m (moving to peer review)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
'''[[Jonathan Archer]]'''
I'd like to put the article, Jonathan Archer, up for nomination simply because it's a very well-written article and fully comprehensive. As far as I can tell, it includes everything about the man aswell as a nice background section. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:38, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Objection''': Some of the background notes require citations. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 16:10, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': I've removed the uncited info and placed it onto the article talk page until we can find sources for the points mentioned. I was unable to locate anything after an internet search. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:22, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': It is interesting as I was going to make some serious edits to this article as I didnt think it adhered to our standards. For specific objections see below:
:1) The '''Contents''' table looks disorganized and too long. We jump from '''Year One''' and '''Two''', to Klingons and then Delphic Expanse and then Moral Conflicts and then Homecoming. Yes, the Xindi were in the Delphic Expanse but the main point of that arc was '''Xindi''', not Delphic Expanse. The header should reflect that. '''Moral Conflict''' also doesnt belong right before the return home, it is a personality trait issue and not a sub-section to duties/events on ''Enterprise''.
:2) The "Moral Conflicts" section needs an expansion to include, for example, the [[wraith]] they met on {{e|Rogue Planet}} and the dilemma he faced with respect to saving them.
:3) The "'''Relationships'''" section need some organizing. His dog is listed in there. I think Porthos should have a Header of his own right above relationships or something, not right next to Trip Reed and T'Pol. He had a special relationship with his dog, his buddy, but it is a pet and not en par with friendships he developed with people. Also, some of these "relationships" listed are essentially summaries of one episode (see "The Ericksons" which is just a synopsis of {{e|Daedalus}} or A.G. Robinson - {{e|First Flight}}). Those people, while relevant to Archer, appeared in one episode only and a summary of who they are and how they influenced him belongs into the "Early Years in Starfleet" or "Early years" sections or something on his life prior to ''Enterprise''. Not every person he knew needs to be listed in that section separately.
:4) The "'''Romance'''" section is entirely too long and unnecessarily so. There is no need to list and mention every woman who breathed on him as a romantic interest (like '''Keyla''' who wasnt even romantically interested in him but wanted info on the Suliban. Or '''Rajin''': so she touched him to figure out his anatomy. She did the same thing with T'Pol. Can hardly call it romantic interest. Or '''Navaar''' who got his hormones going and manipulated all men on the ship, not just Archer etc). These sections are not only already mentioned in the text before, but they also dont qualify as separate "Romance" sections for reasons mentioned above. They are essentially one liners or episode summaries (see Navaar).
:5) There is also no need to have '''two''' T'Pol sections - one for romance and one for friendship. They can be merged and his brief attraction to her mentioned accordingly. They were friends and colleagues.
:6) It's lacking an '''Apocrypha''' section
:7) Arguably, the '''Appearances''' section is unnecessary. He appeared in '''every episode''' but ok.
:8) Misses a '''Personal Interests''' section
:9) Misses a '''Alternate realities and timelines''' section. That stuff is thrown into the text somewhere, but should have its own section for completeness and better overview.
:10) The headers need to conform to MA standards (only first word in caps etc) and some, like '''homecoming''' should be rewritten to more appropriate names.
:11) More images needed. The latter half of the article is empty of images.
:12) Overall, many sections need copy-editing. As mentioned, the article is not very well organized, has questionable choice of vocabulary and grammar (too much to list individually).
So in summary, I disagree that this qualifies as the "''best work of MA''". We have done better, much better and this article needs some serious improvement. No one is asking it to be perfect, but an FA needs to not seriously lack so much. It needs some reorganizing, rewriting, expansion and editing. &ndash; [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 18:27, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': I've worked on points 1), 2) and 3) though I don't believed Porthos should have his own complete section; I believe he seems to fit in the "friends" bit albeit this could require a bit more expansion. I will work on the other sections and post back here. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:37, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Note''': Item 6 (apocrypha) is not required for any article on Memory Alpha and its existence or lack thereof should in no way reflect on its featured status. Also, an appearances section is a ''good'' thing to have, since it immediately indicates to the reader that, yes, Archer was in every episode (although, strictly speaking, he wasn't in the mirror episodes). Oh, and mentioned in the new movie too. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 15:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': I have now added the alternate realities and timelines section to the article and expanded the Porthos section too. Archer's personal interests are in his "Early life" section in much the same way [[Jean-Luc Picard]]'s are in his "Personal life" section so I do not believe we should need a separate section for that. A couple more images have also been added. DC, would you like to comment on the article now? -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:32, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
::::'''Note''': The format as presented by DC isn't required per se either, since there is no real established standard. A number of articles do use that format, but that just makes it ''a'' standard, not ''the'' standard. That said, this article was/is in need of ''some'' reformatting, but we neither need, or want, every article to be a cookie cutter formula affair, since not all sections would make sense depending on the subject. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 15:41, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': I understand that, but I did agree with some points DC raised if not all of them. Is there anything you believe should be added/changed with this article, Archduk3? -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:56, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Trek Fan let me re-read and I'll comment. Keep in mind that the question here is: does this article represent ''the best work of MA'' and the answer is '''no it does not''' - for obvious reasons. It could use a rewrite of some sections/recognizing etc. ''to represent the best work of MA''. I also disagree with the ''Apocrypha'' section not being needed. On the one hand you argue that an ''Appearance'' section is needed for a series regular, but the ''Apocrypha'' section where ''briefly'' non-canon works and the fate of a character are mentioned, is not needed? Especially in a character page? Someone who reads about a character might be interested to know what happened to them in non-canon works. Yes, they can go to MB for that, but that's not the point, is it? The point is to get it all here and for more go to MB and other sources. Anyway, an FA needs to stand out and be complete. This is not a race. It reflects on us as MA if we take an article in need of serious copy editing and reorganizing and feature it as our best work. If you are going for the "what's the minimum required to pass" kind of attitude - which is what I am seeing in sulfur's and especially Duke's comment - then you might as well FA 20,000 articles on MA because they all minimally adhere to what is required. &ndash; [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 16:51, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
:::All of this commentary suggests that this should be a peer review rather than an outright nomination. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 17:25, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': sulfur: agreed. @ TrekFan: I noticed writing the friendship section of Trip that it ends with {{e|Cogenitor}}. Nothing about what happened to the two men after season 2 (i.e. during xindi attack and season 4 with Trip leaving the ship etc) is mentioned. The same thing is true for most of the friendship sections, they need expansion. It says, for example, he "opened up to Travis" but doesn't say how and why. Stuff like that. It definitely looks better than before - especially the organization of the sections and renaming of the headers, but I would suggest going through each section - one by one - re-reading it, expanding and/or rewriting/copy-editing where needed - and it is needed. I unfortunately dont have time to do it all, or it wouldnt get done as soon as you'd like it, but I can try if i find the time. &ndash; [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 17:26, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': Well, in that case, perhaps this should be moved to a peer review? I would be up for doing that before re-nomination. DC, if you could work on those areas you think are missing/incomplete and let me know when you have done so, I can go through it again and try and add some more references to areas that are lacking? -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:35, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''': RE:TrekFan, mainly some basic reformatting, which is mostly done already, and further detail, not the removal of, for sections and what not. The point I was trying to get across was that covering the subject well ''in canon'' is more important than laying out the article in some supposed required format. That said, I'm just going to move this whole thing to a peer review article, since we have already covered far more ground than most peer reviews. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 17:56, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:58, 22 January 2011


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

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