(→‎Nominations with objections: Visionary nomination retracted and archived)
Line 24: Line 24:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
'''Self-nomination''': I spent several hours working on this episode article, writing the summary, quotes and adding images. Also, Cleanse has added some very nice background information so thanks to him for that. I did put this through a peer review, but as with many peer reviews, it went unnoticed. I took this as a sign it was ready for nomination and I personaly think it is as complete as it can get. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 23:13, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
:Part of the reason it went untouched was because two other Peer reviews were still going, and one was being ignored, despite the comments. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 02:13, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' &ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 05:08, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
:Anyone else willing to commit their vote to this? --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 01:04, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
:Anyone...? :( --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 22:53, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': it's mediocre at best, and I definitely wouldn't say it's especially "well written." Also, I know for a fact that it's not as comprehensive as it could be. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:02, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:Comprehensive in what way, Defiant? I was watching the episode as I wrote the summary so I haven't missed anything there and the background info is all that is in the ''Companion'' and the ''Captains Logs'' books, and there's a decent amount of it. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 02:08, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
::You might wanna read the [[Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria|FA criteria page]], to see what I'm talking about! I know for a fact that the bg info section isn't anywhere as near complete as it could be. Also, I find the summary section to be very confusing and poorly written. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:17, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:Can I ask how you know "for a fact?" Do you know of some more info that could be added to it? If that's the case would you be willing to make those additions? As for the summary, the episode itself has a potentially confusing plot so keeping the summary understandable isn't easy, though I did believe I had managed to do it, that is until you mentioned otherwise. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 02:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment'''. I'm not sure what exactly is missing from the Background section, but if there is something missing it shouldn't be considered complete. If Defiant could elaborate, that would be helpful. I'm also wondering if the summary is as concise as possible.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 02:48, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
::I'm aware of lots of info that the article is missing. I wouldn't be keen on adding it, though, for 2 main reasons: 1. I'm not a big fan of DS9 personally (like the article, I find it a bit too confusing!), and 2. adding all the info there is would change this, once again, from being an FA nomination to something more akin to a peer review! --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:56, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:If what you say is true (there is more BG info to add), then adding it to the article wouldn't change your vote anyway (due to the summary) and the article would fail, so what's the trouble in adding it? If you could at least tell me the source you are using for this BG info, I could look it up myself? Furthermore, your "not being a fan of DS9" should not affect your addition to the article or your voting. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 02:59, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:::The argument that something is missing would have more punch if you could describe even one thing that is missing. You don't have to add it- but it would be nice to know even one example.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 04:07, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:That's all ''I'' want to know. You say it's incomplete but don't provide any examples. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 06:24, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
::I was busy sleeping! There's its rating [http://www.geos.tv/index.php/list?sid=122&collection=86 here] that technically ''could'' be added &ndash; it's rated 8th in the season. The episode has an easily-available script (like all TNG and DS9 installments do), so info from that could be added. Also, its Nielsen rating. There's info about the episode in one of the ''[[Cinefantastique]]''s &ndash; I've looked, though been having a hard time trying to find somewhere to put the info, as the bg info section has so few subsections. In addition, there's bound to be info about the episode in ''[[Star Trek Magazine|Star Trek Monthly]]'' and ''[[The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine]]'', both of them being official publications. As I said, it's incomplete. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 10:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
:I wasn't rushing for you to respond, I was just replying. With regards to your comments, which for the most part are perfectly valid, I do not have access to any issues of Cinefantastique but the internet information is great. I do see a problem with you saying there's "bound" to be information in Star Trek Monthly but I do not believe there has been an issue dealing with this particular episode. If you know otherwise, please do point me in the right direction. All I want to do is improve the article further, and if there is information missing, then I want to help complete it. It is my intention to withdraw this from nomination so that work can be done, unless anyone has any objections. However, I will leave it for another day for comments before doing so. Defiant, if you do have access to that Cinefantastique information and you would be willing to add it, it would be very kind of you to do so. Furthermore, if you could provide some examples of what confuses you in the summary, I will endeavour to correct that aswell. Finally, and please do not take this as a "dig" or an insult, but whether you see it or not, writing this summary, choosing images and adding background information did take a lot of time and effort on my part so it is quite disheartening when you call it "mediocre". Though I am certain you didn't mean any insult by it, perhaps more constructive terminology would be better in the future? Again, please do not take this the wrong way. I just feel like I put a lot of effort into it and, while there may or may not be things missing, all I want to do is make it the best it can be. I will glady accept points for improvement in the future. Thank you. :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 18:06, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There seems to be a good amount of background info nicely delineated.[[User:Derekbd|Derekbd]] 20:23, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
::Yeah, you were right, TrekFan &ndash; I didn't mean any insult by the "mediocre" comment, so I'm sorry that you took it harshly. I'd be willing to help you out, as you work on the article a bit more. I'll have a look for that ''[[Cinefantastique]]'' info, for example. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 22:25, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you, Defiant. I appreciate that. I'll leave this up until tomorrow, when I'll begin working on the article. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 04:51, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Note''': The policy on [[Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy#Voting for nominations|voting for FA nominations]] states that one must be a user for two weeks in order to vote- Derek has only been since February 26th.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:07, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 2 March 2011


Nominations without objections


I'd like to nominate this article, having thoroughly researched the episode's making. I was quite impressed by the summary, too, when I read it today. --Defiant 15:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. First, I think that there's something screwy with the Acts - Voyager episodes have five acts and a teaser, if I'm not mistaken. More significantly, I have some quibbles about the wording in the background section. While comprehensive, I think it's a bit wordy and repetitive in places. Things like stating "The holographic Leonardo da Vinci was added to the story at the request of Janeway actress Kate Mulgrew" and then quoting her three (!!!) times to that effect. Just because she said it three times, doesn't make it necessary to copy here. Heck, since it's just a simple statement, the quotes didn't really illuminate anything. I removed that example (and a few others), but I think some of what remains could be tightened up. Some of the notes could be more easily stated by paraphrasing several quotes from the same person, then having all the citations at the end. Please don't take this as knocking your (as always) excellent research, but rather as something that would make the article even better for readers.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Also, there are a few page numbers missing from the citations (e.g. in points one and two under the first subsection). These should be added if you've got them.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:47, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose: Though the article is well-written and comprehensive, I echo Cleanse's comments on the act structure. I do not see any problems with the background information, however. It has some interesting points that are thoroughly cited, albeit there are a couple of page numbers missing. Overall, good job! If the act layout is amended and the page numbers added, you'll certainly get my vote. -- TrekFan Open a channel 12:21, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: thanks for the conditional supports and comments, guys. Though I'm quite busy today, I don't see page numbers and acts being problematic (besides finding the time to put them in & make sure they're correct). Maybe someone could double-check the acts thing(?) If not, I'll get to it tomorrow. Although these aren't problematic, I do have several quibbles about the edit you made, Cleanse, and have my reasons for them; for example, the Kate Mulgrew/Leonardo thing – the quotes indicate a different level of involvement in the development of the idea as, in two of the quotes, she says that she "brought them" the idea while, in another, she states that she merely helped them come up with the idea (indicating a lesser degree of involvement). As we weren't there at the time & don't know exactly how big her participation in thinking up the Leonardo hologram was, I do find those quotes quite insightful and important. --Defiant 13:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Update: I've now added the requested page numbers. Coincidentally, they both came from page 37 of their respective publications! Feel free to let me know if any more are required. --Defiant 14:02, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I found where the missing act was and I have amended the article accordingly. Though the summary of Act Two is a little sparse, I still feel the article as a whole is worthy of FA status. If more is willing to be done to that section in the meantime, it could only improve it. -- TrekFan Open a channel 15:00, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Now that all the nitpicks Cleanse mentioned have been cleared up, I'm unsure why there's still opposition to this nomination. --Defiant 10:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think Cleanse has seen the comments on this page yet. Give him some time. I'm sure he'll change his vote once he has read the updates. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:18, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial Support: Well written and comprehensive background etc but the summary section is too long. You might want to consider shortening it a bit and not mentioning every minute detail. People can watch the episode if they want it all.Distantlycharmed 22:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have to politely disagree. It's my belief that an article should be as comprehensive as possible, including episode articles. Yeah, they can watch the episode aswell. But chances are, they won't be reading the article first if they haven't already watched the episode. The summary should contain as much information as possible in an informative and entertaining way. This also allows us to build the web with more links. Aside from that, thoroughly written summaries showcase the expertise and abilities of the Memory Alpha community. We could easily turn into one of those lazy wikis that copies a two paragraph summary from another website, but we aren't and we don't (hopefully!). :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
This is a summary though - not the retelling of the entire script in prose. A summary can still be well written and comprehensive without regurgitating everything and every detail in the episode. We had FA status removed based on excessive episode summary length (or they did not achieve FA status until that was cleared) See "Learning Curve". We dont know why people will read episode summaries but Mr Trek Fan, between two paragraphs posing as a summary and a novel there are a myriad of possibilities begging to make your acquaintance :) (catch the reference there? ;) Distantlycharmed 01:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: after editing the summary for length and reasons mentioned above. Distantlycharmed 02:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the wording in background has been tightened up a bit.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else? We only need two more votes to get this featured! --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons above.--31dot 14:47, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else want to add to this? Only 1 more "support" vote is needed for it to be featured! On the other hand, if anyone wants to object to the nomination, also feel free to do so. Whichever way it is cast, another vote would be very helpful. --Defiant 17:36, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right! It seems I voted without even being aware of doing so. Thanks both for letting me know about that odd guideline and for your "support" vote. --Defiant 06:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. I only count five supports not six. Am I missing something? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:28, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

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