Featured article nominations

Line 1:

{{FeatNom}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]

==Nominations without objections==

−

==={{e|Scorpion}}===

−

I'd like to nominate this article, having thoroughly researched the episode's making. I was quite impressed by the summary, too, when I read it today. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 15:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

−

* <s>'''Oppose''' for now. First, I think that there's something screwy with the Acts - ''Voyager'' episodes have five acts and a teaser, if I'm not mistaken. More significantly, I have some quibbles about the wording in the background section. While comprehensive, I think it's a bit wordy and repetitive in places. Things like stating "The holographic Leonardo da Vinci was added to the story at the request of Janeway actress Kate Mulgrew" and then quoting her three (!!!) times to that effect. Just because she said it three times, doesn't make it necessary to copy here. Heck, since it's just a simple statement, the quotes didn't really illuminate anything. I removed that example (and a few others), but I think some of what remains could be tightened up. Some of the notes could be more easily stated by paraphrasing several quotes from the same person, then having all the citations at the end. Please don't take this as knocking your (as always) excellent research, but rather as something that would make the article even better for readers.–[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] ( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] ) 09:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

−

:Also, there are a few page numbers missing from the citations (e.g. in points one and two under the first subsection). These should be added if you've got them.–[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] ( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] ) 11:47, February 16, 2011 (UTC)</s>

−

* <strike>Mild '''Oppose''': Though the article is well-written and comprehensive, I echo Cleanse's comments on the act structure. I do not see any problems with the background information, however. It has some interesting points that are thoroughly cited, albeit there are a couple of page numbers missing. Overall, good job! If the act layout is amended and the page numbers added, you'll certainly get my vote. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] [[User Talk:TrekFan|Open a channel]] 12:21, February 16, 2011 (UTC)</strike>

−

::'''Comment:''' thanks for the conditional supports and comments, guys. Though I'm quite busy today, I don't see page numbers and acts being problematic (besides finding the time to put them in & make sure they're correct). Maybe someone could double-check the acts thing(?) If not, I'll get to it tomorrow. Although these aren't problematic, I do have several quibbles about the edit you made, Cleanse, and have my reasons for them; for example, the Kate Mulgrew/Leonardo thing – the quotes indicate a different level of involvement in the development of the idea as, in two of the quotes, she says that she "brought them" the idea while, in another, she states that she merely helped them come up with the idea (indicating a lesser degree of involvement). As we weren't there at the time & don't know exactly how big her participation in thinking up the Leonardo hologram was, I do find those quotes quite insightful and important. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

−

::'''Update''': I've now added the requested page numbers. Coincidentally, they both came from page 37 of their respective publications! Feel free to let me know if any more are required. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:02, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

−

*'''Support''': I found where the missing act was and I have amended the article accordingly. Though the summary of Act Two is a little sparse, I still feel the article as a whole is worthy of FA status. If more is willing to be done to that section in the meantime, it could only improve it. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] [[User Talk:TrekFan|Open a channel]] 15:00, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

−

::'''Comment''': Now that all the nitpicks Cleanse mentioned have been cleared up, I'm unsure why there's still opposition to this nomination. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 10:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

−

:::'''Comment''': I don't think Cleanse has seen the comments on this page yet. Give him some time. I'm sure he'll change his vote once he has read the updates. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] [[User Talk:TrekFan|Open a channel]] 13:18, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

−

*<strike>'''Partial Support''': Well written and comprehensive background etc but the summary section is too long. You might want to consider shortening it a bit and not mentioning every minute detail. People can watch the episode if they want it all.[[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 22:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)</strike>

−

:::'''Comment''': I have to politely disagree. It's my belief that an article should be as comprehensive as possible, including episode articles. Yeah, they can watch the episode aswell. But chances are, they won't be reading the article first if they haven't already watched the episode. The summary should contain as much information as possible in an informative and entertaining way. This also allows us to [[Memory Alpha:Build the web|build the web]] with more links. Aside from that, thoroughly written summaries showcase the expertise and abilities of the Memory Alpha community. We could easily turn into one of those lazy wikis that copies a two paragraph summary from another website, but we aren't and we don't (hopefully!). :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] [[User Talk:TrekFan|Open a channel]] 22:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

−

::::This is a summary though - not the retelling of the entire script in prose. A summary can still be well written and comprehensive without regurgitating everything and every detail in the episode. We had FA status removed based on excessive episode summary length (or they did not achieve FA status until that was cleared) See {{e|Learning Curve}}. We dont know why people will read episode summaries but Mr Trek Fan, ''between two paragraphs posing as a summary and a novel there are a myriad of possibilities begging to make your acquaintance'' :) (catch the reference there? ;) [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 01:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

−

*'''Support''': after editing the summary for length and reasons mentioned above. [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 02:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

−

*'''Support''', now that the wording in background has been tightened up a bit.–[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] ( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] ) 08:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

−

:::Anyone else? We only need two more votes to get this featured! --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] [[User Talk:TrekFan|Open a channel]] 14:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

−

*'''Support''' for the reasons above.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 14:47, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

−

::Does anyone else want to add to this? Only 1 more "support" vote is needed for it to be featured! On the other hand, if anyone wants to object to the nomination, also feel free to do so. Whichever way it is cast, another vote would be very helpful. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 17:36, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

−

*'''Support''', even though this article doesn't need it, since I'm [[Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy#Voting for nominations|technically vote six]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 06:35, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

−

::Oh, right! It seems I voted without even being aware of doing so. Thanks both for letting me know about that odd guideline and for your "support" vote. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 06:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

−

:::I'm confused. I only count five supports not six. Am I missing something? --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] [[User Talk:TrekFan|Open a channel]] 19:28, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

==Nominations with objections==

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Revision as of 08:32, 4 March 2011

Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{FeatNom}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 ==Nominations without objections==
-==={{e|Scorpion}}===
-I'd like to nominate this article, having thoroughly researched the episode's making. I was quite impressed by the summary, too, when I read it today. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 15:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
-* <s>'''Oppose''' for now. First, I think that there's something screwy with the Acts - ''Voyager'' episodes have five acts and a teaser, if I'm not mistaken. More significantly, I have some quibbles about the wording in the background section. While comprehensive, I think it's a bit wordy and repetitive in places. Things like stating "The holographic Leonardo da Vinci was added to the story at the request of Janeway actress Kate Mulgrew" and then quoting her three (!!!) times to that effect. Just because she said it three times, doesn't make it necessary to copy here. Heck, since it's just a simple statement, the quotes didn't really illuminate anything. I removed that example (and a few others), but I think some of what remains could be tightened up. Some of the notes could be more easily stated by paraphrasing several quotes from the same person, then having all the citations at the end. Please don't take this as knocking your (as always) excellent research, but rather as something that would make the article even better for readers.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 09:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
-:Also, there are a few page numbers missing from the citations (e.g. in points one and two under the first subsection). These should be added if you've got them.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 11:47, February 16, 2011 (UTC)</s>
-* <strike>Mild '''Oppose''': Though the article is well-written and comprehensive, I echo Cleanse's comments on the act structure. I do not see any problems with the background information, however. It has some interesting points that are thoroughly cited, albeit there are a couple of page numbers missing. Overall, good job! If the act layout is amended and the page numbers added, you'll certainly get my vote. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 12:21, February 16, 2011 (UTC)</strike>
-::'''Comment:''' thanks for the conditional supports and comments, guys. Though I'm quite busy today, I don't see page numbers and acts being problematic (besides finding the time to put them in & make sure they're correct). Maybe someone could double-check the acts thing(?) If not, I'll get to it tomorrow. Although these aren't problematic, I do have several quibbles about the edit you made, Cleanse, and have my reasons for them; for example, the Kate Mulgrew/Leonardo thing &ndash; the quotes indicate a different level of involvement in the development of the idea as, in two of the quotes, she says that she "brought them" the idea while, in another, she states that she merely helped them come up with the idea (indicating a lesser degree of involvement). As we weren't there at the time & don't know exactly how big her participation in thinking up the Leonardo hologram was, I do find those quotes quite insightful and important. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
-::'''Update''': I've now added the requested page numbers. Coincidentally, they both came from page 37 of their respective publications! Feel free to let me know if any more are required. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:02, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
-*'''Support''': I found where the missing act was and I have amended the article accordingly. Though the summary of Act Two is a little sparse, I still feel the article as a whole is worthy of FA status. If more is willing to be done to that section in the meantime, it could only improve it. --  [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 15:00, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
-::'''Comment''': Now that all the nitpicks Cleanse mentioned have been cleared up, I'm unsure why there's still opposition to this nomination. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 10:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
-:::'''Comment''': I don't think Cleanse has seen the comments on this page yet. Give him some time. I'm sure he'll change his vote once he has read the updates. --|  [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 13:18, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
-*<strike>'''Partial Support''': Well written and comprehensive background etc but the summary section is too long. You might want to consider shortening it a bit and not mentioning every minute detail. People can watch the episode if they want it all.[[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 22:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)</strike>
-:::'''Comment''': I have to politely disagree. It's my belief that an article should be as comprehensive as possible, including episode articles. Yeah, they can watch the episode aswell. But chances are, they won't be reading the article first if they haven't already watched the episode. The summary should contain as much information as possible in an informative and entertaining way. This also allows us to [[Memory Alpha:Build the web|build the web]] with more links. Aside from that, thoroughly written summaries showcase the expertise and abilities of the Memory Alpha community. We could easily turn into one of those lazy wikis that copies a two paragraph summary from another website, but we aren't and we don't (hopefully!). :) --|  [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 22:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
-::::This is a summary though - not the retelling of the entire script in prose. A summary can still be well written and comprehensive without regurgitating everything and every detail in the episode. We had FA status removed based on excessive episode summary length (or they did not achieve FA status until that was cleared) See {{e|Learning Curve}}.  We dont know why people will read episode summaries but Mr Trek Fan, ''between two paragraphs posing as a summary and a novel there are a myriad of possibilities begging to make your acquaintance'' :) (catch the reference there? ;) [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 01:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
-*'''Support''': after editing the summary for length and reasons mentioned above. [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 02:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
-*'''Support''', now that the wording in background has been tightened up a bit.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 08:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
-:::Anyone else? We only need two more votes to get this featured! --|  [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 14:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
-*'''Support''' for the reasons above.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 14:47, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
-::Does anyone else want to add to this? Only 1 more "support" vote is needed for it to be featured! On the other hand, if anyone wants to object to the nomination, also feel free to do so. Whichever way it is cast, another vote would be very helpful. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 17:36, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
-*'''Support''', even though this article doesn't need it, since I'm [[Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy#Voting for nominations|technically vote six]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 06:35, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
-::Oh, right! It seems I voted without even being aware of doing so. Thanks both for letting me know about that odd guideline and for your "support" vote. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 06:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
-:::I'm confused. I only count five supports not six. Am I missing something? --|  [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 19:28, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 ==Nominations with objections==