Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

• Timescape (self nomination) - I know that the summary has barely been here for a day but I feel that it is as detailed and as well written as the other featured TNG episode write-ups with an extensive use of references and appropriate use of pictures.--Scimitar 22:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support but the table needs to be wikified. AmdrBoltz 02:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

• Klaa. Minor charcter, self nomination. Written in five edits or less (!!), several months ago; upon recent review, the quality still seems to stand. --Gvsualan 20:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- due to several spelling and grammatical errors. --Defiant | Talk 08:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Why did I not see this coming? This is just petty. There are no spelling errors, much less "several" and the grammar is better than a lot of other stuff that has successfully passed through here. In fact, the more I look at this, it almost seems to be something of a personal attack, which I do believe is uncalled for in M/A. --Gvsualan 08:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I support this article, but if the two of you could stop throwing mud it would make me happy. Tyrant 12:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
  • Support, but I'm not sure why the second or third images of Klaa are needed (with respect to the image use policy)... the third one in particular is not very clear and they really don't show anything new that can't be seen in the first image. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 04:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed the last picture -- despite the poor quality, it was the best image of Todd Bryant's character from ST6, which is mentioned in the article. Additionally, I still think the 2nd picture of Klaa at the scope balances the article out -- as in: the article is long enough to support a second picture of Klaa placed in it to balance the article out from being too "top heavy". The fact that Klaa is sitting at the weapons scope goes along quite well with the theme that he was "thirsting for a target that would fight back." But I do have an alternative in mind as well to put in it's place. --Gvsualan 06:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Re: Tyrant -- Frankly, I agree. But then again, I've made no personal attacks here. All I've done is simply state that the "oppose" is purely based on a personal nature and that there are no spelling errors, nor any glaring grammarical errors to warrant an obviously biased vote. In reality, that alone should void the vote. --Gvsualan 06:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but neither have I made any personal attacks. I wouldn't oppose a nomination unless I could back it up. If you want me to list grammatical and spelling errors found in this article, I'd be quite happy to do that. Just tell me where, and I'll get started! --Defiant | Talk 10:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• You're welcome to do so, but I think it would be much more useful if you went in and attempted to fix the errors on your own. :) -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 19:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've corrected most of the errors, but I still have a problem with the article - in quite a few places, Klaa's actions are stated, not his ship's. For example, "he made his intentions to attack clear, by approaching the Enterprise fully cloaked." His ship was cloaked, not Klaa himself! I don't know how to change this, however. The errors that I knew how to correct, I have. --Defiant | Talk 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)