Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

m (vote)
m (rm Elizabeth Cutler, success)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
==Reconfirmations without objections==
==Reconfirmations without objections==
=== [[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. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|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 [[Talk:Elizabeth Cutler#Status|here]], along with the original nomination. Also, [[Template:FA/Elizabeth Cutler|we do already have a blurb for this one]]. ;) - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for very much the same reasons Duke stated. I like the easy readability of a "tertiary" semi-regular and frankly do not care why it was nominated as a FA...It is all there as far as I can discern, so for that matter I cast my vote...The one ,very minor thing, I've problem with is the placement of the Insignia thumb, c'mon that can be placed better--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 18:48, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''''. The bg info seems currently quite lacking. I do have an issue of ''[[Star Trek: Communicator]]'' in which [[Kellie Waymire]] discusses the role, so I'll try to add info from that soon(ish!). --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 01:11, January 7, 2012 (UTC)</s>
:Yeah, take your time. Thanks to your "oppose", this is now in need of a full treatment, anyway - so we'll just remove its FA status if "soonish" isn't fast enough. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 10:39, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
::Is that meant to be sarcastic?! I'm not the only one with a computer, etc., and the ''Communicator'' magazine ''is'' publicly available! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:22, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
:::Where is it publicly available ''for free''? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 14:37, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
::Is that meant to be a rhetorical question? --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:43, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
:::No, it's not. I'm saying provide a link if it is, if it isn't, not everyone is going to have that information, and since it's out of print I don't know where one could go get it. Simply asking for time to add that information, which people use to do quite a lot once, is far better than opposing an article over missing information only you and a few others have access to, especially if you're not sure of the content, plan to add it shortly (or don't plan to add it at all yourself), and don't want to spend the time polling other users to provided the other three support votes now needed. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 14:53, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
::In all honesty, you make ''very'' little sense to me. Anyways, I've now added the info. The oppose was only ever temporary; sorry if I didn't completely spell that out! I'm happy to remove the momentary oppose now which, as you can see from the above, I have done. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 15:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
:::Have you even read the ''reconfirmation'' policy? Do you ''understand'' that '''YOU''' have complicated this process for something as small as a ''few hours''? You haven't even answered my question, so I'm just going to assume that the ''Communicator'' '''isn't''' publicly available, and that you have no idea what you've done. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 23:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
:And all that for so little gain, too. I'm not sure how having a ton of quotes by the actress, basically stating something along the lines of "Nobody knew where this character was going to go - not me, and surely not the writers." is supposed to make the article better, or more complete for that matter. I'm not even sure all of that really ''belongs'' there instead of, for example, the article about [[Kellie Waymire]] herself. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 23:51, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not really interested in your tantrums, guys. It's obviously too hard for you to face the truth &ndash; that I've improved the article, by making the bg info somewhat more substantial than just a few lines. I have indeed read through the reconfirmation policy, and I find nothing that vetoes what I've done. If there were, it'd probably be the policy at fault, since a policy that doesn't allow for improvements and further developments where they are warranted likely wouldn't be a very good policy! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:13, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
:::This isn't a tantrum, this is you clearly not understanding the policy or what is being said, so I hope this article is able to find another three support votes now that you felt the need to "improve" it by making it '''harder''' to reconfirm for no fraking reason, and can't even be bothered to support it yourself. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 02:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
*Calm down; it's only a lame ''Star Trek'' site! ;) You're also assuming a lot; I have no problem with adding a '''support''' vote for this article. In fact, I thought I did that earlier, but I guess I forgot. And I'm willing to do anything I can to help find the required 2 other support votes. But further developing an article and raising its quality should '''never''' be frowned down upon; that's just silliness. It shouldn't be about just getting the article through the reconfirmation process ASAP, but finding ways to improve the articles and make them as good as possible, damn the consequences! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:38, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
::::Back on topic: I have a few concerns about the article. First, as Cid alluded to, some of the quotes added are more appropriate to [[Kellie Waymire]] rather than here. In particular, I suggest that everything in the first paragraph of bg info should be moved there. However, I think the other two paragraphs are fine as they are relevant to the character.
::::Second, the sentence "Cutler wore a rank insignia of a crewman (first class) on her uniform." at the end of "Professional life" doesn't really connect to the rest of the article. It's also a weird way to state that she had that rank. Somewhere towards the beginning of the article it should simply state that Cutler's rank was Crewman (first class). The accompanying picture should then be ditched, since this is an article about Cutler, not "Crewman (first class)". Other than that, I think this is a pretty solid article on a minor character, and I will support this if these two concerns are addressed.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 02:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
::Indeed, I don't think it'll be as hard to pass this through the reconfirm process than some have made out. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 03:03, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
:::You'll excuse me if I'm a little upset with the fact we have nearly 140 articles to go though and the only means of expediting that process was removed for the sake of less than 12 hours of "breathing room" that wasn't even needed. Opposing an article on those grounds in unconstructive, since as I've said simply asking for the time would have sufficed. If that needs to spelled out in the policy, it can be, but I would have expected long time users to keep the big picture in mind and not require an excessive amount of instruction. If Defaint is so ready to better these articles, he can start start a reconfirmation himself. It be nice if we could all work on the overall solution ''as well'' as the articles themselves. I'm not "frowning upon" why you did it, I'm frowning upon '''how''' you did it.
:::As for removing the section and moving the rank info, I agree. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 05:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - done.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 06:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
:::Still needs one more support. Any takers? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 05:31, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' --[[User:Pseudohuman|Pseudohuman]] 06:43, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - I think this article deserves the featured status. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 19:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
=== [[Thy'lek Shran]] ===
=== [[Thy'lek Shran]] ===
{{FA/Thy'lek Shran}}
{{FA/Thy'lek Shran}}

Revision as of 07:01, January 30, 2012


Reconfirmations without objections

Thy'lek Shran

Shran, 2154

Thy'lek Shran in 2154

Thy'lek Shran was an Andorian commander in the Imperial Guard in the 2150s. Despite his aggressive and xenophobic background, Shran became an unlikely ally of Starfleet Captain Jonathan Archer and a proponent of strengthened ties between Andoria and Earth.

Shran first encountered Archer in June of 2151, when Shran led a raid on the Vulcan monastery at P'Jem in search of a clandestine sensor array which they believed the Vulcans were using to spy on Andorian territories. Captain Archer, along with Tucker and T'Pol, accidentally stumbled into the confrontation while on a courtesy visit to the Vulcan monks. During an ensuing firefight, an advanced subspace sensor array was discovered, proving the Andorians were right. As a gesture of peace, Archer gave Shran sensor readings and images of the facility and allowed him to leave freely.

Later that year, Shran was assigned to an Andorian covert ops unit supporting an uprising on Coridan. To repay his debt to Archer from their first encounter, he assisted in Archer and T'Pol's escape from the planet after they were imprisoned as rebels. In 2152, Shran was commanding ground forces deployed to Weytahn, where Vulcan and Andorian commandos had been fighting for control of the planet. Shran sought to negotiate a truce with Vulcan ambassador Soval and requested Captain Archer serve as mediator. The negotiations were ultimately successful and a cease fire was arranged.

This article was nominated back in June 2004. I did some formatting to bring it up to modern conventions (such as sub-headings, behaviour of the appearance list etc.) and added some background information from actor Jeffery Combs which I think gives some interesting insight into the character. All in all, I think the article stands up well, and deserves to retain its featured status.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

  • SupportCleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Also, here's a link to the blurb template: {{FA/Thy'lek Shran}}. - Archduk3 16:00, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, One minor thing, I seem to remember Shran telling Jhamel something about his early life in one of the "Aenar" episodes. If that is so, it might be added to the a bit short "Early life" section at some time by somebody who has access to the episode. Otherwise fine...--Sennim 13:29, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Reconfirmations with objections

Babel One (episode)

Gral archer

Ambassador Gral and Captain Archer

"Babel One" was the 12th episode of the fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise.

On the bridge of the Andorian warship Kumari, Commander Shran crawls out from under the wreckage of his damaged ship which has been attacked by a Tellarite vessel. He attempts to contact Imperial Command, but communications are down. The computer announces a warp containment breach in two minutes, leaving Shran no other choice but to order the crew to abandon ship, vowing to make the Tellarites pay for the loss of Kumari.

In Captain Archer's quarters aboard Enterprise, Archer and Hoshi Sato roleplay that Sato is a Tellarite ambassador, in preparation for the real ambassador's arrival. They discuss the Tellarites' frequent arguing and Sato tells the captain to keep Porthos out of sight during their stay, as they consider canine a delicacy.

One of the "problematic" featured articles that was nominated, withdrawn, and renominated all within a week in February 2005. The nomination can be seen here. I don't currently have any opinion on the article as it is now, since I haven't had time to completely read it. - Archduk3 16:25, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I just looked through the background info, and had to remove half of it as speculation or irrelevant commentary. What's left is severely lacking in content, and has citation deficiencies.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:50, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – a very old FA, it badly needs updated (either to current FA standards or even just generally). --Defiant 04:23, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I tend to agree having now read the article. I find the summary to be fine overall, but the rest is sorely lacking. - Archduk3 15:40, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As above, the writing could do with an overhaul and there are quite a few "micro-paragraphs" that could be integrated with a little bit more imaginative writing..--Sennim 13:29, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Early reconfirmations

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki