Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Sovereign class: archiving, no longer featured)
(Maquis: archiving, no longer featured)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Articles nominated for removal==
==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. --[[User:Gvsualan|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.--[[User:Tim Thomason|Tim Thomason]] 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
: '''Support''' - for reasons given by Alan. – [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. - also for the reasons Alan gave. --[[User:31dot|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! &ndash; [[User:Bertaut|Bertaut]] <sup>[[User Talk:Bertaut|<span style="color:#FFFF00;">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:59, February 14, 2008


Articles nominated for removal

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki