Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Federation history

Federation history

Self nomination: After I've majorly expanded and rewritten this article, I started a peer review in July 08. The first attempt to get it featured a couple of months ago was not successful, however. Nevertheless, the article has further matured and grown over the months and I've addressed all mentioned issues. I think it's finally ready to take the test... --36ophiuchi 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Needing some feedback please ;-) --36ophiuchi 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and informative article. – Tom 11:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A good article. Links lots of stuff together. --Pseudohuman 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comments: Needs some touch-ups. It's definitely a good start, and while I corrected several formatting/spelling issues, to me it looks like it needs a good peer review (by Renegade54, Sulfur or Shran) to correct some other little things I've noticed (redundant links, grammar, formatting, several piped links that hide key terms that should be more visible). I don't have a lot of time this afternoon to implement this, but I do have a few suggestions for expansion, organization: 1) I am unsure if it is really necessary to get so in-depth with the Temporal Cold War/Xindi thing. A lot of that is/belongs in the Earth history page, or perhaps in the prehistory, such as the friction it caused between Archer and the Vulcans for not helping, and the Andorians misdirected attempt to assist Earth while at the same time serving their own needs. 2) I also think something could be added about the Polaric Test Ban Treaty and the Neutral Zone Treaty/Nimbus III experiment in the 23rd century, in terms of relations with the Romulans, as that information seems to be lacking from both here and the main article. 3) Other notes: Nothing about their involvement in the Klingon Civil War; a bit more could be said on the first contact between the Dominion and Federation surrounding DS9: "The Jem'Hadar", "The Search, Part I", "The Search, Part II"; and finally (for now), there is a complete lack of reference to the Maquis, a group that created something of a schism in the Federation. --Alan 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Alan for your comments. Actually there is a peer review of the article which I've already added in July 2008... As you can see it went unnoticed like so many peer reviews... The only place constructive criticism is issued seems to be here... As for the grammar bit: Although I'd tend to say that I'm more or less fluent in English, I'd definitely prefer a native speaker having a look on the article again. --36ophiuchi 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Adressed items 1) and 2) on your list so far. The Neutral Zone Treaty is hard to include in such a historical article, as we do not know when it was signed, by whom or what its exact content was. --36ophiuchi 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a minor issue, but the section "The future" needs to be rethought. According to our point of view all of those events are actually in the past. And the first paragraph in that section seems like speculation. Perhaps rewrite that first paragraph, move it under the "24th century" header, then rename "The future" section to something like "25th century and beyond"?– Cleanse 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've killed the speculative paragraph and renamed the section "26th to 31st century" as this is actually the time covered by it. --36ophiuchi 13:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

VOY: Alliances

"Alliances"

Self nomination: I nominate this article because I completely re-wrote the summary for this episode, which orginally was a very short paragraph summarizing it, to a very detailed episode summary. I also added several pictures to the summary and a memorable quotes section. --Delta2373 07:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: While I think that it is great that you rewrote the section and added pics I find it way too long and wordy. This is supposed to be a "Summary" and not the abridged version of the original script. It needs to be more condensed, giving the reader the gist of the episode. There is way too much detail in this and overwhelming for anyone who is expecting a summary. This is supposed to engage the reader, not intimidate them. Also, there is little spacing/paragraphing, with just a big block/chunk of text in each section (which might have to do with this being entirely too long and wordy). I think this needs some serious trimming down. Hope this helps...– Distantlycharmed 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comments: Thank you for your advice; you are right, it is too much. I went back to the article today and broke up some of the huge paragraphs to try to make it flow a little better. --Delta2373 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but I really believe that it is too long content-wise. It is too detailed and it does not need to be that long. It is only a Summary. – Distantlycharmed 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about "Prototype"? It got featured article status and it's longer than "Alliances". --Delta2373 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I think that wasnt right. "In a Mirror, Darkly" also got featured article status and just recently it was discussed as being way too long as well. I wasnt here when Prototype got nominated or maybe missed it, but something called a Summary cannot be that long, wordy and detailed. Either it shouldnt be called a Summary or if it is a Summary, the contents should reflect that accordingly. Please dont get me wrong, this is not a personal attack against you, but when you think about it, it really is not necessary or appropriate even for the episode page Summary to be in such painful detail. It doesnt even make sense. The whole point of a summary or synopsis is to outline the main points of the episode, addressing key points/aspects, giving the reader a gist of what is going on here etc, without going into every little detail and basically retelling the episode from every camera angle it was filmed from.

For example, in your Teaser (which is the lenght of two acts), you say "Captain Kathryn Janeway falls to the floor from her command chair after a hit by the Kazon rocks the bridge. A crewman helps her up. Ensign Harry Kim tells Janeway that the remaining Kazon vessel has retreated. First officer Commander Chakotay says that they must have hurt them." --> It is really too detailed. A summary doesnt need to include that she got up from the chair when someone helped her up and every word that was uttered in those 10 seconds (just as one example...there are many other similar instances).

The point is, it should be the quality of the Summary that matters and not the quantity. The writing is great, it is just the length. These super-long Summary pages are unappealing, inappropriate and just make the piece look unprofessional. I really liked "Blood Fever" because I think even though it was divided up into acts, it was still the appropriate length, and personally when I write a summary I try to keep it simple yet detailed enough. Why dont you try and edit it out? The coherency would really add quality and professionalism to the piece. Think of it like this: if you were the reader, would you wanna read something that long when in fact you are just looking for a Summary? – Distantlycharmed 03:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - the summary section is too long and detailed. In other words, it is not merely a "summary", but a rambling, over-long piece of work that would probably take more time to read than just to watch the episode, itself! In the past, I have been guilty of writing similar overly long summaries and, while these will likely need changed, more should not be added to the featured articles list. Sorry if I've inadvertently over-criticized the writer's work but sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind! --Defiant 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: So how exactly does this work? Is someone going to edit this or should it be removed from the nominations page since it has been around so long with no resolution (except for objections that it is too long). – Distantlycharmed 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)