Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

m (Denominate: sp)
m (moving to article talk page)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
==Reconfirmations without objections==
==Reconfirmations without objections==
=== [[D'deridex class]] ===
{{blurb|D'deridex class}}
*Needs a blurb, but otherwise I think this still fits the criteria of a FA; comprehensive and well written. [[User:31dot|31dot]] ([[User talk:31dot|talk]]) 15:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
*While I'm wondering if some tightening up of some of the "micro paragraphs" in the Interiors section is required, I otherwise '''Agree''' with 31dots assessment--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 11:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
:A good read, but still suffers from some inconsistent use of past/present tense in in-universe text. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 10:25, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
:There are also a few bits that make very little sense to me and could do with some clarification, such as the use of "the following month" at the start of the text about the studio models, when no previous month has been clearly stated. Similarly, if there ''were'' 2 studio models created, wouldn't it be better to write the text from that perspective to make it clearer? For example, the first sentence says how Jein crafted "the studio model" (singular). Well, did he craft ''both'' studio models or just the first? --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 11:51, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks to Sennim's work on the page, I'm now more-or-less entirely happy with the bg info. The mix-up of past and present tenses in the in-universe wordings could still be tidied, though, which I'll endeavour to do. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 14:20, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
:I'm now happy with the tenses, but would like to echo Sennim's assessment that some of the tiny paragraphs could maybe be tightened up. Also, I'm wondering about the "additional reading" link to ''[[Star Trek: Starship Spotter]]''. If that book contains anything useful that could be added, it should be. Otherwise, deletion of the link would seem to be in order. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 15:14, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
::Especially since it is not considered canon;)--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 15:26, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
:Well, neither is the apocrypha stuff, so it doesn't mean it's a completely useless source, generally! I'm just wondering what relevance it has in this case; what info it has on the ''D'deridex''-class. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 18:49, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
::Well, I've checked my copy, it only has some general writing in a style akin to that of the ''Fact Files'', that in essence is largely covered in the main body of text. It's technical specifications sheet, where coinciding, is the same as the ''Manual'', but more extensive (and thus speculative)...I'm bit unsure what the status of the ''Spotter'' is. The pics are valid BG-info as they were constructed by bonafide production staffers from the actual CG-models; but the writers are no staffers...I'm leaning toward considering them as "fan" writers of tech stuff and as such I'm agreeing with your assessment that the book reference is superfluous..--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 19:21, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I think it is a featured article. Well written and enough images to illustrate the article. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] ([[User talk:ThomasHL|talk]]) 19:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Though there are three votes in favor, including mine, according to current guidelines, this is not enough to maintain this article's FA-status...So, as this (re-)nomination has been up for 4 months (way, way, incredibly way beyond the alloted time), an admin should by now follow up and de-feature this one...-( May I notice that this procedure has gone down the drain, big time...----[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 02:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
:I have some thoughts about this whole process, but I will save them for later and a more appropriate location. [[User:31dot|31dot]] ([[User talk:31dot|talk]]) 02:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Lemme know, Duke's original intent was good, but it does not seem to work, unfortunately...----[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] ([[User talk:Sennim|talk]]) 02:33, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
::Fun fact, since it seems that there are no opposing votes, this passed months ago. You only need five if someone opposed the reconfirmation. Since this was never closed though, the reconfirmation could still be considered open, for dating purposes. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 05:57, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
==Reconfirmations with objections==
==Reconfirmations with objections==

Revision as of 22:41, August 13, 2013


Reconfirmations without objections

Reconfirmations with objections

Early reconfirmations

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki