Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Revision as of 14:47, 25 August 2008

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

Federation history

Having found this article more or less as a stub, I've majorly expanded it. After all, Federation history states one of the most centric topics of Star Trek in my eyes. --36ophiuchi 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: Very nicely laid out article that goes into depth about Federation history and covers, as far as I can see, all points relevant to the article. The images are relevant to the text and nicely chosen. I would also have to say that Federation history is one of the major aspects of Star Trek. -- TrekFan 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The "fan"-type comments in the background section need to be eliminated. --Alan 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Done. --36ophiuchi 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It'd be really nice to get at least some more feedback.--36ophiuchi 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: I was reserving an oppose vote to see what kind of feedback came from other users but there hasn't been much comment on this article so far. With that, my main issue is that this article and the main Federation article seem to duplicate each other in some respects. For this to be a true "branch article", there should not be any one section which is largely repeated in both articles. I also think the article would tremendously benefit from a "key dates" section which breaks down the lenghty narrative into a single timetable at the end of each section or the article as a whole. Last but not least (and this is not something I would soley object about) there has been no peer review that I could find. I am also kind of in the camp of Alan with the recent tidle wave of FA nominations and feel that we've a bit loose with these. For an article to be an FA it should simply display such a lasting impression that one would want to return to Memory Alpha and read it again and again. This article does not convey that impression, at least for me. -FC 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{FeatNom}}
 ==Nominations without objections==
+==Nominations with objections==
 ===[[Federation history]]===
 Having found this article more or less as a stub, I've majorly expanded it. After all, Federation history states one of the most centric topics of Star Trek in my eyes. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Support''': Very nicely laid out article that goes into depth about Federation history and covers, as far as I can see, all points relevant to the article. The images are relevant to the text and nicely chosen. I would also have to say that Federation history is one of the major aspects of Star Trek. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
-* The "fan"-type comments in the background section need to be eliminated. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''': The "fan"-type comments in the background section need to be eliminated. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 **Done. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
-*It'd be really nice to get at least ''some'' more feedback.--[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''': It'd be really nice to get at least ''some'' more feedback.--[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''':  I was reserving an oppose vote to see what kind of feedback came from other users but there hasn't been much comment on this article so far.  With that, my main issue is that this article and the main [[Federation]] article seem to duplicate each other in some respects.  For this to be a true "branch article", there should not be any one section which is largely repeated in both articles.  I also think the article would tremendously benefit from a "key dates" section which breaks down the lenghty narrative into a single timetable at the end of each section or the article as a whole.  Last but not least (and this is not something I would soley object about) there has been no peer review that I could find.  I am also kind of in the camp of Alan with the recent tidle wave of FA nominations and feel that we've a bit loose with these.  For an article to be an FA it should simply display such a lasting impression that one would want to return to Memory Alpha and read it again and again.  This article does not convey that impression, at least for me. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
-==Nominations with objections==