Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

Revision as of 09:45, October 26, 2010 by Defiant (Talk | contribs)

40,407pages on
this wiki


Articles nominated for removal

Saucer separation

Saucer separation

This is another article featured a while back that has a nearly citation-less background information section, despite containing numerous claims. Gvsualan added incite tags back in February, but many still remain. Unless they are resolved this article should be removed as a Featured Article. – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support removal unless problems are addressed.--31dot 19:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support, due to the lack of citations. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Gul Dukat


I dont know when this gained FA status, maybe the standards 5 years ago or so were different, but this article has quite some info missing (like the personal relationships section which is practically non existent). More elaboration on his relationships is needed, such as the one to Sisko, Kira, her mother etc. There is also some redundancy which I tried to fix but I think this article just needs an overhaul. There is a lot more that can be said about this man who played such a crucial role in the series. This article is not very comprehensive, as we strive to be here on MA, and just seems very abbreviated. It could use more pics and better use of the episodes etc. It could also be a little better organized. I added a pna-incomplete to the appropriate section(s) and at this point do not believe it to meet FA standards. – Distantlycharmed 18:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't even see where the record of the nomination is. Without knowing why it was nominated, and given the points DC raised, I would support removal.--31dot 18:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I found the nomination and posted in on the talk page; it appears to have been validly nominated under the rules of the time. The article has changed a lot since then, and I agree it is not as comprehensive as an FA should be.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:34, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I find it useful to look at FAs from like 4 or 5 years (or like this one 6 years) ago and re-examine whether they still meet the criteria for FA. As part of maintenance I would suggest. I am just now seeing similar problems with the Benjamin Sisko article, which is also a FA. Relationship sections seriously lacking and just not as comprehensive as a lot of the recent FAs. I believe the reason we need to re-examine older FAs are two-fold: 1) standards have changed substantially and 2) changes could have been made to an article in these 4 or 5 years that move it far away from what was originally done.

Also, if a contributor today uses Dukat's article, for example, as a measure for what the standards for a FA are and then does not get the support during nomination, there will be a lot of explaining that needs to be done and justifications made as to why Dukat or Sisko get FA status and theirs doesnt, even though it looks "similar" in content. – Distantlycharmed 00:02, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support, due to the problems discussed above. I also support the idea of ensuring, at all times, that FA's are consistent with our current FA nomination policy, whatever that may be at any given time. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Prototype (episode)

Prototype (episode)

It's got a rambling summary and a bg info section that, (at least) in my opinion, is not written from the right perspective; it's the episode that's under discussion, not the robots! So, I suggest changing the headings & possibly rearranging some of the info, but the info itself can (at least more or less) stay. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki