m (rm Galaxy class model and inspection pod, failed)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
=== [[Galaxy class model]] ===
[[File:Enterprised miniatures.jpg|thumb|The three sisters at Image G]]
Several '''[[Galaxy class model|studio models of the ''Galaxy''-class]]''' were created for ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', ''Star Trek Generations'', ''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'' and ''Star Trek: Enterprise''. Two differently sized physical studio models were initially constructed for ''The Next Generation'', to be joined by an intermediate sized one at a later stage. Advances in computer technology resulted in CGI model versions of the class being introduced, first in ''Generations'', and subsequently during the run of ''Deep Space Nine'' for use in that series and beyond. Apart from these several specialty models were also constructed of the ''Galaxy''-class to fulfill specific functions when the need for those arose.
When it came time to design a new starship ''Enterprise'' for ''The Next Generation'', history did not repeat itself. Where Matt Jefferies had to produce hundreds of sketches to come up with the design direction for the original USS ''Enterprise'', the main design work for the exterior of the USS ''Enterprise''-D was done long before another ''Star Trek'' television series had even been considered.
Incredibly detailed article; [[User:Sennim|Sennim]] has created another article that just demands to be featured. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
:Just some comments for the moment (although I might choose to elevate them to proper opposition): I feel the article is very hard to read due to its use of inline-italics for quotes. Quotes formatted like this make up big parts of the article, and huge italicized paragraphs are just too hard to follow. There's also a different quote formatting in use, which is indented/block in normal font. I think the article needs to be copyedited so that all "bigger" quotes are formatted according to that second style, and only short sentence fragments remain as inline quotes. I'd like to read through the article ''after'' this has been changed and then decide on the actual content. However, two things that are immediately apparent are 1) no image at the article top (one should be moved there), and 2) the overall article length. I wonder if this isn't actually ''too long'' already, and should be split in two or more articles about subtopics. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:04, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
::It is a bit long, IMO. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 12:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
:::I could see splitting this up into a few articles; one about the general history of the design, and articles about the construction of the various types of models. The general history article could then contain links to the latter articles. I think that if that was done, they could all be FA's.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 12:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
I've done a pass at the quotes, and moved one of the images to the top (waiting on feedback before updating the blurb), but I once again feel that it needs to be pointed out that there is ''no'' size requirement or limitation for FAs. That said, I just don't see a way to break this article up without introducing more problems than the perceived one about the length, and it's not like we're going to start breaking up other long articles like [[James T. Kirk]] or [[Worf]] any time soon. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 16:59, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
:But every time you point out that there is no "size requirement/limitation", I point out that there still is a difference between being comprehensive and being so detailed that no one ever will read through the article in one run - or at least it feels as if I'm repeating myself here, too. I have, right now, just read up to the end of section 3 (of 10!) and it already feels as if I read at least two complete articles. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 17:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
:Some more stuff (just sections 1-3):
:#[[:File:Galaxy class USS Enterprise-D modular approach design process.jpg|This image]] is misplaced in the article, the text explaining it being at a lower position than the image itself. Perhaps needs a rearrangement of text if the new location clashed with other images.
:#According to the text, [[:File:USS Enterprise-D studio model showing its true colors.jpg|this image]] is supposed to show the "real colors" of the model - but there are three images, each one displaying different colors. Something like "(upper left)" (at least I guess that's the correct one) needs to be added.
:#In the six-foot model subsection "Use", there's a big block of text formatted as background note. What's the reason for this, and shouldn't the text just be formatted like the rest? It's a real-world article, after all.
:#Just preceding that bgnote, there's a quote in which someone states that a ball of tape was "this big", apparently showing something with his hands - there should be a note about the actual size shown.
:-- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 17:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
:Section 4 (Two-foot model):
:#[[:File:USS Enterprise 2-foot model under test lighting.jpg|This image]] is described as showing "test-lighting" of the two-foot model - but it seems as if it actually is a comparison between two different models. Needs explanation.
:#[[:File:Enterprise-D docked in Starbase 74 composite of stock footage and matte-painting by Andrew Probert.jpg|This image]] is described as showing just the matte painting of the starbase interior - but it actually is a composite shot with the six-foot model already. Needs either a different image or a rewrite of the description - and in any case, should not be located in a section about the two-foot model if it shows the six-footer. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 18:12, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
:*In section 5 ("Filming the six and two-foot models", subsection "stock footage"), there's a reference to Robert Legato making Image G "shoot a rock" - out of nowhere and unexplained. Not sure if "the rock" is supposed to be the [[stellar core fragment]] that destroyed the Tsiolkovsky or something else - there should either be an explanation, or that bit be trimmed off. Thinking about the whole section, I believe that would be a good candidate for removal from ''this'' article (either to the articles of the different effect companies, or to a completely new one like [[Galaxy class effect shots]]). I'll stop at that point for the time being, and '''oppose''' based on the problems listed so far. More later (or during the holidays :)). -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 18:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
::::Some preliminary '''comments'''. First, I don't really like the lead-in to this article. I'd prefer a sentence that gives a better overview of the article as a whole. (More like [[Constitution class model]])
::::Second - I'm a bit confused by the bit about {{e|Cause and Effect}}. The text and the quote regarding what the effects people did don't seem to match up. Did they use firecrackers or timed charges to blow up the model? If it was both, this needs to be clarified.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 00:04, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
@Cleanse: Preliminary pass at rewording the intro, feel free to make further changes.
@Cid: I wouldn't consider this article to be so large as to make it unreadable, as I've read it in one go just a few days ago. As I've said already, I see splitting the article to be a solution that's worse than the "problem" since most of information at the suggested split points overlaps greatly. That said, we should get this up to snuff, I've asked Sennim for help with some of the issues involving info I don't have, and then see if the article needs splitting, with temp pages and all that jazz. Anyway, here's some responses to the section 1-3 stuff:
1) I've moved the image down, but it's placement was correct before I introduced the blockquote format, there may be a few other images that need to simply be moved around the quotes as they are now.
2) You're guess is as good as mine on that, since my screen sucks. I've added the suggested text for now though.
3) As for the use of the bginfo template, I've read that to mean the info inside is a bit of a tangent to the rest of the section, though it could be formatted differently I guess. I'd rather give a change for Sennim to respond to that first though.
4) I'll get to checking the DVD shortly unless someone beats me to it. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 03:21, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
:More stuff:
:#There's a custom gallery in subsection [[Galaxy class model#Build|#Build]] that should be turned into a proper one.
:#There are many "collage" type images, such as [[:File:Galaxy Class USS Venture 4-foot studio model upon return to Paramount Pictures.jpg|this one]]. Not all of them seem to be collages in their respective sources, and we have a guideline to not merge individual images where possible. So, all of these should be checked whether they can sensibly be split again.
:#Way down in the CGI-section, there's this statement: "''As Digital Muse had only the four-foot model at their disposal as reference, their model was endowed with the original color scheme of the Galaxy class, light blue-gray with duck-egg blue highlights, instead of the color-scheme applied to the six-foot model at ILM.''" - yet in the section about the 6-footer, it states that "''One [color] is a duck egg blue, and the other is kind of a sky blue''" and in the section about the 4-footer, it states that "''the base hull color was shifted to a lighter blue-, almost white-gray tone''". So, there may be a mix up in the description of what color scheme exactly the CGI model has (and if it is indeed the 4-footer's color scheme, it can't be the "original one" because the 4-footer came later).
:In regard to the split issue, I'm going to reply on [[User_talk:Sennim#Galaxy_class_model_FA_nomination]], too - for the moment, I still think that a split should at least be attempted on a temp page - but if this isn't done, the very least that ''must'' happen is a better structuring of the page, so that all individual info can be found ''without'' reading everything from top to bottom - "accessibility" is an important factor for our articles, after all. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
::First pass on fixing some of the objections raised:
::Cleanse's objections:
::*Expanded on Archduk's lead-in and moved some of the text to serve as an introductory note for the "design"-section.
::*"firecracker"-note, replace with more neutral "explosives" as firecrackers was not used in direct quote.
::Cid's objections:
::*"real colors"-note; adjusted caption
::*"bgnote"; This actually was something I've put a lot of thought into. It might have been added to for example the filming-section in proper "format", but it would have been somewhat "orphaned" IMO. I've chosen to put it were it is for the reasons of providing a counterpoint to all the efforts that went into the refurbishment of the 6-footer for the film plus I felt it was better at his place there as it was specifically pertaining to that film. I've chosen the format though, as it was, as Archduk so succinctly put it a bit off-tangent, a bit of a side-step of the flow of the section if you will...I still very much feel it is at its right place...On a sidenote, I see Cid's point in using a BG-template in a BG section within an in-universe POV article, but I can not see anything wrong using the template in a production POV article...
::*"this big"-note; added explanatory note
::*"Starbase 74 composite of stock footage and matte-painting"-note; Adjusted caption. I believe the text should remain where it is as it is describing the resolution of the whole disputed Enterprise-Starbase scene that started with the use of the 2-footer.
::Will return later when time allows--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 14:35, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks for addressing my comments Sennim. However, I agree that the bginfo template shouldn't be used in this article. There's no difference really between a real-world article and a "Background Information" section &ndash; they fall under the same "real-world" point of view.
::::If the information is truly off-tangent, then it should be placed elsewhere. If the information belongs there, then it should be formatted like normal text. You can always rephrase it to make it fit in better with the surrounding text.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 02:23, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
::Second pass on fixing some of the objections raised:
::*The bg-template issue as raised by both Cid and Cleanse; Concede, integrated text in main body as per suggestion of Cleanse.
::*Image G "shoot a rock"-note; Reworded the sentence as to be less of an "out of the blue" experience. Stand by my decision to have it stand where it is as Image G is referenced throughout the article, and a proper introduction is warranted, much as ILM is properly introduced. I even believe it is necessary as there are, as I've discovered during my research, many people out there, who still are under the impression that all E-D footage were filmed by ILM. I also oppose a split-off as this section is a specific "use" of the two models (in the article the mention of the 2-footer was specifically tied in conjuncture with the "rock"-quote).
::*CGI-section statement-note; correct assessment, adjusted wording...
::*"test-lighting" of the two-foot model; This is a nasty one, it is NOT a comparison between different models but bonafide representations of the 2-footer at different angles. Yet the representations in the article of [[Starlog (magazine)]] were spread over two pages, too large for my scanner to get in one pass, so I had to resort to some serious "cut-and-paste" (hence the crease down the middle) as well as to some photoshopping as the article texts run up to the outlines of the model in the photos. That being said, and by now being aware that this is apparently being frowned upon, I feel fully justified to have taken this course of action, and come up with representable imagery, as these are the ONLY close-up behind-the-scenes imagery of the 2-footer published anywhere...
::*Re-shuffled and re-worded some of the main sections to assuage Cid's concerns about "accessibility" of the article.
::[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 19:20, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
::::Sorry to continue to nitpick ;-) but another thing I'm confused about is this use of "rem:" in quotes. I know plenty of things {{w|rem}} could mean, but I've never seen it used in quotes like that, nor can I find anything online.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 03:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
::No worries :), replaced abbreviations with fuilly written term "remark"..--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 10:32, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
At this point I would ask that any remaining issues already mentioned be restated, excepting the page split for now, as I'm not sure if some things were missed or not. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 20:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
:In the order in which I've initially brought them up:
:#The misplaced image is still misplaced - additionally, we should make sure that there are no left-floating thumbnails combined with indented text (like quotes). Those don't mix well.
:#The one bgnote I brought up directly was removed - but there are still similar cases, which should probably be handled alike.
:#There's still no explanation for the weird look of the two-footer "test-lighting" images I think. Has been explained here, but probably needs to be explained in the context of the article.
:#Still not sure about placement of a six-footer image (matte painting/starbase interior image) in the two-footer section.
:#There's now a reference about "the rock" actually being the stellar core fragment - can this really be confirmed, or has this just been added to the article based on my speculation? Asking because [[:File:Stellar_core_fragment.jpg|this]] doesn't really look like a rock. If it can be confirmed, maybe add a direct quote instead of just explaining it?
:#The one collage I brought up was removed, but there are still several others - I think I counted 11 collage images on the page.
:#The CGI color reference issue hasn't been cleared up, I think.
:-- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:55, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Regarding number 1, that image is ''not'' misplaced, it is at the top of the paragraph where the information is presented. The difference in formatting for the quotes doesn't change that, though if you still feel it needs to be moved further down, you're welcome to figure out a way to make it look good. The same gos for left images with quotes. I think the styling is fine as is, since it doesn't reduce readability and make the article look more interesting; not to mention that stringing more than two or more images together on one side just looks "lazy". - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:35, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Removed the last bgnote formatting (#2), updated blurb. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:46, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
:Calm down - you specifically ''asked'' for those points to be repeated, so I don't see the need for that "why don't you do it yourself?" spiel being thrown back at me. Of course, I can work on some of the layout-only issues myself as long as that doesn't get me another round of "but it was ''supposed'' to be like it was before" in return - but please don't claim that an image placement that destroys deliberate indentation of a text block is "fine styling". -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 22:52, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't suppose to read as angry, I'm just not sure how else I'm suppose to say make the change you want since the change I already made apparently wasn't enough. I ''can't'' make the change since I'm not you, because I don't see a reason to misplace or move the next image down over this, and the image is where ''I'' think it should be. I'm also not a big fan of block quotes to begin with, since I find them to be overly distracting, so yes, my ''opinion'' is that the styling there was fine because the quote was still clearly indented. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 23:14, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
:OK, then. I moved all of the images clashing with indented text for me, and tried to make sure that they are ''not'' misplaced. All of them should appear as close to their in-text explanation as possible, and if a slight deviation is necessary, then ''after'' their in-text explanation, to make sure that a top-to-bottom reader will already know the context of all images he encounters. If the text really ''was'' properly indented even with a left-aligned image, then that must be a specialty of your browser - because it doesn't look like that for me in both Opera and IE. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 23:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox with a couple of extensions, for what it's worth. That said, I can't actually seem to find the collage guideline right now. I thought it was at [[MA:IMAGE]], but it doesn't seem to be. So based on what I think it was about, being able to use the images elsewhere, how many of the collage images do we seriously think will be used elsewhere? The closeup shots of the modification parts for "All Good Things..." seem pretty much "this page only" (most of the comparison shots do as well), and I think it would be more of a problem than a solution to have each of those as a separate image. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 23:40, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
:Can't find the guideline, either - but in any case, avoiding unnecessary collages is not ''just'' an issue of reusability. It's also an issue of accessibility. Take '''this collage''' as an example. The two images to the right are nothing special - random guys painting random parts of the well-known 1701-D. Perhaps there ''is'' something special about it, but how should we know? There's no explanation, and no ''specific'' context in the article, so we're left with "I guess these people are building the model". Actually, the article wouldn't be worse if those two images were removed completely - but we can't do that, because they are part of a collage at the moment. At the same time, the two images to the left ''are'' interesting - but somehow lost in the collage: "Hey, are those curved thingamajigs neon lights, or just structural parts of the model? And why is the saucer painted like a blue/white chessboard?" - there are whole sections about lighting the model, or making sure it doesn't just fall apart, or about what exactly an "Aztec pattern" is - yet these images aren't used there, because they are part of a "here are some images of a specific model"-collage. Also, there's not even an explanation for the individual images - and, to be honest, there's not enough space in the image description box to fully explain what's going on in four different pictures. Last but not least, ''if'' we're having image collages, we should at least make sure that the individual images are aligned properly. In the above collage, the "cross" that is spearating the images has at least three different line widths, which doesn't look too good. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 10:33, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Some of them should be broken up, just not all of them, because some collages do make sense from a usage and layout perspective. We might want to list and discuss images that should be split. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 11:09, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
::@ #5: [[:File:Stellar core fragment.jpg|this]] indeed does not look like a rock, but [[:File:SS Tsiolkovsky-core fragment.jpg|this]] one does...furthermore I think the first pic is misnamed, that one looks like a "stellar core" instead of a "stellar core fragment"
::@ #7: I think it has, Muse's CGI model has a color scheme based on that of the 4-footer and so it now reads--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 14:27, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
:Or we might want to do the opposite and give reason for each collage that is supposed to be kept - or at least work towards each other in some other way that doesn't look like it's making the opposing voice the only one that has to jump through more and more hoops just to be "allowed" to keep up the opposition. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:48, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
@Sennim: Is there a reason I shouldn't just break up a collage image as opposed to you uploading the "uncollaged" originals? Mainly, are any of these images reduced in size so they would fit in a collage?
@Cid: Since the phantom "no collages" guideline is just that, ''a phantom'', the burden of objecting to each collage you don't think we should have is on you. That said:
#I think [[:File:Galaxy class USS Enterprise future variant finished studio model and test shots of it.jpg|this image]] should be broken up, since each of those images is interesting enough to be shown separately, and stacking them on the page wouldn't be all that different than how it is right now. Some of these also seem to be same photo shoot as an image that was used for a laserdisc collection, so if there is any info about when and where those were taken, it could be added to [[Star Trek: The Next Generation - Log 14|that page]] also.
#The top and bottom images in [[:File:Galaxy class USS Enterprise future variant finished studio model and parts.jpg|this one]] could be removed for much of the same reasons, though the center images should still be a collage for the reasons I mentioned before.
#[[:File:USS Enterprise going to warp sequence by ILM.jpg|This image]] ''could'' be broken up, but I don't think we would actually get anything out of that, since the point is to show the effect. I also can't think of a reason to use just one of them elsewhere, and I don't think a horizontal arrangement would be a good idea.
I believe it's now your turn to "jump" Cid. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 23:27, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
::@Duke: No there is not, they are all pretty much as is...
::Pic 1: All from the same Japanese publication, as far as I can discern nowhere else published. My Japanese is not up to specs, so I wasn't able to translate the captions. But the pics must have been taken in 1994, before the model was reverted back.
::Pic 2: Also originating from the same publication.
::Pic 3: In agreement with Duke, see nothing wrong in using a collage to show a sequence--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 14:39, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
::I've now, albeit against my grain so to speak, undone some of the "collages", which so much offended certain parties. That being said, I do not see after doing so, how this has furthered the overall quality of MA. To further specify, why am I a proponent of collages in certain circumstances, to wit:
::*There is nothing wrong in using a collage to depict a on-screen sequence, in order to elaborate a point (MA apparently even has a template in place for these <nowiki>{{image collage|creator=xxx}}</nowiki>)
::*There is nothing wrong in using a collage to depict a production asset from multiple angles
::*There is nothing wrong in using a collage for bonafide comparisons of multiple production assets when those have been refurbished for bonafide reasons.
::Too strict adherence to, in this case apparently non-existing guide lines, might prove too stifling. As is with most cases, we might be better off to adhering to the spirit of certain laws, instead off to the letter of those...My two cents--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 00:01, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
'''File:Galaxy class 4-foot model build-up.jpg''' was the main example for breaking up collages, because the two images on the left can stand alone, and are rather interesting in their own right. I think the other two are fine together though, and the article can squeeze in the extra two images breaking this up would create. While I don't agree that this ''needs'' to be done for this article to be one of the best, I ''know'' it ''must'' be done to appease those that think otherwise. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:12, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
::Hey Duke, I've my ideas about this one, sure apparently they "need" to be broken up, according to some. In a way that is relatively easy, since all four images came from the same source, yet I did chose this format for a reason, for layout purposes...Cid stated he couldn't give a %%&&88 for the right-sided ones in the collage, which I would counteract in stating that those pics give at least a sense of scale to the readers. There are legions of readers of MA who are not versed in the Anglo-Saxon scalings. Having pics available of the build of the six-footer and four-footer at least give them a sense of scale. His too easily dismissal of the rest of the world, concerns me...But I digress, I'm too well aware that I've to come up with a solution for this one, to satisfy MA purists..--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 00:38, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
::I've broken up the image, again, against my better judgment, however it should satisfy the ones who had problems with it...I still stand by my decision to have all parts of the original included..--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 02:01, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
:To stop Archduk from bringing this up again and again in every conversation we have, here's another response:
:First of all, I have to say that I left this discussion dangling because of this "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" card being played. This is not Harry Potter pt.8, so please lose that attitude. Attack the points being made if you wish, but don't try to discredit the person who brought them up by calling him an "MA purist", "the one who had problems", the one who "couldn't give a shit", the one who "dismisses the non-Anglo-Saxon rest of the world" (which is especially laughable because I actually are a part of that group) - or by asserting that my points are somehow invalid just because there's not a five-page policy about it, because that simply isn't the case.
:Now, back to collages. I see the template has now been tweaked to work for this case, but still, its intended usage was for something completely different. Just look at how the template has been used during the first years of its existance. However, if a specific collage exists, it should not be for the sole reason of the images not being used elsewhere, anyway - it should be because merging separate images somehow is really sensible. For example, this might be the case for the Future Enterprise add-ons. There could be an image of the complete model in the middle, with images of individual parts arranged around the border of the image, each one pointing to the place where it is located in the final model. ''That'' might have some additional value to readers. In other cases, there simply is no (or, before being called a purist again, not much) additional value of the collage, for example if four tiny images of a model are shown aside. There could be an image gallery on the image description page of each just as easily, so that we could have one decent-sized image in the article instead.
:That said, another sentence about "me failing this FA" - this is not the case. There are unresolved issues, from the collages we've been talking about now, over other small things (including perhaps, if non-Anglo-Saxons are important now, the new issue of metric scalings all across the article), to big issues like the overall article length which, even if we accept it in specific cases, I still believe we shouldn't advertise as "this is how a great encyclopedic article should be" - and between all this, I don't see a single explicit support vote in this discussion even five weeks after it has been started on December 22. I know it's nice to have a scapegoat - but I'm not going to be the one in this case. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 10:45, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
I still find you to be the perfect scapegoat Cid, since you deliberately refused to respond to edits made to address your complaints, and they are complaints since there isn't a policy covering collages or length. The decent thing to do would have been to acknowledge those efforts, or, an even more radical idea, drop the attitude and make some edits yourself instead of pulling crap like claiming that expecting you to actually contribute to the discussion beyond complaining is making you "jump though some hoops". The fact that your arm had to be twisted to even get to return to the table on this one, even though I was mentioning ''both'' discussions, is proof enough that you were deliberately allowing these to fail out of the system, and I'm not going to by for a second this trite your peddling that you were so offended that we weren't using a proper noun for you, or some other garbage, that you couldn't bring yourself to return. You're a big boy Cid, and making personal attacks is something you're not above doing, so don't try and play the "victim card" here. If your not willing to contribute to resolve the outstanding issues ''you'' have with this article, then just don't contribute to the discussion in the first place. Try owning up to your actions, or, more often than not, your lack of actions. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:46, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
===[[Inspection pod]]===
[[File:Inspection pod.jpg|thumb|Forward view]]
An '''[[inspection pod]]''' was a type of shuttlepod used by Starfleet in the 22nd century.
Several inspection pods were used at Earth's orbiting spacedocks in the 2150s.
The ''NX''-class starship ''Enterprise'' NX-01 was equipped with at least one inspection pod stored in a cargo bay during the first couple of years the ship was in service.
'''Self-nomination'''; I've exhausted ways I can think of to improve this article. The only issues I'm unsure about (and they're both relatively minor ones) are the naming of the page (see the article's talk page) and whether the history section should encompass a description for each of the times when inspection pods are shown in the distance of [[Earth spacedocks|Earth spacedock]] scenes. Other than possibly doing that, I really can't think of any more ways to upgrade the article. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 17:30, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. This article seems to be about each pod seen instead of the "class". Individual pods should be covered on an [[Unnamed inspection pods]] page, assuming the name change suggested on the talk page is done, or on pages like ''[[Orbital 6]]''. There is also no section with links to these pages either, and there should be cause it's nice if you don't want to scan the entire text to find the links. Sections describing the interior, exterior, and specs (if any) should be included as well. Pretty much the entire in universe part needs to be redone to be consistent with other articles of this type. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 13:11, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
:I haven't read the article yet, but the same problem Archduk3 identified in the article is also apparent in the blurb. Its last paragraph seems to be about the specific pd "Orbital 6", not about the vehicle class. Independent of that, it also doesn't seem to be the most important/general information about the topic. The blurb should be somewhat of a "teaser" for the article, so information of somewhat "lesser importance" should probably not be in the blurb but only in the article. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:57, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. They're very informative and therefore much appreciated. :) I still have uncertainty about whether the name should be "orbital inspection pod" or just "inspection pod". The function of the vehicle class isn't always orbital and it's called simply an "inspection pod" in {{e|Shockwave}}, though the script of "Broken Bow" commonly uses the name "''orbital'' inspection pod" to refer to ''[[Orbital 6]]'', and this term doesn't necessarily contradict the on-screen one. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 17:51, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware that the article ''could'' benefit from descriptive text about the exterior and interior, but that would be delving into the area of speculation (for example, there are apparently [[seatbelt]]s inside the pods, though how do we know if they ''are'' actually seatbelts or just look like that?!) I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "specs," as there are no established specifications; really, the only functions we know these pods have are the ability to communicate and the capability of short-range (at the least) spaceflight. And I can't really think of much that could be added via text, about the exterior and/or interior, that can't already be seen by looking at the images already on the page. It might just be my lack of experience with this type of article, but I am willing (and trying) to learn. The comments so far have been great and insightful, but some more suggestions/clarification would also be much appreciated. Thanks for the input so far. :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 18:27, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
::If you think they just look like seatbelts, you simply say "seatbelt like straps" or something similar. It's not speculation per se to assume that it is a seatbelt because it looks like that; unless we have a reason to think otherwise a chair with straps is a chair with straps, not a [[Wheelchair|personal convenience]] with [[Life support belt|force fields]]. As for the images rendering the text moot, imagine the article without images and then compared it to [[Type 6 shuttlecraft]], [[Galileo type shuttlecraft]], [[Military shuttle]], [[Type 7 shuttlecraft]], [[Danube class]], etc. Images support the text, not eliminate the need for it. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:21, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
All those vessels have far more facilities than the relatively spartan inspection pods, but I'll have a try at adding some more interior and exterior info to the inspection pod article. So, thanks for the references. Some input on the naming issue would be much appreciated. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 01:41, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
:::"Inspection pod" should be used, if that was the only on-screen name. A check of the transcripts suggests that it was also used in {{e|Dead Stop}} (TUCKER: They've isolated every hull breach, every damaged system. I'll be damned. We scratched the hull right here, a year ago. I bumped it with the inspection pod, remember?)
:::&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 02:32, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
::I've renamed the page, moved the individual pod info to [[unnamed inspection pods]], summarized that info on the page, and updated the blurb to reflect these changes. I've added a PNA for the tech info for now though, since it still is incomplete. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:47, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Really, this page has been under development over a period of years. If there was such a drastic formatting "error" with the article, I honestly think it should likely have been mentioned by now. I don't personally think it ''is'' an error; just a difference in opinion in how much leeway should be allowed with the different styles of formatting. But I see there's developed a very rigid way of thinking about that, recently. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
::And all that's constructive how? If you want to wash your hands of another article instead of following though, go ahead, just make it clear you are doing that. Also, do ''you'' check all {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles on a regular basis, cause I simply don't have time. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 05:40, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not the minor changes to all articles, but if another page required such a radical makeover while otherwise being fine or even exemplary, I think it would usually stick out like a sure thumb! I agree that thinking in such rigid terms as to so severely limit the stylistic formatting options ''isn't'' constructive, and there's nothing to suggest I want to "wash [my] hands" of this article. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:21, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I agree with the way information has been split between this article and [[Orbital 6]]/[[Unnamed inspection pods]] by Archduk3. However, what's left doesn't seem to be "FA material". At the ''very least'' the PNA needs to be resolved and, unless much more information gets added by doing so, some of the section headers need to be removed so that there aren't three of them for slightly more than one paragraph of text. Also, at least one, if not two, of the images currently in the sidebar should be moved to standard thumbnails, so that the sidebar isn't longer than the whole in-universe section of the article. Depending on how that section looks after those changes, I'm willing to rethink my vote - but for the moment, '''oppose'''. --[[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:12, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
:As an aside: While I prefer short blurbs, I believe that this one is ''too short'' for one - and it is the whole in-universe part of the article already. So, there needs to be some more "meat". -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that the fact the pna wasn't placed sooner than after FA nomination has a lot to do with this (something I'm admittedly as much to blame for as anyone is!). I agree with the statement "what's left doesn't seem to be 'FA material'." Given the circumstances regarding the pna, I think that's understandable. I'm still interested in this article being as good as it can be, which is why I'm not prepared to just "wash [my] hands" of it, though I now don't think achieving FA status is a realistic expectation. I'm honestly kicking myself for not realizing the formatting problem, but kudos to others (such as Cid and Archduk) for not only doing so but also attempting to sort out the problem. I hope this post helps clarify my position (for others) a bit more. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:34, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
::The in universe history section could be slightly larger, it just shouldn't be finger to nose detail for every pod seen. Stating what they did at the spacedocks could provide another sentence or two. As for if there's enough article for FA status, I would say there is, since the article doesn't stop when the appendices sections start. We do have things to say about this, just not a whole lot of it is canon right now. The blurb can be updated after the article is further fleshed out, though we could always decided to "feature" the real world info over the in universe info in the blurb. Just a thought. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 20:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Well, some information could still be added about the number of windows and the writing on the side(s) of the vessel. Also, maybe the info from "Shockwave" could be added to the historical section. IIRC, that wasn't just in the normal canon universe but also in an alternate timeline. Plus, it's about some inspection pods collectively, not just a specific unnamed one. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 22:57, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
*Revamped the wording of the tech info, but I don't remember enough of "Shockwave" to comment on that right now. I think the major problems I objected to have been addressed though, so I'm changing my vote to '''support'''. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:40, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:07, 29 January 2012

Memory Alpha  AboutPolicies and guidelinesFA policiesFA criteria → Featured article nominations

This page is for the nomination and discussion of articles that may be potentially included in Memory Alpha's list of featured articles. A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject. If you feel one of our articles meets this criteria, you may suggest it here in accordance with the nomination policy. For a list of articles previously nominated, see the archive.

To bring up a current featured article for review, please see the review procedure.

To nominate an article, start a new discussion under "Nominations without objections" with a heading named for the article you want to suggest. Provide an appropriate picture and a two- to three-paragraph summary of the article. This is usually the article's lead-in if possible, and should not contain any links, except to the article itself. This is what will be displayed on the main page and in the portals if the nomination is successful. Followed that by a brief reason why you feel the article should be featured.

Sample format:

=== <article> ===
'''[[<article>]]''' <summary>
<reasoning> - <signature>

Once this is done, a notice that the article has been nominated as a featured article candidate should be added to the article in question by inserting {{fan}} at the top of the page, above any other templates except the article type template.

When you are commenting on a nomination, please take the time to read the entire article before you decide whether to Support or Oppose the nomination. Nominations with objections should be moved to the appropriate section until they are resolved.

When supporting or opposing an article, please use a bullet point (by adding a * before your comment) without any indent so these will be easy to find later. General comments should be indented as usual, and, as always, please sign your nominations and comments with "~~~~".

Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

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