Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Revision as of 20:14, May 27, 2005 by Gvsualan (Talk | contribs)

40,422pages on
this wiki


Nominations without objections

  • Klaa. Minor charcter, self nomination. Written several months back; upon recent review, the quality still seems to stand. --Gvsualan 20:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • USS Defiant (NX-74205) -- Self nomination. I've been working on the Defiant article for a while now and I think its got a lot of information in it. -- Rebel Strike 15:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Mild oppose - needs wiki mark-up. --Defiant | Talk 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Done... I now support this nomination. --Defiant | Talk 09:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. AmdrBoltz 14:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support.--Scimitar 15:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Tal Celes -- Great content for a minor character AmdrBoltz 01:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, this was an old article of mine. A lot of nice community work added since then, I certainly support. Tyrant 03:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
    • SupportTHOR 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth Cutler -- Re-nomination - article was previously opposed due to missing episode references in the text. I have since added these, and can see no reason why the page should not be featured. --Defiant | Talk 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support AmdrBoltz 22:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • SupportTHOR 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

  • Vahklas -- Self-nomination. Extensive information with relevant images. --Defiant | Talk 04:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support AmdrBoltz 04:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Jaz 04:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose, for one debatable reason. There is far too much about Kov and Tolaris in the article. A majority of what is mentioned about these characters and their personal conflicts that have nothing to do with the ship itself. I belive that this information should be included on the characters individual pages. I think that that needs to be fleshed/flushed out of the article and keep the article more about the ship and not its crew. --Gvsualan 20:14, 27 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)
    • Support04:57, 22 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)
    • Support Jaz 04:57, 22 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)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki