(archived Klingon history and Ishka, added note to those who've opposed Hippocrates Noah)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations without objections==
<!--When moving nominations to this section, add to top.-->
<!--When moving nominations to this section, add to top.-->
I saw Vedek Dukat mention this article as having more potential than Noah, and I'm not sure what constitutes a featured article, so I added some stuff to it to see what people think. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 04:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 22:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I forgot to check this page for a while, or I'd have voted sooner. I wonder why this hasn't gotten as much attention as Noah though, since it obviously meets the criteria. --[[User:Vedek Dukat|Vedek Dukat]] <small> ([[User talk:Vedek Dukat|Talk]]) </small> 17:26, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for now, at least until it's been through the [[Memory Alpha:Peer review|peer review]] process. I just did some edits, but I think it could have sub-sections in Relationships, and needs a few more pictures. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 01:32, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
:*How would I know what (if any) articles are currently or recently have undergone peer review? You're probably right about the section headings, but I didn't know if it was necessary for Ishka. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 02:33, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
::A list of articles currently in the process can be found at Category:Memory Alpha peer review (you can find it by navigating to the peer review page linked above). Broken Bow is another one that recently went through the process. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 14:54, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
::*It might have helped if I'd read through the page before asking the question - sorry, I was tired. :-) [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 15:40, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
===[[Broken Bow]]===
*A short and concise summary (especially for a two-parter) with an extremely detailed Background Information section, packed with information about this episode. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] | [[User talk:Defiant|''Talk'']] 02:11, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**'''Strong Support'''. An wonderful job, Defiant, as always. I'm glad I could help out with the background info for this. Do we make a great team, or what? :) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 22:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Because its the first episode, I think some information about the initial hostility/distrust between Vulcan and Humans should be present. Also the temperal war should be slighty made more clear because it is used in the episodes following this one. -- [[User:Q|Q]] 20:29, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Perfect summary lenghth and much better background info than the last time this came around. I'd still like to see a note on UESPA and possibly the uniforms though. And one other question, are we sure Archer's "knocking you on your ass" comment was directed at T'Pol? I thought it was a different Vulcan. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 13:44, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 22:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I hope I was not presumptive in addressing the cosmetic issues that might otherwise
dissuade me from supporting the nomination.--[[User:Fenian|Fenian]] 04:15, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
Line 53: Line 36:
***Hmm I thought it looked out of porportion because it was kind of stretched compared to the other pictures but I guess I kind of see what you mean now that I look at it more closely.--[[User:Starchild|Starchild]] 02:53, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
***Hmm I thought it looked out of porportion because it was kind of stretched compared to the other pictures but I guess I kind of see what you mean now that I look at it more closely.--[[User:Starchild|Starchild]] 02:53, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I highly suggest those who voted against this make an effort, as per policy, to re-evaluate this article under the above listed outline, which has otherwise been completely ignored. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 08:34, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
===[[Klingon history]]===
*After this was moved from [[Klingon Empire]] the original article will be de-featured because of the shrinking, but this one is still FA-worthy. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 23:05, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - The Future section needs episode citation. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] | [[User talk:Defiant|''Talk'']] 11:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. I'd like to see some apocrypha because the Klingons have been featured in books, but otherwise it looks good. I cited the future part. [[User:Coke|Coke]] 21:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[Klingon Empire]] was apparently featured on account of this section. Now that it has its own article, Klingon Empire looks like it will be de-listed, and I think this more than stands its ground as a separate, featured article. [[User:Weyoun|Weyoun]] 03:54, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. In its former life it was incorporated into an article and now that it is no longer in that article, the page, as a stand alone, looks like it was just plopped into where it is at from another page, which is exactly what it was. The "introduction" to the article is ''non-existant'', and the first sentence regarding the [[Zanxthkolt Dynasty]] seems almost completely random for an intro to "early history". The "future" is just two listed facts and not really a competant future-- much less the fact that alternate timeline futures (from "[[The Visitor]]", "[[Endgame]]" and "[[All Good Things...]]" are absent. It also could be merged with the history section on the [[Klingon]] page as well. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 09:34, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**"The Visitor" and AGT have been addressed by me and others, I don't know what kind of introduction you want, you can't summarize a history article in three sentences. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 20:55, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*** What little was added regarding "The Visitor" and "AGT", that being one vague sentence really doesn't adequately "address" the future. Much less the fact those two sentences were the only changes made to the article despite other numerous observations of needed change. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 22:51, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
****Do it better. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 11:41, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. However, I would like to see the intro fleshed out a tad. Maybe just a ''very'' brief summary of Klingon events or something like that, before going on to the main material? --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 22:53, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. I think it should be fine, and summarizing the article is easy enough; for each section, give the "gist" of what happened. A single sentence is certainly not enough. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 22:37, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
***"For each section" - Why? No other article here has something like this. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 11:41, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:34, 7 November 2005


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

Hippocrates Noah

Self-nomination. I figure we need something here, and more importantly a non-episode. He's a solid article and I think he'd do nicely as an FA. --Schrei 07:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. --Mike Nobody 08:31, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Content-wise this is a complete article that covers the topic without getting boring or turning into an episode summary for the sake of length, it meets all the critera. But I'm biased against single-episode characters like this, so I don't think I can support it (I agree that Brooks should be a Bond villain though). Vedek Dukat 18:30, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. To me this one falls in the mirky area between clearly non-FA worthy characters like Grathon Tolar/Ethan Novakovich and ones like R'Mor. There's a little more back linking with this character, so thats a point in its favor, but even though its "complete" there's no real information here outside of action summary. Logan 5 19:00, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. While I agree with Logan and was the one who nominated Grathon Tolar for removal, it seems to have retained its featured status. I'm not sure about this article, as I don't think I'm experienced enough with MA and the like to judge it, but I do think that it should be possible to have a well-written and comprehensive aritlce without automatically featuring it. Makon 19:41, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd rather see something like Ishka featured than this, if you're looking for something to spruce up. Vedek Dukat 02:57, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I feel this falls well within the criteria of being well written and comprehensive of the subject matter to qualify as a Featured Article. I really liked this character, and I'm glad to see him 'done up' really well. — THOR =/\= 15:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Aren't the featured articles supposed to be the creme de la creme? I don't think complete, comprehensive, and well written should be the standard for just featured articles but all of Memory Alpha. Minor ones like this that meet those criteria, I would mark it on my checklist and move on, not feature it. Weyoun 02:01, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. It is an extremely well-written article. However, it has the same problem that caused Ethan Novakovich to have its FA status removed -- namely, there just isn't enough information to the character for us to cover, having appeared in only one episode. However, unlike Novakovich, this has a quotes and background section to supplement the main text, and I believe it covers the character a bit more. I'm just not sure if that can be enough for it to earn FA status. (Of course, I may change my mind later, so stay tuned. :P) --From Andoria with Love 23:00, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • What's the difference then between these and Grathon? I'm not voicing an opinion; I'm genuinely confused about the whole featured thing right now. Weyoun 23:33, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Different time, different people voting, different point of view. Personaly, I support this, it's my opinion that an article that is any more than a couple of paragraphs should be up for being featured once it is complete. Jaf 23:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • That's definitely not the way to go, because by your logic I could make almost anything into a featured article. Wikipedia's ratio is 1 in 1000 for FAs, so ours shouldn't be 1 in 5. But this isn't the place to discuss policy. :-) Sorry. Weyoun 23:44, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Clearly located at the top of this page one finds: "A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject" (and accurate). As Thor noted, this article, by far, fits into that criteria. As noted dozens of times before, LENGTH has nothing to do with the limitations of what can and can not be featured. Rather than being biased when reviewing this article and saying to yourself (or posting here) "well this is a short article" or "this character only appeared once", what one should ask themselves when reviewing are all points covered in how to write the perfect article. Using this article as an example the following questions can be asked:

  1. "Is the article's subject clearly defined?" In the case of this article, that would be essentially asking, "does the article clearly define who Hippocrates Noah is?" The answer would be "yes," this information is directly addressed in the articles introductory paragraph, and expanded upon throughout the rest of the article, both in terms of who the character was, with and without the incorporation of Sisko into the characters matrix.
  2. "Does this article use 'simple and unambiguous language'?" Again, that can be interpreted in this article in terms of how Noah was 'brought to life' by Sisko, which is explained in detail, in the second paragraph.
  3. "Length." Although, as I stated above, length has nothing to do with the availability or ability of an article to become "featured" -- what is suggested in this bullet point is mostly in reference to completeness. "Long articles are considered better because they can cover the given topic much more thoroughly." However, "this may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject." So keeping that in mind, when reviewing this article, you may with to ask, "does this article thoroughly cover all available aspects of the subject?" Although I can not personally vouch for the "thorough" part of that, as I have not viewed the episode in some time to notice if it is complete, what I can say is that considering it contains revealing quotes and a sturdy background section to support the content of the article, it is far more complete than in might be if it ended with "Hippocrates Noah was played by Avery Brooks, who also appeared in his normal role as Commander Sisko."
  4. "Is this article well-documented?" Seeing that he only appeared in one episode and was never mentioned again, that would be a simple "yes", as the page is cited and clearly documented.
  5. "Is this article well-written?" Since this is one of the 3 basic criteria for normal voting process, all of those who voted to 'support' this article must feel it is. I personally feel that a couple paragraphs could be broken up and expanded, this observation, which ties in somewhat with my comment on "thoroughness" are my only qualms with the article.
  6. "Is this article well structured?" Yes, the character is clearly defined in the introduction and is followed with a logical progression of Sisko's transformation into the character and his accomplishments as the character. I cannot say the same about the below article Klingon history, because it is not clearly introduced, and it has a rocky start and conclusion that essentially consist of random, rather than structured, points.
  7. "Does the article contain contributions from many members?" Minor or not, I count 10 individuals contributing to this article. Not that an article with contributions from one or two individuals should be sidelined from being featured, having more contributors does show that others have thoroughly read the article and were able to make changes to it, cosmetic or otherwise.
  8. "Does it inform and entertain the reader?" I believe it does, it's certainly concise, and with the addition of numerous quotes, there is a certain "entertainment" value to it. It also has more than a mere "headshot" of the character, a second image is fit into the page to illustrate the context of the article. On a side not, I am not sure about the choice of the second image in this article-- I think one of Noah holding a gun to Bashirs head might better illustrate who Noah really was.

So for those of you who are not understand how to approach and address the voting process when reviewing articles considered for featured article status, the above highlighted questions should be the number one priority is addressing the aforementioned, outlined criteria of well-written, informative, and comprehensive. --Alan del Beccio 00:14, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I don't think size should restrict a Featured Article, as long as it's well-written, informative, and entertaining. This isn't being proposed as an Article of the Week. I'd agree that the subject matter is too minor for that. I think Featured Articles should cover the full range of articles, long and short, and on major and minor topics. It should be a Best of Breed type of thing. --9er
  • Support. As stated above, I'm not very familiar with this stuff. I can't not support this, given the criteria and sheer quality. Good job. Also, I added a pic of Noah with the guns, but it somehow looks out of proportion alongside his other pic. Weyoun 02:07, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree, size shouldn't be a factor, and this definetly is well written and informative. To Weyoun: I resized the pic you added to 200px, instead of 250. I think that was why it looked out of porportion.--Starchild 02:38, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually meant because mine is a full shot of him and the upper half of his body, whereas the first is a head shot. I did the resizing later; I think 200px makes it look even enough though. Weyoun 02:42, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm I thought it looked out of porportion because it was kind of stretched compared to the other pictures but I guess I kind of see what you mean now that I look at it more closely.--Starchild 02:53, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I highly suggest those who voted against this make an effort, as per policy, to re-evaluate this article under the above listed outline, which has otherwise been completely ignored. --Alan del Beccio 08:34, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

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