m (→‎Nominations with objections: moved to article talk page)
Line 11: Line 11:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
*'''Self-nomination''': With help from [[User:Defiant|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. --[[User:Nero210|Nero210]] 23:30, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 05:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''--[[User:Italianajt|Obey the Fist!!]] 18:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. -[[User:Mdettweiler|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. – [[User:Distantlycharmed|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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. – [[User:Distantlycharmed|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. – [[User:Distantlycharmed|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? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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.--[[User:Sennim|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. --[[User:Nero210|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. --[[User:Defiant|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. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 10:19, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:30, 13 July 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)
    • Support --Nero210 20:58, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support --Defiant 11:38, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • SupportCleanse ( talk | contribs ) 12:07, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support ,Short indeed doesn't necessarily means inadequate, but also this article has an increasingly uncomfortable relevance to our current predicament, a parable of caution if you will, itself alone worthy of nomination--Sennim 22:48, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support.--31dot 22:51, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. IMO, it's covered at least as well as a "real" encyclopedia would cover a similar event in the real world--which is, after all, the standard that we're aiming for. -Mdettweiler 14:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.