m (→‎Worf: rm to article talk page)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
=== [[Worf]] ===
There are three reason this should be a FA: 1) This is one of the most comprehensive articles on MA and covers all the necessary criteria. 2) This article covers more ''Star Trek'' history ''in detail'' than any other article we have. 3) It's fraking Worf, what more do you want?! - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 21:15, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Clearly deserves FA status.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:53, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. There are a few things that need to be sorted out before I can support this as a Featured Article.
:1) While most of the background information is now cited, there are two comments that I haven't been able to find a reference for. The translation thing isn't in the ''[[The Klingon Dictionary]]'' (2nd ed.), though I suppose it could be in another of Okrand's works. As for the {{e|Accession}}/Worf's absence/First Contact note, I'm not sure that quite jives with what's in the ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion]]'', though I guess it's possible.
:2) I think the page should have a proper appearances list, per previous discussions on [[Talk: Wesley Crusher]] and [[Talk: Main character non-appearances]]. This could be done in a space-saving format, of course. (TNG except for... etc.)&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 06:25, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
I removed the note about the vacation, since there is no information on the film or episode pages, suggesting to me it's a rumor at best. <s>As for the translation, that could just be removed as well if no cite is found, since it's hardly the most important piece of information on the page.</s> An appearances, or non-appearances, section could be added, but there is no reason to list the first three seasons of DS9 as non-appearances like it is on that page, since that's, A) silly, and B) not relevant since he wasn't a cast member. If some clarifying note is needed, it can be added, but presenting the information in that manner is confusing the point of the list, or suggesting that Dorn was cast but just didn't feel like working. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 07:37, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Never mind about the translation note, I've removed it for the reasons I mention [[Talk:Worf#Removed|here]]. That just leaves the appearances section. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 08:08, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Suppport''' now that those issues have been resolved. I expanded and organised the background information section as well.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 10:49, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': seems to require a lot of work, with many instances of "would" used in the wrong context (I remember reading about this in our policies and guildelines, though I can't quite remember where &ndash; mainly because the policies and guidelines are so jumbled!), random sentences that could do with more context, and quite a few grammatical errors, etc. (at least as far as I've read, though I've tried to sort these out). I suggest a peer review, then probably renomination. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:57, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
:There's also a few sentences that literally don't make sense, so I'm unable to make head nor tail of them, which I find irritating, because I ''would'' like to enjoy this article and not come up against such confusing statements. Also, I'm confused about whether we're still endeavoring to avoid duplicated links on MA or not. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 15:41, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
::[[MA:POV#Tense]] for the "would do" v "did" stuff. Links should not be duplicated, except in the case of really long articles. -- [[User:Sulfur|sulfur]] 15:50, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
:That's the impression I had, though I wasn't aware of the exception. Are we excusing this article from that guideline, then? --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 16:00, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
:::Just as an aside, I think we should generally relax that "one-link" policy somewhat. The purpose of that originally was to ''increase'' readability by not having each word be a link. If that policy starts do ''decrease'' the quality of navigation (because readers have to search hard for the single link to some article), it has gone too far. Perhaps "once per section" would be a better guideline. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 16:54, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
:I've often thought it would be, though I know some bots have (or at least had) the faculty of specifically searching for cases of duplicated links, so I also suspected that there might be some reason for their exclusion, other than just user readability. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 17:30, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
Did a pass at rewording uses of the word "would", though someone else might want to take a crack at it as well. I don't see a need for a peer review over these minor pov adjustments, as they are hardly significant revisions to the article, and I doubt that two weeks are required to fix them, or would even lead to them being fixed. That said, I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 10:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Clearly deserves FA status if only for the info contained, True, maybe the "would" grammar needs to be addressed, but I've been as a non-Anglo Saxon corrected in abundance, does not subtract from the fact of the value of the article, further corrections are to be considered minor --[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 00:49, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:I agree that they're minor... each of them. But there's many. And like some folks say in the UK, pennies make pounds (I guess the US equivalent would be "cents make dollars"?), but I digress. I'll try to identify the sentences I'm having a hard time understanding. In the meantime, I certainly appreciate the work that's gone into this; it's a very impressive article, just quite a few nitpicks that could do with being ironed out. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 01:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
::Then were are in agreement, one kick ass article, only in need of iring out by, grammatically, true and bred Anglo-Saxons (the community of which I'm unfortunately not part of...)--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 02:32, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' I'm in agreement with the above supporting votes. This is a very extensive and comprehensive article that is deserving of FA status.</s> --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 18:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:'''Nitpicks''': here goes. Firstly, there's a section that reads "''K'Ehleyr, an iconoclastic ambassador and Worf's former lover, [...] introduced their child, Alexander (see Family: K'Ehleyr and Alexander).''" It doesn't say who or what K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to, or what she introduced him into, but I think it'd be grammatically less awkward if it did &ndash; something along the lines of "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to Worf" or "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander into the ''Enterprise'' crew," etc. A section I keep getting stuck on is where it says, "''Worf served on Kurn's ship during the civil war, and fought at the Battle of Mempa, although he soon found himself dissatisfied at the impulsive manner of Klingon society when off-duty, Kurn's associating with officers who served the Duras family while they were in bars at the same time, despite the hostilities currently occurring between them.''" Not only is that sentence quite a rambling one but I also can't make head nor tail of it, grammatically. I also have problems with the sentence, "''On the surface, Worf found L'Kor, now an old man. L'Kor informed Worf that his father died at Khitomer, and that a number of prisoners were taken to this camp.''" The surface of what, Carraya IV or some other planet in the Carraya region? And is that meant to be "a number of prisoners ''had been'' taken to this camp", just as it should be "his father ''had'' died at Khitomer"? The sentence, "''Worf revealed technical knowledge of a temporal anomaly,''" seems too short and I'd like some clarification as to whether this was during the mission to Theta 116 VII or not. Another sentence I find confusing reads, "''In [[2370]], Worf found himself along with the rest of the ''Enterprise'' crew following a mission to aid a stranded Romulan [[Warbird]].''" I'm not entirely familiar with the term "to find oneself" and I find its usage here perplexing; does the word "following" mean subsequent to or basically just "on a mission that they were following". Although I certainly might be wrong, I have a hunch that a sentence that could be developed into a proper paragraph is the line that reads, "''Worf helped [[Byleth]] understand the [[humanoid]] emotion of antagonism.''" Another nonsensical sentence is "''The transmitter was tucked away in a cramped compartment, and Garak had to overcome his acute claustrophobia to complete it.''" Complete what?! The phrase "Worf, together with Romulans" (in the {{film|10}} section) seems childish, because it's too oversimplified; which Romulans? --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 20:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment'''. Specific criticisms should be discussed at the article's talk page; if you oppose the article because it needs too many changes, then comments here should be left at that(which you already did with your original oppose vote)--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 20:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:Sorry; I thought Archduk3 meant he'd like comments here when he stated, "''I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before.''" --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 20:56, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, the above seemed like more than "some" to me, but that is only my opinion and need not be yours. :) We're just almost at the point I think where, if there is that many comments about changes, this discussion is more about that then whether or not this should be an FA.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 22:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:I agree; "some" seems quite a subjective qualification. It is what I was aiming for, though, and I made sure that I didn't go past the about-halfway-down mark of the "Personality" section. "Too many corrections needed" is the reasoning for my objection to this FA nomination. I've been asked to explain further, which I've tried to do. I'm therefore starting to feel like this is beginning to get personal. I'd much rather it not, though, as I do love everyone's work here on MA; it's a really good community to be part of, generally. :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 22:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
:::I apologize; I have not intended anything personal towards you.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:02, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
:Okay; apology accepted, and I'll take you at your word &ndash; that you didn't mean it to seem personal. But (returning to topic) did you mean that you don't think my quibbles about the article are sufficient for it not to achieve FA status? --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 06:37, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
:::I was not making any judgments about the merits of your criticism; I was simply saying that I felt this wasn't the place to go into extensive details.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 08:40, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
:Alright. Thanks for that clarification. :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 08:46, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording of the sentences in question to hopefully be more Defiant and English friendly. :) - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 13:21, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
:My oppose vote remains for this article; I certainly don't think it's one of our best-written articles. A big problem with it seems to be an over-reliance on informal language (phrases, etc.), which is not very encyclopedic (at least, IMO; it also makes the text more inaccessible to me, as I'm not used to such casual lingo). I'll admit that it does have potential, though I don't feel this has yet been attained. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 08:52, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I happen to find a too formal writing style to be stifling to the flow of an article, as well as overly simplistic and sometimes insulting to the reader. To be clear, that was not meant as a jab or insult to Defiant, but rather commentary on a problem with the English language.
Since a requirement for formal language is a personal preference not covered directly in the [[Memory Alpha:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]], that makes this an unresolvable problem unless Defiant makes the changes himself, since "well written" is clearly part of criteria, but the definition of "well written" is different for every user. A PR at this point would also be useless, for the reasons already given. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 17:41, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
:I was simply pointing out one of several problems I find with the article, others being that I think the DS9 info could be made more relevant to Worf and the "family" section on Jeremy Aster could be better incorporated into the article, as it's such a small paragraph. I actually agree with you that formal language can sometimes be ''too'' formal, though I believe this article just isn't formal enough. In total, I don't think this is one of our best-written articles, as I've tried to explain. I did not expect that any of your response was personal, nor is mine; no offense is meant, I'm purely expressing my opinions exclusively about the article. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 18:03, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for now, as there are still some typos and the Quotes-sections should be arranged chronologically. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 21:41, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I'd like to now change my vote to oppose as I have been convinced from recent comments that this article needs work to become an FA. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 21:47, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I will not go as far as opposing this pages FA, but it is a bit long. It also gets very confusing because of missing dates in places. Otherwise well writen and full of detail. --[[User:Starfleet Academy|Starfleet Academy]] ([[User talk:Starfleet Academy|live long and prosper]]) 07:56, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
==={{e|Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges}}===
==={{e|Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges}}===
A few months ago, I put quite a bit of work into this article by writing the summary, inserting images to compliment the text and adding several background points. I'd like to think it is as comprehensive as it can be and therefore would like to place it up for self-nomination. I hope everyone finds it alright, but please do comment on anything that can be done to improve it further. Thanks! :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 19:57, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
A few months ago, I put quite a bit of work into this article by writing the summary, inserting images to compliment the text and adding several background points. I'd like to think it is as comprehensive as it can be and therefore would like to place it up for self-nomination. I hope everyone finds it alright, but please do comment on anything that can be done to improve it further. Thanks! :) --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 19:57, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:10, 26 August 2011


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"

A few months ago, I put quite a bit of work into this article by writing the summary, inserting images to compliment the text and adding several background points. I'd like to think it is as comprehensive as it can be and therefore would like to place it up for self-nomination. I hope everyone finds it alright, but please do comment on anything that can be done to improve it further. Thanks! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:57, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Almost all of the background information comes from only two sources - the DS9 Companion and the AOL chats. While between those two sources there's plenty of info, have you checked, for example, the script (available here) and the DS9 Season 7 DVD?–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:20, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
I did check the script but as far as I could see there was nothing note-worthy that could be added to the article. However, if you notice something that I have missed, please feel free to correct me! As for the DVD, I down't own it so I can't see if there's anything worth adding from that. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:58, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: While reading through the script again, I did notice a minor piece of info that I have now added; the working title was "Untitled Bashir." Other than that, I don't see anything else that can be added from the script. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:02, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Might I suggest breaking up some of the acts into more paragraphs ? Some of the acts contain very large (compact) bodies of text; paragraphing them improves readability I think. Otherwise a thorough piece, as I've come to expect from you.--Sennim 12:08, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the compliment, Sennim! I appreciate it and I have acted on your advice to break up the paragraphs into more "manageable" chunks as this doesn't change the content of the article and (I feel) isn't likely to cause an edit war while under nomination. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:42, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Ah, much more readable. In respect to the perceived limited quantity of BGinfo, that is not a shortcoming of Trekfan. By that time publications on those aspects of the productions started to wane (In that respect the demise of the Star Trek: The Magazine has to be seriously lamented). The only two other sources I can think of that he could have consulted were the corresponding issues of Starlog's The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine and Cinefantastique. I have my doubts about the usefulness of the first and the second one I have. There was an article in it about the episode, but the info therein was covered by the Companion. It is gratifying to read that the production team in general stick to their stories over time. DS9 is particularly well served by its Companion as it is what BGinfo is concerned the most superior publication of its kind I've ever encountered of any production, Trek or otherwise (the Voyager follow-up was a crushing disappointment and the very worst publication)...Checked the DVD, no info on the episode there.-- Sennim 10:41, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: If the material from the compendium is duplicated (or similar) in the Cinefantastique issue, then it might be worth adding citations from there too, so that there is the "double source" (so to speak). -- sulfur 12:04, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Comment Very well, if Trekfan has no objections I'll make some edits in the BGinfo to reflect the Cinefantastique source, when I find the time somewhere next week. (WARNING! nitpick: Cinefantastique is the older publication :))
Addendum: Defiant has beaten me to the punch, great job Defiant!!!--Sennim 13:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Excellent job with the additions to the bg info, Defiant. Could there possibly be anything more than can be done to this article? It looks pretty solid now, more so than some episode FAs. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments, guys. I reckon the summary could be edited down some and made more concise. Unless the episode's teaser is about 10/15 minutes long, I don't think its supposedly summarized version should be as lengthy as it is. Also, we should select one tense for quotes, so they can be made more consistent (either "Ronald D. Moore explained, "...etc." and "As Ronald D. Moore explained; "...etc." OR "Ronald D. Moore explains, "...etc." and "As Ronald D. Moore explains; "...etc." but not both past and present). --Defiant 20:56, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, the teaser for this episode is a fairly long one (as teasers go) so I would be opposed to changing that (particularly when we already have a supporting vote - don't want to get into the whole Reginald Barclay thing again!), but I do agree with the tense thing as that is relatively minor. I didn't even realize I had written it like that when I did, but I will correct any I see and post back here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:42, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I managed to get all of the "tense" issues, but if I missed any please let me know. I changed them to read "Moore commented...", "Behr said..." etc etc. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • I wish to oppose the article's nomination, then, since I feel that the summary has too much rambling. This content issue is also clearly in dispute, as TrekFan evidently believes differently. I feel we, as a community, should concentrate on whatever each article needs, rather than just what is needed to push them through the FA nomination process. There is more info available from Cinefantastique which is missing from the article and I'm not completely convinced that there's no info whatsoever that can be gleaned from the script. --Defiant 07:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm going to join Defiant in opposition, as I share his concerns both on the article's content and with regards to the nomination process itself.--31dot 09:03, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
Defiant, if I may ask? What do you mean by "rambling" and could you provide a couple of examples for me? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:12, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
I certainly welcome you asking, TrekFan. :) I wish I could provide some examples, but I just find the teaser and act subsections really too daunting to tackle reading them. Some of the big blocks (i.e. paragraphs) render as 17 or 18 lines of text on my screen; frankly, I find that too much and it makes watching the actual episode a far more appealing prospect. IMHO, summaries should be short, summarized descriptions of the main plot events. Having become occasionally too close to some articles to maintain an objective viewpoint myself, though, I think I can also understand this issue from a different angle. --Defiant 20:58, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
So, it's rather that you find the write-up too long as opposed to the actual quality of it? --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:43, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not even able to gave an assessment of the quality, as I simply find it too dauntingly long a read. Also, the bg info section could be improved as it's currently incomplete (as I stated earlier). Before I added the bg info from Cinefantastique to the extent that I did add it, I wanted to get a handle on the episode's events, so that I had a better idea of what the magazine article was talking about. A big part of me wanted to get that info concisely from the summary, though watching the episode was admittedly a far greater prospect (due to the effort it would take to plow through the summary), so that's what I did. --Defiant 07:47, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, though this episode is one that has a lot of twists and turns in the plot, and so can be difficult to follow while watching it anyway. I guess that was bound to be reflected in the summary. If you know of a way to condense it further, be my guest! :D I just wanted to make sure everything was in there. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:26, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and researched, deserves FA status.--Shamutto 20:32, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Shamutto. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:52, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I'll second Shamutto's comments; this is an all-around solid article in my opinion. If Defiant feels he can shorten the summary and that he can add more information from Cinefantastique I wish him well in his efforts, but I am happy to endorse the article as-is. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:34, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Cleanse! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:19, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - While some parts of the summary seem a bit lengthy, I still consider this article to be worth getting FA-status. The plot synopsis reads well and the background info is tremendous. --36ophiuchi 15:41, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, 360! --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:50, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The second sentence of Act one is bit ambiguous, but otherwise it is well writen and meets the criteria well.--Starfleet Academy (live long and prosper) 07:51, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I've edited the episode's first scene and could do the rest, but it would probably constitute the article being unstable for FA acceptance, since it would likely be classed as a rewrite (even with reused bits from the summary as it now stands). I don't really see the point of this article gaining FA status if it still requires a lot of work, IMO, and will need to be changed dramatically after it is accepted as an FA, so my oppose vote remains. --Defiant 09:10, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the addition of the info from Cinefantastique alone (which I could easily do too) would probably mean the article would be regarded as not stable enough. Consideration of this situation as well as the current absence of the Cinefantastique info (equating to incompleteness of the article) reinforces my opinion that the FA nomination should be opposed... for now. --Defiant 09:17, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.