(→‎[[Far Beyond the Stars]]: failed nomination, archived)
Line 36: Line 36:
*'''Comment''' At least it's not an episode or a user page... [[User:1985|1985]] 09:45, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' At least it's not an episode or a user page... [[User:1985|1985]] 09:45, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It's not like we ''need'' any (more) Featured Articles. I don't think the subject of an article should be considered when nominated for FA-status, but rather the content of it. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 14:11, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It's not like we ''need'' any (more) Featured Articles. I don't think the subject of an article should be considered when nominated for FA-status, but rather the content of it. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 14:11, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
===[[Far Beyond the Stars]]===
*Well, I think someone added the nomination notice but forgot to add the nomination, so I'm doing it for them and '''supporting''' it. [[User:Vedek Dukat|Vedek Dukat]] 02:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Yes, that was me... Sorry about that, I did the same thing with a delete template that later turned out to be the wrong template and placed on an article that shouldn't be deleted. I can't get anything right tonight. :oP [[User:Ben Sisqo|Ben Sisqo]] 04:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The background info is missing key information on a lot of the characters and other relevant info. Namely, that Nana Visitor's character is a stand in for DC Fontana. There's also no mention of the classic science fiction writers that are mentioned in the episode. And the summary could use some copy-editing for links and style. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 05:14, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose'''. I agree that this needs a peer review and copyediting. However, this has a '''lot''' of potential as far as background information. Some stuff (like the KC Hunter part) is already on other pages and just needs to be consolidated, but like Logan said, other information probably needs to be added. This will also give me a chance to fix something that's always bugged me: All that annoying "This person was the only one to do this and that and the other person didn't appear in this episode" Jeopardy info needs to be in a trivia section. :P --[[User:Schrei|Schrei]] 06:05, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
* I no this doesn't qualify as a reason to oppose, and don't jump on me with the usual, it's not the quality of the episode, but the quality of the article junk. I know all that. But, I just want to say that this was the worst [[DS9]] epsisode made; by far. I know this isn't a valid reason, but this episode was so bad that I strongly oppose this as featured just becuase of the sheer junk it was about. [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 02:01, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:44, 5 October 2005


Nominations without objections

These Are the Voyages...

A shortened summary and extensive background information sections. --Defiant | Talk 18:52, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. As both a self-nomination and a re-nomination (which btw, is there a waiting period for re-nominations?) shouldn't this go through Peer Review first? Logan 5 20:12, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: The waiting period is ten days after the initial opposition. The article has gone through extensive Peer Review, which has helped to improve the article quite a bit. --Defiant | Talk 01:38, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, the waiting time is over, the article has been through the Peer Review process and is now ready to be supported or opposed. --Defiant | Talk 18:56, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've said it before, and I'll likely end up saying it many times in the future, Defiant does a great job writing and reworking articles. I'm still don't understand why the nitpick about the lack of MACOs or security officers was deleted, though. But, oh well. --From Andoria with Love 01:29, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's good to see people aren't fighting over article length any more, or nominating episodes every five minutes for that matter. I think Ben got the hint. :P Anyway, good job. --Schrei 02:10, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Collaborator

  • Support. Hopefully this isnt like the occupation article where someone was working on it but not ready. I was looking for an article to spruce up and maybe make featured, but this one's already there and with no red links in the entire article! Ben Sisqo 23:12, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Comment - neither red links nor the size of an article should matter to the nomination process. It's the quality of the writing that matters. That's why TATV should be featured and why Grathon Tolar is already featured - it doesn't matter that it's quite a small article. --Defiant | Talk 02:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I never said I nominated it because of its length. I nominated it because it's a good article... TATV is a good article just way too long. And the red links part may not be an official factor but it does look better without them. Ben Sisqo 03:44, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a pretty good article, with a well-balanced episode summary, well-chosen images and significant background information. To Ben Sisqo, though, I would like to say: if you come across an article that you think is up to Featured Article-status, then please do nominate it, but please don't go on the "look-out" for articles to nominate merely for the sport of it ;-) Ottens 10:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article was a victim of overzealous nominations (see nominations archive), much like I think the episode is often a victim of people overlooking DS9's second season, which had some great episodes. Anyway, after the last nomination, I made a conscious effort to include as much background info as possible, so I think it's on par this time. --Schrei 17:00, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose/Neutral If I can hedge my vote like that I'd like to. I don't want to be the only one standing in the way of rewarding the hard work here but the summary is overly-written, and some of the info in "Significance" is either total speculation, opinion, or just a stretch to be included. If I'm the only oppose I'll change this to neutral but right now this isn't the same quality as Trials and Tribble-ations, or what The Cage or Emissary could be. Logan 5 20:28, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so when you have an objection. Have you heard of the Milgram experiments? Put that phrase into a search engine and you will see why free speech is important. I have however removed the thematic explanation from Sisqo and whoever added the part about Opaka's seclusion being tied to Kendra Valley. Makon 20:50, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not that I don't want to oppose articles, but there's been so much debate on episode articles lately and my opposition is based on length of summary (subjective and no hard policy on it yet) and some nitpicks in the background. Consequently it's a weak oppose.... Logan 5 20:55, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I was going to say that I agree this might not be the best candidate by our emerging unofficial background criterion for episode articles... But if it's just about the length of the summary, well, at least you're willing to compromise? I don't know why nobody spoke up when people approved all those Defiant-class episode pages. --Schrei 23:45, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you can't, please choose. If you oppose you're "blocking" the nomination for the moment, if you don't you don't. What is it that you want? We cant be the ones to choose for you. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • If I can't hedge I'll go neutral, with the comments above. I'm not going to oppose it solely for being over-written (which it is IMO), and I don't think there are obvious non-inclusions the way there are for The Cage or FBTS which would definitely be justificatiton for opposing without reservations. Logan 5 18:54, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It drives me insane to think that some people can't follow the rules/guidelines and vote on these nominations based on the quality of the actual articles. Ignore the size of paragraphs or articles and just analyse the actual writing! --Defiant | Talk 01:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • To which I can only reply that some people need to realize that over-writing and excessive length does affect the quality of the writing, and hence my vote. I know you're big on writing every single action that's on the screen but to me that's not the hallmark of well-written. Logan 5 03:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • To which I say that for every person like you there is a person like Defiant, for every Ben Sisqo there is an Ottens, and for every pair of opposing view points there is someone like me caught in the middle and someone like that one person who said during Crossover's nomination that he made a stink about the number of episodes and yet never opposed them based on his prefrences. There is no way to please everyone at once, which is why this article (which you feel is over written) and Tribblations (which Ottens felt was under written) are both eligible. --Makon 05:44, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Huh? I was just trying to point out that I was following the guidelines by voting against an article I don't consider well written. Defiant implied I wasn't doing that because I have different standards for well written. Logan 5 16:08, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that was Makon's point. You consider it well written for being to the point and compact, Defiant considers it well written for being thorough, and there are plenty who agree with both of you. I think Ottens' reservations about Trials and Tribble-ations and yours about this article are a perfect example of why length is not part of the criteria for FA status. --Schrei 21:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections


Support. If Grathon Tolar can be featured, so can this dude. Vedek Dukat 21:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I hardly believe this article qualifies as an example of "Memory Alpha's community work". While the article may be "complete" in the sense that it includes all the information available on the subject, that doesn't necessarily mean it *must* be a featured article. Ottens 21:19, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment At least it's not an episode or a user page... 1985 09:45, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not like we need any (more) Featured Articles. I don't think the subject of an article should be considered when nominated for FA-status, but rather the content of it. Ottens 14:11, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.