(Nominations without objections)
m (rm 2, 1 pass 1 fail)
(1,862 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations without objections==
<!--When moving nominations to this section, add to top.-->
*'''[[Shuttlepod (22nd century)]]''' is an informative article with helpful pictures. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] | [[User talk:Defiant|''Talk'']] 23:56, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
* [[V'Ger]]. I worked to expand this article extensively, adding a lot of information, as well as background material. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 17:33, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for now. I'd like to support this article because it's one of my favorite Trek concepts, but I think it's incomplete right now. There isn't much information regarding its threat to Earth and narrow escape, there's no mention of the fact that V'Ger was not satisfied just getting an answer from the creator but wanted to physically join with the creator and forced this to happen. There's also no indication of Decker's love for Ilia being one of the reasons he joined with V'Ger, and in reference to the size of the construct I particularly like McCoy's assesement that it could hold a crew of tens of thousands, or a crew of thousands 10 miles tall. Also, the content needs to be a little better organized. Specifically, there is some information in "at the heart of V'Ger" that really belongs in the re-programming section and the background info is great but exceedingly long and hard to get through so I think some sub-headers or other separators there would be a big benefit. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 20:00, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
<!--When moving nominations to this section, add to top.-->
===[[Hippocrates Noah]]===
'''Self-nomination'''. I figure we need something here, and more importantly a non-episode. He's a solid article and I think he'd do nicely as an FA. --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 07:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. --[[User:Mike Nobody|Mike Nobody]] 08:31, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
* '''Neutral'''. Content-wise this is a complete article that covers the topic without getting boring or turning into an episode summary for the sake of length, it meets all the critera. But I'm biased against single-episode characters like this, so I don't think I can support it (I agree that Brooks should be a Bond villain though). [[User:Vedek Dukat|Vedek Dukat]] 18:30, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
* '''Mild oppose'''. To me this one falls in the mirky area between clearly non-FA worthy characters like Grathon Tolar/Ethan Novakovich and ones like R'Mor. There's a little more back linking with this character, so thats a point in its favor, but even though its "complete" there's no real information here outside of action summary. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 19:00, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. While I agree with Logan and was the one who nominated [[Grathon Tolar]] for removal, it seems to have retained its featured status. I'm not sure about this article, as I don't think I'm experienced enough with MA and the like to judge it, but I do think that it should be possible to have a well-written and comprehensive aritlce without automatically featuring it. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 19:41, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'd rather see something like [[Ishka]] featured than this, if you're looking for something to spruce up. [[User:Vedek Dukat|Vedek Dukat]] 02:57, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
* '''Support'''; I feel this falls well within the criteria of being well written and comprehensive of the subject matter to qualify as a Featured Article. I really liked this character, and I'm glad to see him 'done up' really well. — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 15:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. Aren't the featured articles supposed to be the creme de la creme? I don't think complete, comprehensive, and well written should be the standard for just featured articles but all of Memory Alpha. Minor ones like this that meet those criteria, I would mark it on my checklist and move on, not feature it. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 02:01, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
<strike>*'''Mild oppose'''. It is an extremely well-written article. However, it has the same problem that caused [[Ethan Novakovich]] to have its FA status removed -- namely, there just isn't enough information to the character for us to cover, having appeared in only one episode. ''However'', unlike Novakovich, this has a quotes and background section to supplement the main text, and I believe it covers the character a bit more. I'm just not sure if that can be enough for it to earn FA status. (Of course, I may change my mind later, so stay tuned. :P) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 23:00, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)</strike>
**What's the difference then between these and Grathon? I'm not voicing an opinion; I'm genuinely confused about the whole featured thing right now. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 23:33, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*Different time, different people voting, different point of view. Personaly, I '''support''' this, it's my opinion that an article that is any more than a couple of paragraphs should be up for being featured once it is complete. [[User:Jaf|Jaf]] 23:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
**That's definitely '''not''' the way to go, because by your logic I could make almost anything into a featured article. Wikipedia's ratio is 1 in 1000 for FAs, so ours shouldn't be 1 in 5. But this isn't the place to discuss policy. :-) Sorry. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 23:44, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Clearly located at the top of this page one finds: "A featured article is an especially '''well-written''', '''informative''', and '''comprehensive''' article that covers all available information on a subject" (and '''accurate'''). As Thor noted, ''this'' article, by far, fits into that criteria. As noted ''dozens'' of times before, '''LENGTH has ''nothing'' to do with the limitations of what can and can not be featured'''. Rather than being biased when reviewing this article and saying to yourself (or posting here) "well this is a short article" or "this character only appeared once", what one should ask themselves when reviewing are all points covered in [[Memory Alpha:The perfect article|how to write the perfect article]]. Using this article as an example the following questions can be asked:
#"Is the article's subject clearly defined?" In the case of this article, that would be essentially asking, '''"does the article clearly define ''who'' Hippocrates Noah is?"''' The answer would be "yes," this information is directly addressed in the articles ''introductory paragraph'', and expanded upon throughout the rest of the article, both in terms of who the character was, with and without the incorporation of Sisko into the characters matrix.
#'''"Does this article use 'simple and unambiguous language'?"''' Again, that can be interpreted in this article in terms of how Noah was 'brought to life' by Sisko, which is explained ''in detail'', in the second paragraph.
#"Length." Although, as I stated above, length has nothing to do with the availability or ability of an article to become "featured" -- what ''is'' suggested in this bullet point is mostly in reference to completeness. "Long articles are considered better because they can cover the given topic much more thoroughly." However, "this ''may not be possible for all articles'', of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject." So keeping that in mind, when reviewing ''this'' article, you may with to ask, '''"does ''this'' article thoroughly cover all available aspects of the subject?"''' Although I can not personally vouch for the "thorough" part of that, as I have not viewed the episode in some time to notice if it is complete, what I can say is that considering it contains ''revealing quotes'' and a sturdy ''background section'' to support the content of the article, it is far more complete than in might be if it ended with "Hippocrates Noah was played by Avery Brooks, who also appeared in his normal role as Commander Sisko."
#'''"Is this article well-documented?"''' Seeing that he only appeared in one episode and was never mentioned again, that would be a simple "yes", as the page is cited and clearly documented.
#'''"Is this article well-written?"''' Since this is one of the 3 basic criteria for normal voting process, all of those who voted to 'support' this article must feel it is. I personally feel that a couple paragraphs could be broken up and expanded, ''this'' observation, which ties in somewhat with my comment on "thoroughness" are my only qualms with the article.
#'''"Is this article well structured?"''' Yes, the character is clearly defined in the introduction and is followed with a logical progression of Sisko's transformation ''into'' the character and his accomplishments ''as'' the character. I cannot say the same about the below article [[Klingon history]], because it is not clearly introduced, and it has a rocky start and conclusion that essentially consist of random, rather than structured, points.
#'''"Does the article contain contributions from many members?"''' Minor or not, I count 10 individuals contributing to this article. Not that an article with contributions from one or two individuals should be sidelined from being featured, having more contributors does show that others have thoroughly read the article and were able to make changes to it, cosmetic or otherwise.
#'''"Does it ''inform'' and ''entertain'' the reader?"''' I believe it does, it's certainly concise, and with the addition of numerous quotes, there is a certain "entertainment" value to it. It also has more than a mere "headshot" of the character, a second image is fit into the page to illustrate the context of the article. On a side not, I am not sure about the choice of the second image in this article-- I think one of Noah holding a gun to Bashirs head might better illustrate ''who'' Noah ''really'' was.
So for those of you who are not understand how to approach and address the voting process when reviewing articles considered for featured article status, the above highlighted questions should be the number one priority is addressing the aforementioned, outlined criteria of '''well-written''', '''informative''', and '''comprehensive'''. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 00:14, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I don't think size should restrict a Featured Article, as long as it's well-written, informative, and entertaining. This isn't being proposed as an Article of the Week. I'd agree that the subject matter is too minor for that. I think Featured Articles should cover the full range of articles, long and short, and on major and minor topics. It should be a ''Best of Breed'' type of thing. --[[User:9er|9er]]
*'''Support'''. As stated above, I'm not very familiar with this stuff. I can't ''not'' support this, given the criteria and sheer quality. Good job. Also, I added a pic of Noah with the guns, but it somehow looks out of proportion alongside his other pic. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 02:07, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I agree, size shouldn't be a factor, and this definetly is well written and informative. To Weyoun: I resized the pic you added to 200px, instead of 250. I think that was why it looked out of porportion.--[[User:Starchild|Starchild]] 02:38, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**I actually meant because mine is a full shot of him and the upper half of his body, whereas the first is a head shot. I did the resizing later; I think 200px makes it look even enough though. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 02:42, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
***Hmm I thought it looked out of porportion because it was kind of stretched compared to the other pictures but I guess I kind of see what you mean now that I look at it more closely.--[[User:Starchild|Starchild]] 02:53, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I highly suggest those who voted against this make an effort, as per policy, to re-evaluate this article under the above listed outline, which has otherwise been completely ignored. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 08:34, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
*Having read through the outline of the featured article policies you posted above, I am forced to agree and to change my vote to '''Support'''. Your turn, Logan 5. :) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 17:40, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
*I read Gvsualan's note when he first posted it and wondered whether it was directed at me, being one of only two oppose votes. I re-read my objection just in case I had mentioned the article's length as the reason for my oppose and then had just forgotten that I did, but I was right in remembering I didn't mention length. I did, however, mention a lack of information beyond episode summary which I thought was a clear indication of my reasons for opposing.
:But in case there is some misunderstanding as to the basis of my oppose let me try to put it into a formula that matches the policy outlined so that there is no ambiguity that lobbyists can construe as opposing on non-approved grounds. Despite some limited background info there really isn't anything in this character article that can't be gotten from reading an episode summary or hearing a description of such. As a result I find it neither particularly ''informative'' nor ''entertaining'' and so, based on policy, I still '''opppose''' this article's nomination. These are the same reasons I supported the removal of FA status for [[Ethan Novakovich]] and [[Grathon Tolar]] both of which I find to be informatively lacking despite being complete. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 19:09, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. Perhaps there should be a change in what constitutes a Featured Article...? While the page in question is undoubtedly a good article (and certainly of much higher quality than [[Grathon Tolar]], which for reasons entirely unclear to me is still featured), I don't think that there's simply enough information to make it "the best of the best," as the character only appeared in one episode, and little behind-the-scenes information is thus available besides the standard biography... All with all, I don't think this article should become featured, but per the current rules I cannot find any reason to oppose it. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 19:47, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
:The nomination policy is or has been under review for a while without a consensus so far. That said we are left with the current policy to judge this nomination. If you don't find it informative because of a lack of material (which is ''not'' the same as opposing for length) I think that definitely falls within the guidelines of the current rules, just a question of whether or not you find its informative nature sufficiently lacking to oppose it. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 20:04, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:27, April 9, 2020

Memory Alpha  AboutPolicies and guidelinesFA policiesFA criteria → Featured article nominations

This page is for the nomination and discussion of articles that may be potentially included in Memory Alpha's list of featured articles. A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject. If you feel one of our articles meets this criteria, you may suggest it here in accordance with the nomination policy. For a list of articles previously nominated, see the archive.

To bring up a current featured article for review, please see the review procedure.

To nominate an article, start a new discussion under "Nominations without objections" with a heading named for the article you want to suggest. Provide an appropriate picture and a two- to three-paragraph summary of the article. This is usually the article's lead-in if possible, and should not contain any links, except to the article itself. This is what will be displayed on the main page and in the portals if the nomination is successful. Followed that by a brief reason why you feel the article should be featured.

Sample format:

=== <article> ===
'''[[<article>]]''' <summary>
<reasoning> - <signature>

Once this is done, a notice that the article has been nominated as a featured article candidate should be added to the article in question by inserting {{fan}} at the top of the page, above any other templates except the article type template.

When you are commenting on a nomination, please take the time to read the entire article before you decide whether to Support or Oppose the nomination. Nominations with objections should be moved to the appropriate section until they are resolved.

When supporting or opposing an article, please use a bullet point (by adding a * before your comment) without any indent so these will be easy to find later. General comments should be indented as usual, and, as always, please sign your nominations and comments with "~~~~".

Nominations without objectionsEdit

Nominations with objectionsEdit

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.