Peer review Edit

Add to this a formal peer review process and you've hit it right on the head. --Schrei 18:15, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

As you wish: Memory Alpha:Peer review :) -- Cid Highwind 22:54, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Maybe peer review needs to be mandatory since in practice the FA nominations page is the true peer review right now. 1985 15:52, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Redux Edit

See Forum:Overhaul of PR, FA, & AotW.

Citing sources Edit

Isn't it odd that MA has such a strict policy about citing which episode information comes from, and yet when it comes to background information, featured articles routinely fail to cite a source? I just noticed that today. For instance, if the producers' motive was one thing or another, or this person did that behind the scenes for whatever reason, shouldn't it also require a source? --Broik 03:41, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I guess people here are content with assuming we've all memorized everything there is to know about Trek and can verify the info in our heads. Oh well, it was just a thought. :P --Broik 11:33, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

No, i feel this is a valid criticism -- and why our articles on Star Trek: The Magazine, Star Trek: Communicator, The Making of Star Trek could be greatly expanded -- background info often originates to interviews and memos in these works, as well as several biographical works such as Inside Star Trek or Shatner's Star Trek Memories should be expanded upon -- with the individual author's bias quoted with the citation for the latter biographical cases. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:30, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
This already is a "necessary" part of an article becoming featured according to this page. Do we need to enforce this in any way? -- Cid Highwind 14:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)