Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Articles nominated for removal)
m (archiving at article talk page)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Articles nominated for removal==
==Articles nominated for removal==
'''[[Telek R'Mor]]'''
For the simple reason that, although it is a well written article, the majority of the information comes from one episode and therefore it little more than an episode summary that omits the parts not relevant to the character. When you compare this with other featured articles of the same type, I don't believe this stands up. Also, where are the nomination comments? I can't see any archive on the [[Talk:Telek R'Mor|talk page]]. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 06:39, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I found the nomination; it was validly nominated. Then I had to fight Wikia's spam filter cos it thinks a single character in an old comment is spam (uh, what?). But anyway, now it's there.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 07:25, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - There is no size limit for featured articles. ''Anything'' written well and in an interesting manner that fully covers the subject as well as it can be within canon ''is'' an example of MA's best work, regardless of the number of episodes or films that subject was in. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 07:34, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I'm not disputing that it isn't well written. Just that it may not represent the best of the MA community's work when put up against similarly themed featured articles, such as [[Boothby]] which is also a relatively short article. I have seen a few articles that are based on one source that, when put up for nomination, have been opposed with the reasoning being "It's well written and informative but reads like an episode summary", which I believe this one does. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 07:46, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': quite well written, IMO, and from R'Mor's perspective to a surprising degree, which is also good. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 10:32, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
*I '''support''' removal, though mostly for different reasons than those that have been stated so far: According to the comments now available on the talk page, this article has been made a "Featured Article" in early 2005. It's now 2011. In these six years, the definition of what constitutes our "best work" surely will have changed. What's more, the article itself has changed considerably (see this [ diff]), if not completely - so, whatever is on the page ''now'' is absolutely not what has been voted for and accepted as "good work" at the time. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:05, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' removal, for the reasons given. I'm not really seeing a specific reason as to why it should be removed- "doesn't stand up" to other featured articles needs something specific to support that assertion. If the changes made since FA status was granted have made the article worse, then specific examples should be cited- we invite users to contribute to featured articles and the mere fact that an FA was changed should only be relevant if it is alleged the article is worse.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 11:58, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
::This very page states that "having been changed" is a valid reason for suggesting FA removal - and this article has not only "been changed" here or there, there isn't much left of the article that originally went through this whole process. This is like getting a business plan for a steak house approved, but building a vegan grocery store later. ;) I wouldn't mind it that much if the FA template actually made clear that a specific "past version" was considered to be a good article - I'm going to clarify that on the template. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 12:37, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
:::That is a very good and helpful template change, but I still feel in this case that the status should remain.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 12:56, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
::::While the new template is great I would, just for the record, like to say that I still believe that this article doesn't hold up when you put it up against [[Ayala]], [[Damar]], [[Michael Eddington]] and [[Elim Garak]] to name but a few. Notice these articles all achieved FA status at roughly the same time as [[Telek R'Mor]]. Perhaps if we could have tier levels to the FAs? For example those articles that are short but nicely written and perhaps are not deserving of complete FA status could be categorised as "Good article" or such? I just fail to see how an article, the majority of which is sourced from one episode, can be anything more than a summary of that particular episode. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 13:02, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
:::::Under that logic, episodes couldn't be FA articles, since they are only dealing with information from ''one'' episode. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 13:12, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
::::Not really. What I meant was in-world character/item/technology etc articles with only one source wouldn't be very detailed. Yet the episode articles themselves are an entirely different type of article, dealing with '''everything''' in that article; the summary, impoartant events, character progression, quotes, background information. Not to mention they are written from a real world POV. The judging for an in-universe article is different than a real world POV article because they are written completely differently to one another. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 13:18, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yet the wiki's in-universe POV has the importance of in-universe articles placed well above the episode ones. In fact, episodes and films are the bottom of the importance pile as far as naming goes, so why would we want an article from our primary focus to be considered less than one from the secondary? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 13:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
:::: I'm not saying it's considered ''less'' - just different. How can you judge an in-universe article the '''same way''' you judge, say, an episode article? When looking at an in-universe article (in my opinion, of course), you would look at the way it reads as an encyclopaedia, make sure it is complete in that all references are in there along with any relevant background info. Whereas, on an episode article, it's more about making sure the summary is entertaining yet informative and is not going to bore the reader, ensuring there are sufficient images that compliment the text, memorable quotes that are short but actually memorable, background information that talks about the production of an episode etc. You have to look at them differently because they are two separate types of article. I'm not saying either one is ''worth'' less than the other. I simply meant that short yet informative articles that people agree are very good and well written yet aren't perhaps as good as an FA, be given a different title that still points them out to the readers as being on their way to an FA but not there due to reason x, y and z. However, bringing it back to the article in question, this is what I believe Telek R'Mor should fall under. As much as I want to, I simply cannot see it standing up to the aforementioned articles (above) which were nominated at roughly the same time as this one. I don't believe that the community would make, for example, [[Rachel Garrett]] or [[Melora Pazlar]] featured articles due to the fact all their information comes from one episode. I just know that some of the reasons will be "reads like an episode summary" or "too little information". However, I feel I have made my point now and if everyone wishes to keep this as a featured article then, in the spirit of democracy, so be it. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:02, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
:::::[[Hippocrates Noah]]. One episode. Not an episode summary. That's all. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 15:15, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
::::I guess I am simply the new "[[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]]". I agree with his points in the FA nomination process of that article, particularly when he says "''To me this one falls in the mirky area between clearly non-FA worthy characters like Grathon Tolar/Ethan Novakovich and ones like R'Mor. There's a little more back linking with this character, so thats a point in its favor, but even though its "complete" there's no real information here outside of action summary''" Furthermore, "''there really isn't anything in this character article that can't be gotten from reading an episode summary or hearing a description of such''". However, like I have said before and like Logan said in that nomination, "''By my count this article probably should be an FA because it seems to have overwhelming support from the community. I registered my objection and I'm satisfied to let it end there if the community still believes it deserves to be an FA''". It's just a shame that Memory Alpha doesn't have much an actual "community" beyond the same old admins. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:42, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, whose fault would that be? Not me. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 17:51, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
::::You misunderstand. My comment was genuine. It is a shame that there is not more of an active community on Memory Alpha. While it is unreasonable to think that it would become as popular as Wikipedia, more activity would be great. I by no means directed that comment toward you Archduk3. Anyway, this conversation seems to have gone off topic slightly so I am going to refrain from commenting further to give others a chance to read my point of view. If it is decided that the article remains an FA, then so be it. I just wanted to bring it up here regardless. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 18:38, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:30, February 21, 2011


Articles nominated for removal

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki