Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Saucer separation)
(Articles nominated for removal: archiving Dukat; successful)
Line 15: Line 15:
'''Update''' - [[User:SmokeDetector47|SmokeDetector47]] has provided the missing citations, and it all looks ship-shape now. Unless anyone has further reasons for FA removal, I will archive this discussion.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 04:23, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
'''Update''' - [[User:SmokeDetector47|SmokeDetector47]] has provided the missing citations, and it all looks ship-shape now. Unless anyone has further reasons for FA removal, I will archive this discussion.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 04:23, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
===Gul Dukat===
; [[Dukat]]
I dont know when this gained FA status, maybe the standards 5 years ago or so were different, but this article has quite some info missing (like the personal relationships section which is practically non existent). More elaboration on his relationships is needed, such as the one to Sisko, Kira, her mother etc. There is also some redundancy which I tried to fix but I think this article just needs an overhaul. There is a lot more that can be said about this man who played such a crucial role in the series. This article is not very comprehensive, as we strive to be here on MA, and just seems very abbreviated. It could use more pics and better use of the episodes etc. It could also be a little better organized. I added a pna-incomplete to the appropriate section(s) and at this point do not believe it to meet FA standards. &ndash; [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 18:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
:I don't even see where the record of the nomination is. Without knowing why it was nominated, and given the points DC raised, I would support removal.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 18:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
::'''Support''' - I found the nomination and posted in on the talk page; it appears to have been validly nominated under the rules of the time. [ The article has changed a lot since then], and I agree it is not as comprehensive as an FA should be.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 23:34, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I find it useful to look at FAs from like 4 or 5 years (or like this one 6 years) ago and re-examine whether they still meet the criteria for FA. As part of maintenance I would suggest. I am just now seeing similar problems with the [[Benjamin Sisko]] article, which is also a FA. Relationship sections seriously lacking and just not as comprehensive as a lot of the recent FAs. I believe the reason we need to re-examine older FAs are two-fold: 1) standards have changed substantially and 2) changes could have been made to an article in these 4 or 5 years that move it far away from what was originally done.
Also, if a contributor today uses Dukat's article, for example, as a measure for what the standards for a FA are and then does not get the support during nomination, there will be a lot of explaining that needs to be done and justifications made as to why Dukat or Sisko get FA status and theirs doesnt, even though it looks "similar" in content. &ndash; [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 00:02, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
:::'''Support''', due to the problems discussed above. I also support the idea of ensuring, at all times, that FA's are consistent with our current FA nomination policy, whatever that may be at any given time. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
===Prototype (episode)===
===Prototype (episode)===

Revision as of 04:30, November 11, 2010


Articles nominated for removal

Saucer separation

Saucer separation

This is another article featured a while back that has a nearly citation-less background information section, despite containing numerous claims. Gvsualan added incite tags back in February, but many still remain. Unless they are resolved this article should be removed as a Featured Article. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support removal unless problems are addressed.--31dot 19:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support, due to the lack of citations. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
I too Support this. -- TrekFan Talk 22:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Update - SmokeDetector47 has provided the missing citations, and it all looks ship-shape now. Unless anyone has further reasons for FA removal, I will archive this discussion.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:23, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Prototype (episode)

Prototype (episode)

It's got a rambling summary and a bg info section that, (at least) in my opinion, is not written from the right perspective; it's the episode that's under discussion, not the robots! So, I suggest changing the headings & possibly rearranging some of the info, but the info itself can (at least more or less) stay. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the background section a bit by putting the more traditional "Story", "Production", "Continuity" etc. headings. Feel free to improve on these. I added a couple of citation requests because some information appears to be assumed rather than based on production info. If they were cited, I'd say the background section would be reasonable enough for a Featured Article; not every episode has as much interesting stuff as say, "The Best of Both Worlds". I agree that the wall of text makes a mockery of the term "summary", so unless that is trimmed, and the background cited properly, I support removal.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:29, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Support. or Conditional Support. The summary section is way too long. Unless that is shortened to be more concise, this article should not be FA. – Distantlycharmed 17:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Sisko

Benjamin Sisko

For the same reasons as the Dukat article (although Dukat is worse): lacks organization, the personal relationships section is missing for nearly all folks and his relationship to most of the crew members are somehow jumbled into one section. It goes on. Overall, this article does not represent "the best example of the Memory Alpha community's work". – Distantlycharmed 17:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I believe the article is fine and gives enough detail into Sisko's life, relationships, and career as depicted in DS9. Granted there is room for improvement in the personal relationships section, the necessary work doesn't warrant it's removal as a featured article. --Nero210 19:15, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, duh, if it needs that kind of improvement requiring a pna incomplete add, then there is obviously something lacking; it also means that it does not meet "the best example of the Memory Alpha community's work" criteria. By the way, everyone, when was it nominated? I cant find the nomination. – Distantlycharmed 19:35, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well then add the fricken info and be done with it! If that's all it needs....-- 16:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep this civil guys. Also (assuming this is Nero210), please log in when commenting. Thanks.
Anyway, I found the nomination and posted it on the talk page.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:00, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Cleanse!! You are good. How did you find it? I couldnt find it in the 2004 archives :(– Distantlycharmed 04:50, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. :-) It was buried in the history of Memory Alpha: Nominations for featured articles. I had a hunch it would be towards the beginning; some of those earlier entries were done before there was a formal archive process for successful entries (as far as I'm aware).– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:23, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki