. — THOR 23:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Support now, much easier on the eyes now, aleviating my previous trepidations. — THOR 23:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - images would be good, and the summary sectioning needs to go. It's not particularly relevant to the sections being described. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Neutral - Have added images to the article. -- Dmsdbo 12:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The pictures certainly make this article better, but there are still the strange section headings. Someone should remove them... maybe I'll have a go... zsingaya 08:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I reckon the page is now ready to be seriously considered as featured. zsingaya 09:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement