Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Doomsday machine: successful removal)
(Cardassian ATR-4107: not enough votes, it stays)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Articles nominated for removal==
==Articles nominated for removal==
===Cardassian ATR-4107===
I do not think the [[Cardassian ATR-4107]] article is worthy of FA status. Although it is detailed, I just do not think it compares with the likes of [[Force field]] or [[Cloaking device]] for example - similarly themed articles. Also, looking back at the voting process, there was only one vote for FA status. I think this article needs to be reconsidered. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' as a FA. First, I agree that the fact there was only one vote in favor originally should at least cause us to re-discuss the issue. Second, it reads to me as little more than a summary of the episode. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think a FA should be unique and different.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' w/o any specific complaints against the article (as are below with regard to [[doomsday machine]]); I find the article well-written, comprehensive, accurate, and undisputed. <!-- re: the following, I'd honestly forgotten I'd made the initial nomination --> As for the nomination, while only two editors explicitly supported the nomination, nobody opposed it or had any specific arguments (in fact, the parenthetical comment by [[User:Dmsdbo]] seems ot have been resolved since). — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:* Comment - But surely it should follow today's voting process where 5 votes are required? In my opinion two votes for an article is simply not enough for a community this size. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::* There is a degree of "{{w|grandfathering}}" with a number of the articles that came pre-current FA policy, which is a good chunk of our existing list. In terms of the number of votes, this "removal suggestion" can suppliment that if enough people vote. As far as the article itself, it could be subsectioned up a bit, so as to not look so much like an episode summary. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
===Grathon Tolar===
===Grathon Tolar===

Revision as of 18:46, November 18, 2008


Articles nominated for removal

Grathon Tolar

This article simply does not meet the requirements for FA IMO. There is only one source for the information in this article and it is too short. -- TrekFan Talk 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Just as a note, this has been discussed before.
As said on the nomination page, length is not relevant to its status as a FA. Also, there is only one source because the character was only in the one episode. --31dot 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; as brought up by User:31dot, this has been discussed previously and I have the same input as before. Allow me to paraphrase:
The [...] central point to my dissertation is that you are objecting to their FA status on the grounds that they don't meet with criteria which do not exist. When I originally nominated both of these articles as Featured Articles, I examined the stated criteria of being an "...especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject." and I personally [decided] that they did, in fact, meet those criteria. Once up for nomination (see Talk:Grathon_Tolar#Votes_for_featured_status and Talk:Ethan_Novakovich#Moved_from_Nominations_for_featured_articles respectively), it was clearly stated in both nominations that the articles in question were covering "minor subjects"; in reply it was noted by an administer in support of the nomination that "The fact that it is a minor subject is irrelevant". Both of these articles were voted on by the Memory Alpha community with no objections and were made Featured Articles.

[...] There is nothing dictating [a required article] length, significance of subject matter, or "meta-Trek" as qualifiers for Featured Articles.

Succinctly, if this discourse led to a discussion where the Featured Article criteria were reevaluated and made more specific and detailing (such as, if the community wanted to change the parameters for a Featured Article and dictate that it should be a certain length in addition to being of high-quality to be featured), I would be in whole and complete support of helping with that process; and should any articles I contributed substantially to not qualify under those reevaluated rules, I would be the first to stand by their status removal. But the criteria now are the exact same as they were when those articles were initially nominated and accepted by a majority of MA contributers.

Based on the information presented above, I anticipate one of two results to occur. Either Ethan Novakovich will revert the loss of his FA removal status and Grathon Tolar will be removed from this list; or a new forum will be opened for discussion and decision-making for the purpose of defining new and more detailing/stringent criteria for the acceptance of Featured Articles, after which all current Featured Articles will have to undergo a reevaluation process to determine whether they may maintain their status under the new protocols. Either way, I greatly look forward to one or the other conclusion. — THOR =/\= 18:00, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
My expectations were apparently presumptuous, and some of the particulars of my points may not be wholly applicable here as I was previously discussing two articles, but I think you're making the same argument for defrocking as there was previously. If I sound too "bitch and moany", I apologize, I don't exactly have my head int he game today, but still wanted to provide input. Please take no offense or belligerentness from my comments here! — THOR =/\= 17:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I just think it's appropriate to note that the simple fact that FA removal has already been discussed once should not mean it can't be discussed again - and obviously, some important things have changed since this first discussion. On the one hand, three years have passed since then, which means that an article that was "especially well-written" in comparison to the other articles we had then doesn't necessarily have to be "especially well-written" in comparison to what we have now. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, at least the criterion of needing a minimum number of votes has been added since then. With that background, I think it is a little too fast to just say "been there, done that", point at an old discussion and declare this a worthy FA for the next eternity or two...
That said, I'm not going to vote at the moment, as the OP was very vague about what exactly makes this "not-FA-worthy" (and I don't have the time to check in in detail right now). Could we perhaps get a more detailed criticism of the article, please? -- Cid Highwind 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment- I was only pointing out that it had been discussed before so others could look at it- I wasn't saying that was a reason in my thinking of opposing removal.--31dot 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being vague in my nomination. I was a bit rushed at the time. :) Anyway, I believe this article to be unworthy of FA status simply because there are a lot better FAs out there and this does not compare to them IMO. Look at Ayala and Luther Sloan as examples. I know it's not very fair to say that articles with just one/two reference(s) shouldn't be FAs but it is what it is - FAs require in-depth detail and must stand out from other articles and if there are not many references, there isn't going to be much detail. Maybe we should have "good articles" like on Wikipedia? I do not believe it is detailed enough to make it stand out from other articles of the same type. Plus, three years on, we have much more detailed articles. Maybe it did once deserve to be an FA, but I believe this discussion should be revisited. -- TrekFan Talk 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki