Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Sovereign class: archiving, no longer featured)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Articles nominated for removal==
==Articles nominated for removal==
===Sovereign class===
[[Sovereign class]]: This article is ''hardly'' complete - even though I noticed reference to [[Stellar cartography]] and [[Transporter room]] 3 in {{film|8}}, there was no mention of any of that in the article! It instead states that the ''Sovereign''-class has 29 decks when Picard states, again in {{film|8}}, that the ''Enterprise'' has 24 decks! What's more, the vast majority of the images used come from {{film|10}} to the extent that I believe there inadequate visual attention paid to {{film|8}} and {{film|9}} - for example, I'm pretty sure a better image of sickbay could be taken from {{film|8}}, and that's just for starters! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
: Deck 29 was referenced twice in {{film|10}}. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::<s>'''Keep Featured''' With only minor touching up, this could easily meet the standards you would like to see. I could probably do it on the weekend. And as for sickbay, it comes from {{film|10}} because that was the only film which got a special sickbay built for 1701-E. FC used Voyager's sickbay. --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)</s>
: '''Remove''', while I'm sure this article is "almost there", what needs to be factored into this is the fact that it became featured in {{y|2004}}, with only 3 "yes" votes. While acceptable then, today's FA standards require 5 votes of support. I would much rather see all featured articles run completely through the ringer before becoming featured, leaving no stone, or reference unturned. [ Compare original featured to now]. Big difference, in fact, not even the same article. In contrast, I can point out more than one FA that is nearly as old that has barely changed since the FA tag was added. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
'''Comment''' As both 24 and 29 decks were mentioned, why not say something like "between 24 and 29 decks" - it doesn't need to be too specific as it's a ship class, not just a single ship and both amounts are canon & true! Also, why not have images of sickbay from both {{film|8}} and {{film|10}}? I really don't see why it has to be one or the other! The fact that the sickbay set used for {{film|8}} was borrowed from ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'' makes very little difference as it is still a ''Sovereign''-class sickbay in canon! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Just looking at the diff Alan provided convinces me of this suggestion - the revision that was featured back then is a completely different article than what we have now. Re-nomination seems like the way to go. (As an aside, stating that the ship has "between 24 and 29 decks" seems a little - strange.) -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::I take my comment back. After seeing the info provided by Alan, I support the removal of this article as FA. --[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::'''Support''' removal of featured status. As Alan has pointed out, it has changed a great deal and isn't close to the same article, even ignoring the fast-track approval it seemed to have. If someone wants to improve it, fine, but the featured status should be removed and the article should be renominated.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[[Maquis]]: This should have never been featured:
[[Maquis]]: This should have never been featured:

Revision as of 05:35, February 7, 2008


Articles nominated for removal


Maquis: This should have never been featured:

Self-nomination. A long article about the entire history of the Maquis movement. Much longer than the short Encyclopedia blurb about the group! ;-) -- Dan Carlson 22:17, 24 May 2004 (CEST)

Then it was archived as a "successful nomination" three days later by User:MinutiaeMan, with no additional votes.

Last year March, User:Renegade54 suggested:

Should we remove featured status from this article until the citation issues are cleared up? It kinda looks bad to have a big fat PNA in the middle of a featured article...

To which I later agreed on 26 June 2007. Since then the citation thing seems to have been somewhat resolved.

Regardless, the changes from the original featured and now are quite drastic, and as I stated above, a self-nomination/self-featured no-vote article should not be considered a FA on MA as there is clearly no community involvement outside of this discussion. --Alan del Beccio 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: Disregarding the legitimate issue of different guidelines, and the massive changes to the article since it was nominated, it does seem to have odd sectioning and a low number of citations in places.--Tim Thomason 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - for reasons given by Alan. – Cleanse 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. - also for the reasons Alan gave. --31dot 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time I've ever voted on the site, so forgive my ignorance. I've read through the guidelines and whatnot though, and I think I've got the basics. Now, I read through the Maquis article and it seems extremely well written to me. Am I correct in thinking that the main reason you're suggesting it be removed is because it didn't fulfill all the criteria when it was first added? If that is so, I can see your point, but at the same time, if it's a good article, then what difference does it make now how it was added in the first place. Can we not put it down to proverbial 'computer error' and just accept the quality of the article as is? Like I say, I'm new to this, and I could have just asked the dumbest question in history here, so if that's the case, be gentle with me! – Bertaut talk 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki