(Nominations without objections: archiving, + Bell Riots)
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations without objections==
===[[The Best of Both Worlds (episode)]]===
===[[Bell Riots]]===
* '''Self-nomination''': I've tried to improve the episode summary, incorporating the best (at least, IMO) words and phrases that were already there but changing or removing faulty grammar, etc. I've also thoroughly researched the background of the episode's creation, using multiple different sources. There still exists a few informative notes that were already in the bg info section when I started adding to the article, making it more of a group effort than my singular input. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 11:44, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
* '''Self-nomination''' - The forth, and final push. Yes, it's short, but it's (still) a comprehensive article that thoroughly covers the subject, and we do have other FAs that are just as short, or shorter! - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 15:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I especially like the way background information is collected from several different sources -[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 18:28, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''', for the reasons mentioned above. -[[User:Mdettweiler|Mdettweiler]] 16:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I love the loads of background info :). --[[User:Nero210|Nero210]] 23:32, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
===[[Constitution class model]]===
The work on this page, by [[User:Sennim|Sennim]], before and after it was spun off from the Constitution class page, is impressive to say the least. I don't know of another article on this site that has the depth and detail of this page. It's high time we do what we said when discussing the previously mentioned spin off, and give this FA status. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 15:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I'm extremely grateful for the more than kind words of Archduke3, and indeed, I do believe it is the most comprehensive article available on the good "Lady E" anywhere at least where its depiction as production asset is concerned. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention people like William S. McCullars, David Shaw and Curt McAloney, whose work I expanded upon. As the saying goes, I stood on the shoulders of giants...--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 18:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''--quite detailed, and meticulously cited as well. The only thing that might make it seem "not FA material" is the number of red links, though much of that can't really be helped as they're mostly people or effects companies that played very small parts in the grand scheme of things, and thus hadn't yet been high enough on the priority list to be given articles of their own here yet. Surely that's more an issue with those as-yet-nonexistent articles than this one, and in fact now that they're linked somewhere they'll be on "Wanted Pages" and someone can come along and create them. -[[User:Mdettweiler|Mdettweiler]] 16:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
::Ain't that the truth, as a matter of fact, some hidden extra work was involved while writing the article; I started the articles on [[Richard C. Datin, Jr.]], [[Magicam]] and [[WonderWorks Inc.]], they were too important for the article not to be tackled at once as well as on the magazines [[American Cinematographer]], [[Cinefex]] and [[Cinefantastique]] which I consider prime sources for background information.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 08:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''', really, really detailed. --[[User:Nero210|Nero210]] 23:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
::Much appreciated--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - as I said in the Peer Review, it's really great to have so much information compiled and properly cited. &ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the once-over in that stage.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - simply cool! --[[User:Jörg|Jörg]] 10:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
::Much appreciated, especially from a stickler for detail as yourself, many thanks for finetuning the refit-AMT section.--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==

Revision as of 01:34, July 8, 2010


Nominations without objections

Bell Riots

  • Self-nomination - The forth, and final push. Yes, it's short, but it's (still) a comprehensive article that thoroughly covers the subject, and we do have other FAs that are just as short, or shorter! - Archduk3 01:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

USS Equinox

  • Self-nomination: With help from Defiant and I'm sure other community members I believe I have this article meeting all of the qualifications of "Featured Article" status. We know a little bit more about the Equinox then most "ships of the week" and I believe that I have incorporated all the information available on the ship in a well formatted, easy to read, and to-the-point manner. --Nero210 23:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. - Archduk3 05:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support--Obey the Fist!! 18:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. -Mdettweiler 18:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Even though well written and organized, this seems more like an extended episode summary of Equinox, rather than just an article about the USS Equinox. I understand there is not much to work with when this ship only appeared in one episode essentially, but that doesnt mean the story of the episode has to be retold here once again for lack of more info otherwise. – Distantlycharmed 20:13, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
You'll excuse me if I find the timing suspect here DC. What changes in particular could be made to this article? I only ask so this can't be considered anything but a valid criticism later. - Archduk3 22:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I am criticizing the article for its content, not its author. As I explained above, I find that it is well written and organized, but that it is more of an episode summary, than about the ship. I would make it different by specifically taking out all the sections in "The Spirits for Good Fortune" and summarizing and condensing them into one neat section. Admittedly, this would make the article very short, but the USS Equinox was only in one Voyager episode so that's about how much someone is going to get out of this. I can see how this might be misunderstood, nonetheless, I do take offense in your suggestion/implication that I am opposing this to somehow retaliate against a user, whom I dont even know - because it could not possibly be that I criticize something for its contents right? Like this was the first time I opposed an article nomination for too lengthy and irrelevant content therein. – Distantlycharmed 22:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I tell you what, if it makes you feel better, I can withdraw my objection to this article, even though I do stand by it in principle and for the reasons mentioned above (it shouldnt be FA if not edited for content), to prove that i dont have a dog in this fight and didnt do to this to get back at someone. I am seriously tired of these quibbles on MA and have no interest in engaging in another set of lengthy bickering and animosity exchange with strangers over some some sci fi article. – Distantlycharmed 23:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for your objection to be withdrawn; and for the record, it wasn't my intention to either suggest or imply that your objection was a retaliation, just that it may be seen as such by other users unless elaborated on. I would rather get out in front of any future quibbling if I can, because I'm just as tired of this as I'm sure you are. This was suppose to be fun, right? - Archduk3 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support:Especially for "The Ship of the Week" argument and while I see some merit in DC's reasoning, it IS what happened to the "Equinox". It is the nature of an encyclopedic approach to have some duplication of info from different points of view.--Sennim 08:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
DC - Having to retell parts of the episodes was an unfortunate necessity in my view. Like Sennim said, sometimes encyclopedia's do have duplication, it can't be avoided. We can't assume that everyone who will read that article has recently (if at all) seen VOY: "Equinox" and VOY: "Equinox, Part II", and I don't think people will want to have to switch back and forth between the articles to fill in gaps of missing information when they are perfectly appropriate (and necessary) in the ship article. The information presented is relevant to the ship and I think the support of this nomination from four other people reflects this thinking as well. --Nero210 00:18, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I do think some of the article is written from the ship's POV, I also feel the page could be more relevant to the ship. For example, a statement from the "Early history" section claims, "Ransom lost 39 crew members..." Why not rewrite this as something like, "39 of the ship's crew members were lost"? That's just one example, but I certainly don't believe it's the only one that could be more ship-oriented. --Defiant 08:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons stated. Talk:USS Equinox shows that exactly this (episode summary instead of anything else) has been a valid complaint even years ago, leading to a PNA tag and eventually FA removal. If content duplication is an "unfortunate necessity" (because otherwise, the article would be nearly empty), it might just mean that this topic doesn't lend itself to being FA material. -- Cid Highwind 10:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.