Template:FeatNom
Nominations without objections
Guinan
Self nomination. Nomination was previously objected because there were far too many images on the page. That number has now been reduced to an acceptable figure for a medium-sized page. The page featured all available information on her history (with information from nearly all episodes she made a notable appearanced on) as well as an estensive "Personal relationships" section. Ottens 11:47, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Nominations with objections
Force of Nature
- (self nomination)
- I've changed/removed a few of the pictures and I think that they are better fitting for the article or do you still think that they're superfluous? If you don't like a picture, why not change it instead of complain about it.--Scimitar 21:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral Yeah, the pictures are kinda weird. Over the past edits they always seem to show people's reactions, while the pics prefered at memory alpha are the ones that can be used to describe say, a piece of technology or something. Following said advice, I will look into maybe changing some pictures. - AJHalliwell 22:10, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, due to grammatical errors, rambling sentences, unclear specifics of the plot and a lack of background information. --Defiant | Talk 11:42, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you checked some of the featured articles, you will see that some of them have grammatical errors and rambling sentences. In fact, the article for "Emergence" has no background information whatsoever, it uses pictures that don't really supplement the write-up, it has numerous spelling and grammatical errors and its references aren't properly formatted yet it is a featured article. Did those who supported featured status for the article feel sorry for who wrote the article or has MA become a community of double standards?--Scimitar 12:37, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't really want to discuss the issue of images here, but can think of no better place, as it's quite relevant to some of the comments above. I think we need to decide what kind of images are preferable for episode articles, and what images supplement write-ups. Images of characters, technology, situations? What do you/other users prefer? Please reply to this, as it's probably quite important for future nominations of episode pages and MA as a whole. --Defiant | Talk 12:51, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I think this issue might better be discussed on Memory Alpha:Ten Forward. I will copy your question there... Regarding Emergence, this has nothing to do with "double standards". If you feel that any page doesn't or does no longer deserve the featured status, feel free to suggest it on "Removal Candidates" (link above). -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
- Has a very good and complete list of the rules, as well as a complete text explaning what they are. The article is very long in length, it's a big part of Trek, and seems to be complete. User:Tobyk777 11, July 2005
- Neutral since I don't have a valid reason to oppose. It's a nice article, no doubt, but I wouldn't say it deserves featured status -- to me, it seems merely a list of references... Ottens 10:04, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral for the same reasons as Ottens.--Scimitar 10:23, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is similar to the Rigelian problem, but not so bad. All the information's there, but I don't believe it is amongst the best articles on Memory Alpha. (and this is just a minor quo,) was there an episode where they showed a book of the rules of aquisition? Cause that'd make a good picture for this page. - AJHalliwell 22:10, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That wasn't for the Rules; it was for the revised edition that is mentioned in the article and therefore doesn't apply if you are referring to "Prophet Motive". --Alan del Beccio 22:17, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Moved discussion regarding contents of article, specifically Legends of the Ferengi, to a more appropriate venue, see: Talk:Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. --Alan del Beccio 09:46, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- That wasn't for the Rules; it was for the revised edition that is mentioned in the article and therefore doesn't apply if you are referring to "Prophet Motive". --Alan del Beccio 22:17, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Quantum torpedo
Seems to be all there. Big part of Trek. - User:Tobyk777 9 July, 2005
- Abosultely oppose. Completeness does not necessarily warrant featured status. As I said before, the article on an osteogenic stimulator is pretty much complete but it's far from worthy of becoming a featured article.--Scimitar 11:00, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Worf
the "fac" plate was on, so I added it here.
- Oppose - It looks like alot of his time on Enterprise is missing, there's only the Kahless note for all of Season 6! And Jadzia seems like she deserves more then a paragraph, maybe even a picture of their wedding. This page still needs work in my opinion. - AJHalliwell 06:36, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. It was far from the quality a featured article should be. Personal history, relationships, interest, all needs to be heavily expanded. Ottens 09:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Opposed -- I'm curious as to who nominated this? Shouldn't the fact its unsigned and posted 'because a "fac" place was on the page' constitute a removal from the page rather than an unsigned nomination? Anyway, the article needs to be restructured and expanded. --Alan del Beccio 10:37, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Starship Down
An extremely well-written episode description. The numerous pictures and breaking down of the description into Acts scores points with me. I saw this episode a few days ago in syndication here in Ireland, and having read this article my memory of it is completly refreshed.Gul Reid 21:50, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Support Tough Little Ship 21:51, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Needs wiki markup and I believe the summary is too short, but I also think that it's a good start. --Defiant | Talk 01:07, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fixed tables, but I agree, the summary's to short, and seems kinda messy. -AJHalliwell 01:37, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Support User:Tobyk777 8 July 2005
- Oppose for now. As Defiant said, the summary is on the short side and the article in general could do with a bit of tidying up. I think that the write-up that I did for "Cause and Effect" is on par with the one for "Starship Down" but personally I don't think that either are worthy of featured status as yet.--Scimitar 11:43, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but a "summary" by definition is a brief description of something, not a complete retelling in other words of the entire desciption. --Alan del Beccio 09:46, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)