Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

Revision as of 05:08, January 23, 2006 by Gvsualan (Talk | contribs)

40,414pages on
this wiki


Articles nominated for removal

Excelsior class

This page was seemingly given the {{featured}} stamp of approval without a consensus. It took a lot of archive digging, but I finally confirmed my suspicions (which were rooted in the simple fact that no log exists confirming its nomination) -- it was on Nov. 20, 2004 that Steve Mollmann seemed to have randomly given this page the M/A tag of approval. I had to dig even deeper in the archives of the nomination archives to reveal that all evidence of the votes for this were removed and I had to readd them into the 2004 Archive for the Excelsior class. The voting ended with roughly 4:2 against it, with the last comment being made on Jul. 2, 2004, stating that 'it should be renomiated', but I cannot find any evidence in the logs that it was. In fact, no significant changes were made between the time the last comment was made on the nomiation page and the time at which it was given its featured status.

Now, despite the fact that the page has been 'illegally' featured for the past 14 months, I do not feel that it should simply be 'grandfathered in' due to an oversight. Because of this, and the moderately drastic changes made to the article from what it was when it was featured, and the fact that it still could be expanded on more, I personally do not think it should be left kept as featured when it never should have been featured in the first place. It should be removed and re-nominated properly. --Alan del Beccio 05:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Since it {{featured}} status in November 2004 a lot of information is added to this article. In my opinion this article does no longer qualify as "featured". Some information in it was dead wrong (already changed this) and some text needs to be wikified. I also believe that this article should be written from the Borgs POV, like the Vulcan, Andorian, Klingon does. All it does now is sum up the dealings the Federation had with the Borg. I also finds its structure not the way it should be. The Origins are part of the Borgs history and should therefore be place under it. The same goes for some of the information now placed under the Quadrant headings. All in all this arcticle could do with a good overhaul. -- Q 23:24, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree. This article just nees some cleaning up. If an article has been featured, its done. That is the way it goes (in my opinion). It just needs to be monitored and tended to more. --Galaxy001 22:21, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. If the article needs to be cleaned up and tended to, that necessitates removing its featured status. I do see a lot of red links towards the bottom, which while not part of the official criteria is an indicator that something needs attention. I wouldl ike to see the part about the Borg's ultimate fate moved into a separate section, for one. But as for the POV, I think I understand where Q is coming from: it needs to talk about the Borrg encountering the Enterprise not visa-versa, and so on. Overall a very good article, but as both pointed out, it needs work (which justifies removing the {{featured}}, at least for now). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:36, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Now I Agree. After cleanup, however, it should be considered to be added back to the featured list. --Galaxy001 01:13, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - once cleaned up it can be re-nominated for FA, but for now it's not looking its best. - Hayter 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - The reason I agree are the many articles to be created/edited under the "Drone Technology" area. Once these articles are given suitable information I would reconsider this article for FA. nWo 4 Life 05:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Singh

This article is currently rewritten in its entirety. As far as I am concerned when a {{featured}} article is rewritten it loses automatically its featured status. If a article like this undergoes a major rewrite it needs to be checked again if it is up to MA standards, one could argue that if a featured article needs a major rewrite is was not ready to be featured et al, but that is debatable. Because an article was featured, does not mean the rewrite can stay featured also. -- Q 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, AureliusKirk had the exact same thoughts as you concerning the article's featured status. I told him he didn't need to nominate it here automatically and that someone else would if they thought the quality was lower because of his work. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the case; if the changes mean it no longer qualifies, take it off, otherwise it should be left alone. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to judge it one way or another. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply. It is not really a matter of better or worse quality. When the initial feature status was given it was done so at the account of the then present article structure and wording. When a major rewrite is done this all changes and it should again go through the peerreview/nomination proces. At least as far as I am concerned. -- Q 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Support - It was my intention to nominate this article for Featured removal, you guys just beat me to it. It is substantially different. Even if everyone thought the latest version was clear improvement, I'd still nominate it based on the radical change. If I thought removing the featured tag was within my "rights" I would have done so, but I thought this was the proper forum. --Aurelius Kirk 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply. It is within you "rights" so to speak. Everyone can place an article on the removal list if they find it does no longer qualify as {{featured}}. Removing the featured status without letting it go through the removal proces is not done. -- Q 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki