Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Xindi incident: rep)
m (- TWOTW, success)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
==Reconfirmations without objections==
==Reconfirmations without objections==
=== [[The Way of the Warrior (episode)]] ===
I think this is a good one to start with. The article was originally {{et|The Way of the Warrior|Votes for featured article status|made a FA in April 2005}}. In {{et|The Way of the Warrior|FA Removal attempt 3/21/2011|March/April 2011}}, there was an attempt to remove this article, but there was no consensus (2 for, 2 against). The comments of TrekFan and Defiant in that latter discussion suggest that there may be some spelling, grammar and format issues remaining. If these objections remain, they should be resolved if we want to reconfirm this article. (Other objections raised at the removal attempt, such as background citations and page numbers, were resolved)
Of course, any other comments or suggestions regarding the article are welcome. :-) &ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 01:01, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' reconfirmation. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' reconfirmation. I fixed up the only grammar issues I could find.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 01:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. --[[User:31dot|31dot]] 02:30, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 05:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Supprt'''. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 17:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Please provide a link to the current main page summary (if it exists) - according to new FA policy, that one should be written during the nomination period, so it should exist for a renomination. Conditional '''oppose''' if that summary does not exist, or doesn't match the current article. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
::See [[Template:FA/The Way of the Warrior (episode)]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
::I think the last paragraph in the blurb should be shortened to just "Realizing something must be done before the situation escalates out of control, Sisko notifies [[Starfleet Command]] and [[Lieutenant Commander]] [[Worf]] is dispatched to the station. Sisko gives Worf an assignment &ndash; find out what the Klingons are up to." since the blurb is a bit on the long side. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
:Implemented that suggested change - the blurb is still a little too long for my taste (perhaps a sentence or two could be trimmed), but at least it shouldn't get longer than what it is now. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:23, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, after having read through the article again. For one, there's a huge discrepancy between the "Memorable Quotes" section of this article and [[MA:QUOTE]]: The guideline states that six would be a good upper limit - this episode is important and feature length but still, ''20 quotes'' seems excessive. Some of them aren't memorable at all (quoting whole scenes or needing context to be understood), or should probably be placed somewhere else (Worf's Enterprise quote, for example, has nothing to do with the content of this episode), and the whole list apparently isn't sorted chronologically, either (the last-but-one quote is the final dialogue of the episode - not sure about the rest). Then, i think that parts of the background section would be more appropriate for the [[DS9 Season 4]] article. Changes to the opening sequence, for example, weren't done for this episode specifically, but were a part of general "season 4 changes". The same is true for several of the "personnel changes" - which either belong on the season or even on the actor/character articles instead. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:53, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
'''Comment''' - I shortened it down to 10 quotes, and sorted them chronologically. Since its a feature length episode, I hope this is acceptable. As for the latter: How about we move that kind of stuff to Season 4, and have a note along the lines of "Season 4 introduced several changes to the show. These included a new title sequence, new credits, and promotions for several characters. For more information, please see [[DS9 Season 4]]." ?&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 00:48, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''': That doesn't really say anything about this specific episode, though. I'd opt for the first suggested sentence to be something more along the lines of, "Some aspects of this episode were changes introduced to the show in its fourth season." --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 03:20, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
:I prefer the phrase Cleanse suggested. The other suggestion is an awkward construction just to bring "this episode" instead of "season 4" into the active position of the sentence. This would be OK if this were a huge section of text, but unnecessary if it is basically a pointer to a different article. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:31, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, I did say "something along the lines of," aware that the particular sentence I suggested is an awkward one. I just think we should make what ''is'' written more relevant than Cleanse's version, while also being less clunky than my own. However, achieving those two goals may be too idealistic. Anyway, since my last post here, I've come to the opinion that much of the info should (if I'm not mistaken) actually be on the ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]]'' page rather than the Season 4 one, for the same reason as it's being moved from this article; the changes, IIRC, remained in the rest of the show, while only being introduced here. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:04, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
:I checked the quotes section again, and while not all of them seem to be ''that'' memorable to me, the changes are sufficient for me. I'm no longer objecting in that regard. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 20:39, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the information to DS9 Season 4, as Cid suggested, as I think that's the best place. Season 4 is the subject of the notes, so it makes the most sense there. I wouldn't object to some of them also being in the ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]]'' article, if Defiant wants to do so. But any further discussion about placement should be brought up elsewhere, since the notes are no longer in the article, and thus not relevant to whether ''this'' article should be a FA.
Anyway, I hope these changes to "The Way of the Warrior" are sufficient to resolve the outstanding objections. Any further suggestions or refinements are welcome. &ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 09:43, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
:I think the remaining section that was renamed to "Introduction of Worf" needs to be checked, too. It is only superficially related to this episode, more to the Worf character in general, and I suggest that only the first two sentences of bullet point #2 remain on this article, while the rest of #2, as well as #1 and #3 completely gets moved to [[Worf]]. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 10:21, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I moved the first two sentences of what was bullet #2 to "Continuity". The remainder of #2 fits in nicely on [[Worf]]. #1 and #3 I just deleted because to be honest I don't think they add anything to what's already on the character article.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 10:38, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Cid, has this overcome your last objection? :-) &ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 04:51, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
*Oops, missed that one - sorry. I no longer oppose this. There has been an addition of a not-really-memorable quote (which I removed again), so this article should be checked after this reconfirmation went through. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:17, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
=== [[Xindi incident]] ===
=== [[Xindi incident]] ===
[[File: Xindi probe.jpg|thumb|The Xindi probe firing on Earth]]
[[File: Xindi probe.jpg|thumb|The Xindi probe firing on Earth]]

Revision as of 08:15, January 3, 2012


Reconfirmations without objections

Xindi incident

Xindi probe

The Xindi probe firing on Earth

The Xindi incident or Xindi crisis was a series of events lasting nearly a year, from March 2153 to February 2154, involving the Enterprise NX-01's attempt to save Earth from destruction by the Xindi. It was a major turning point in the Temporal Cold War, and the incident also helped pave the way for the creation of the Coalition of Planets, a precursor to the Federation.

In March of 2153, acting on false intelligence provided by the Sphere Builders, the Xindi launched a surprise attack on Earth. The Xindi, who had been without a homeworld since the 2030s, had been informed by their protectors that, in the 26th century, Humanity was going to destroy their new homeworld.

Because of this, the Xindi-Primate scientist (and Xindi Council member) Degra had been working for several years on a superweapon capable of destroying Earth.

This FA has one of the most questionable histories of all the articles ever considered. Nominated in the same edit it was created, this article has been renamed several times, including during the nomination, and when opposed it was "renominated" in the same edit the original nomination was removed (See the FA history for links and such). That said, I think it's pretty much up to snuff by today's standards. - Archduk3 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. - Archduk3 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Given its shaky FA history, can we agree to give this the "full nomination" treatment of needing 5 support vote from the start? I'm sure I could find something sensible to oppose this article for (like the strange article structure made apparent by the total lack of subsections), but I think it would be a good sign if this was handled that way without being forced by an oppose vote. -- Cid Highwind 12:59, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with more votes being required for this one as long as this isn't used as a precedent for other problematic reconfirmations, since this one is a bit more "problematic" than the others. That said, I'm not sure how moving the current sections down a header level would make the article better, which is the first thing I think of when you mention the lack of subsections. - Archduk3 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I think it could benefit from some more internal links. --Defiant 21:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to simply "move down one level" some of the headers. What I had in mind is the idea that a "natural" article structure would probably be more nested than what we currently have (twelve sections of equal level, thus supposedly of equal importance and equal "distance" from each other). For example, the first three sections are about "pre-Expanse" stuff, so maybe it would be a good idea to make those subsections under a new level-2 header. Maybe it would make sense to split the "in-Expanse" stuff into two major sections, one about the early needle-in-a-haystack search and one about the later direct dealings with the Xindi. Maybe we find out that some of the stuff (like, for example, the Suliban kidnapping Archer and telling him stuff) isn't even part of the "Xindi incident" itself (so should be removed from the article, or the article renamed). -- Cid Highwind 23:46, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to reworking the structure, but I think details like the Suliban kidnapping are helpful in providing context, since that's where the info about why and who attacked Earth comes from. As for the name, I think "incident" was used more than "crisis", or at least was used after the fact, which I guess is why "incident" is used while something like "crisis" seems like the better word to encompass the all the events. Based on the comment on the articles talk page though, that should be looked into. - Archduk3 02:08, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, "Xindi incident" was indeed used more often than "Xindi crisis" (with the former being referenced in both "Home" and "The Augments", whereas the latter is used only in "Babel One"). All these terms are used after-the-fact, though – during the course of season 4. --Defiant 02:53, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cutler

Blurb will be installed Tuesday ;)

I'm "adopting" this one from the list of problematic FA on the talk page. I have no current opinion about the article - other than the fact that it might be a little too short for nowadays standards and that its FA status might have had to do with the early demise of the actress at the time. -- Cid Highwind 13:12, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Short isn't a reason to remove FA status as long as the article meets the criteria, and I don't think why it was nominated matters all that much either in that case, though you're probably right in that regard Cid. In case anyone wants to take a look at the reasoning for the problematic listing, it can be found here, along with the original nomination. Also, we do already have a blurb for this one. ;) - Archduk3 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Reconfirmations with objections

Early reconfirmations

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki