(removing The Doctor, unsuccessul nomination)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===[[The Doctor]]===
This is a fantastic article, all the information is sorted into good sections. This has been well researched and should, in my opinion, be a featured article. [[User:Dvp7|Dave]]<sup>[[User Talk:Dvp7|<span style="color:#00FF00;">''Subspace Message''</span>]]</sup> 09:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support:''' An excellent and thorough article for an excellent character. The only thing I would change is "War Crimes" to something like "Accused War Crimes" since it is established that he (and ''Voyager'') in fact committed none. [[User:DKqwerty|DKqwerty]] 02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support''': An excellent article. Very informative. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support''': Though I would rather remove the photos of Kes and Janeway in the "relationships" section and add in photos of Denara Pel, his holo-family, etc. We know what K&J look like. Other than that, this is a fantastically well written and supported article that covers the many aspect of one of my favorite characters. -- [[User:DhaliaUnsung|DhaliaUnsung]] 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''': IMHO, this article is not particularly well-written! Its use of punctuation is often incorrect (such as repeated inclusion of too many commas) and it has too many duplicated links (one example of which is to the [[Kes]] article). The major block paragraph about Seven of Nine should also be divided into smaller paragraphs, for easier readability. In addition, I agree with the comment above - that more useful images could be used in the "Relationships" section. And is it "the Doctor" or "The Doctor"? The article uses both! I think one method of these should definitively be settled upon (probably the same as is used in script sources), unless both are used in episode scripts (in which case, this information can be added to the "Background Information" section). Each of my criticisms above are minor nitpicks, however, and should be fairly easy to reconcile. I do, however, believe it is notable that two users have now commented on the use of images and how they may be improved. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I've researched the naming tradition and all the scripts I could find refer to him as "the Doctor" except, of course, when written as the first words of a sentence. I've therefore changed the references in the article to fit this method. I've also tried to improve the use of punctuation and attempted to correct obvious grammatical errors, but the page still includes many examples of these as well as quite a few rambling sentences, strung together with "and"s! These would require someone more in-the-know about the fine details of grammatical structure (as well as a better knowledge of ''Voyager'' episodes) than I. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I gave it a once over, but I'm sure it could use another. -- [[User:DhaliaUnsung|DhaliaUnsung]] 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support'''[[User:Bllasae|Bllasae]] 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. - [[User:Bell&#39;Orso|Bell&#39;Orso]] 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::Defiant, do you still maintain your objection? If you do, or if there are other objections, I will resolve this as unsuccessful, as it has gone on long enough.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
===[[Sovereign class]]===
===[[Sovereign class]]===

Revision as of 18:48, 13 July 2009


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

Sovereign class

I would like to nominate this article for FA status, as I believe it is a fully comprehensive article, covering all aspects of the Sovereign class design. I do not believe anything more can be added to this article. -- TrekFan Talk 23:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't believe adequate citations have been utilized, as some sections of this article don't cite even a single source! --Defiant 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Would anyone else like to comment? -- TrekFan Talk 23:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: IMO there are some issues with this page. There is nothing on the change in the observation lounge, granted this isn't an article on the Enterprise, but it really is since she is the only source. The deck arrangement is missing details, deck 16 has no information from Star Trek: First Contact at all but has the tag; also the MSD is uncited and may be wrong, since the deck 16 Worf pointed to in FC is not the deck 16 as described prior. And, as Defiant said, there is a overall lack of citations. I'll try to get the first two things I mentioned when I can, but I don't have time to rewatch all 3 films. - Archduk3:talk 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.