FA status Edit

Nomination (13 Aug - 30 Sept 2009, Failed) Edit

Just rewrote this page. I think it now stands a good chance of becoming a featured article, with, or without, a little more input. - Archduk3talk 13:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a little wary when I see a big content shuffle in an article that has basically been untouched since at least late 2006, immediately followed by a request to consider it one of the best articles that have been written. I think any "featured article" should have had community input and be relatively stable for a considerable amount of time - why don't we give it that time before applying for FA? -- Cid Highwind 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I felt a little wary about putting it up for FA status, but I rewrote the article for that very reason. I'm hoping for community input. I know someone out there has to hate my writing style or can catch some spelling or grammar error or that I would never see or just plan didn't like this episode. I want this article to be a FA, if the community can load on reasons not to do that now, then maybe it takes a few tries. I don't have an issue with this taking a few months to do, though I would hope for something more specific about the article then it only got rewritten yesterday. - Archduk3talk 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a peer review, or a simple "request for comments" on the talk page, would have been better. I admit that those often don't get the number of responses the initiator would like to have, either, but at least it's not skipping some steps along the way. Regarding article stability, that's one of the few FA criteria that are explicitely given on Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria - so not exactly something totally "unspecific". -- Cid Highwind 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at what was it was before, all I really did was expand on what was already there, and then add sections titles. The content itself wasn't really change all that much, just the wording, most of which was to add links to related articles, as all the pages on these episodes are missing basic interconnecting links. I don't think anyone has even been over these since 2006, if not earlier. Though I do see your point, I would still prefer to let this run it's course either way, as there aren't any other articles up for FA status right now. - Archduk3talk 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: whether there are other FA-nominated articles or not is completely beside the point; each article should follow due process and common procedure. For this article, that would be a peer review, prior to possible FA nomination. --Defiant 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Renomination (05 Jan - 08 Feb 2010, Failed) Edit

Second attempt: the article has been under peer review for three months with no comments, and untouched (except for a language link) since the removal of the last fac notice. Since the only oppose vote last time was for lack of stability, I think that's been covered. :) I still think it's a comprehensive article that thoroughly covers the subject, and would like to get five votes on it this time, even if they're all against. - Archduk3:talk 12:43, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - comprehensive and well-written.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 13:31, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Well structured and written.--31dot 01:50, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Any more votes, either way? If not, this will be removed as unsuccesful.--31dot 22:24, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. One thing I will mention, however, is that the article isn't particularly clear on why Sisko et al. knew history had been changed when Gabriel Bell died. As it is now, a reader not familiar with the episode might be confused by why Sisko felt the need to take Bell's place in history until the very end. It's not enough of a detraction to warrant voting against it, but nonetheless it might be worth addressing. Does anyone else feel this is unclear as worded? -Mdettweiler 00:04, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
If you think it needs an expansion, I say do it, since it will be a few weeks, at least, before this could be reconsidered for FA status again. :) - Archduk3 02:14, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the intro paragraph to fill in this detail. With that in place, I think the article would go quite nicely as a Featured Article. This FA nomination only went on for three days before it was declared "Failed"; now that all objections so far have been resolved, would it still be strictly necessary to wait a few weeks to renominate it? -Mdettweiler 04:30, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

It was actually up for over a month. You could argue I failed it a few hours early according to the letter of the policy, for simple lack of support then any objections, which is worse than objections IMO, but fear not, since I will be putting this up for FA status at least one more time. :) - Archduk3 09:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, my January and February mixed up. :-) -Mdettweiler 18:51, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Renomination (06 May - 19 May 2010, Failed) Edit

Third times a charm, right? I still believe this is a comprehensive article that thoroughly covers the subject, and I should, since I did the last "major" rewrite of it. ;) - Archduk3 21:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good article about the Bell Riots, but it is just the plot of one episode from an in-iniverse POV, a slightly rewritten episode summary. What does comprehensive mean in that context? The best of MA should make connections and have collaboration and all that. So, good enough article, but not FA, unless the standard of FA is much lower at the moment, it has varied quite a bit over time. --bp 22:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we do have Klaa, our current Article of the Week, and that only contains content from one movie. The Bell Riots article contains content from a two-part episode (equivalent in that respect), and in fact contains somewhat more content due to the fact that it focuses on a large event rather than a single character. Thus, I would think this article is definitely good enough to be a FA--so my vote is support. -Mdettweiler 23:11, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
I still support this article, as before. The scope of the article is irrelevant- as Msettweiler stated we have FA's about subjects big and small. --31dot 23:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Support, again.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:43, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
Support. --Delta2373 00:54, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

If you're still opposed bp, I'll move this to the archive. - Archduk3 01:42, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Archived. - Archduk3 09:37, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Renomination (07 July - 22 July 2010, Success) Edit

  • Self-nomination - The forth, and final push. Yes, it's short, but it's (still) a comprehensive article that thoroughly covers the subject, and we do have other FAs that are just as short, or shorter! - Archduk3 01:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support --Nero210 20:58, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support --Defiant 11:38, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • SupportCleanse ( talk | contribs ) 12:07, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support ,Short indeed doesn't necessarily means inadequate, but also this article has an increasingly uncomfortable relevance to our current predicament, a parable of caution if you will, itself alone worthy of nomination--Sennim 22:48, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support.--31dot 22:51, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. IMO, it's covered at least as well as a "real" encyclopedia would cover a similar event in the real world--which is, after all, the standard that we're aiming for. -Mdettweiler 14:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support.--Delta2373 09:53, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Archived --Defiant 07:44, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


Off-Topic: Im sorry I can't resist the following comment: ROFL. Sisko as Bell... On-Topic: There are some fuzzy images in the article, and, it seems I saw a (Possibly Vandalism?) spelling error that was rather unusual, didn't have time to correct it. Will do when I get around to it. ZephramCochran 04:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind enlightening us? --OuroborosCobra talk 05:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
In the time it took you to roffle and to tell us about it, you couldn't have just fixed the spelling and/or named the images? --TribbleFurSuit 13:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Any comments that helps this article on it way to FA status would be appreciated. The only issue brought up so far has been the time since the last rewrite and lack of community involvement. - Archduk3talk 08:02, September 30, 2009 (UTC)