m (rm 1, failed)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===A.G. Robinson===
[[File:AG Robinson.jpg|thumb|A.G. Robinson in 2143]]
Commander [[A.G. Robinson]] was a 22nd century Starfleet officer who was a pilot in the NX Project. In this capacity, he – along with Commanders Gardner, Duvall, and Jonathan Archer – all competed for the chance to become the first Human to break the warp 2 barrier during a historic spaceflight in 2143.
Robinson was a close friend of fellow pilot Jonathan Archer, their fierce competition to become the first to test the NX-Alpha (one of two vessels designed to break the warp 2 barrier) notwithstanding. Although Archer had worked exceptionally hard to attain the privilege of piloting the historic test flight, Commodore Maxwell Forrest gave the assignment to Robinson, with Archer as his backup.
Robinson later celebrated in the 602 Club, where he met Archer. There, he expressed his belief that the reason Archer had not been chosen for the assignment was that his friend had "tried too hard" to be the first one to make the flight. Robinson believed he had been chosen was because "Starfleet doesn't just want a great pilot. They want a great captain."
I've been working on this article off and on over the last couple of weeks. I think it might make a good FA but would appreciate feedback and help. Thanks. :) --[[User:LauraCC|LauraCC]] ([[User talk:LauraCC|talk]]) 15:43, April 7, 2018 (UTC)
:I think it's a good article, but I suggest you ensure your tenses are correct. I've corrected some of them, but I'm not entirely sure if they're all fixed now. Also, do we ''really'' need both [[:File:Robinson and Archer drinking together in 2150.jpg]] and [[:File:602 interior.jpg]]? They seem very similar. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 16:16, April 7, 2018 (UTC)
::'''Oppose'''. I agree with Defiant in respect of the image (though I see that one has now been removed). I also think that the additional sub-headings are just unnecessary given that each of these sections are never more than a few sentences long; this just makes the article look confusing. Three sections named "NX Project", "Death" and "Legacy" I think would be better. This issue is repeated in the background section (where the sub-heading formatting is also wrong). If I remember the episode correctly, there were also some good lines of dialogue from Robinson which could be included in a "Memorable quotes" section. Finally, the article did read a little repetitive to me when it discusses the NX Project by repeating how the ship he piloted was "''one of two vessels desiged to reach warp 2''", "''passed warp 2''", "''reached warp 2.2''", "''first human to achieve warp 2''", "''safely reached a speed of warp 2.5''" though given the subject matter I appreciate it may be difficult on that front. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 21:16, April 7, 2018 (UTC)
I addressed the issues with the sections and started a quote section. I also think perhaps a separate section that focuses more on his friendship and rivalry with Archer (the NX section of the article giving more straight facts about his actual flights) might be a good idea. --[[User:LauraCC|LauraCC]] ([[User talk:LauraCC|talk]]) 16:08, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
::I really do appreciate the work that has been put into this article (credit to LauraCC for her enthusiasm not just in this article but across the wiki) however I feel that these discussions can sometimes turn into a form of peer review discussing changes to the article when it should really be to answer the question of whether the article - as nominated - should be an FA. In this case, I think the answer to that question is "''no''". That's not to say it shouldn't be re-nominated once work has been done to it though. I just think this isn't the place to discuss changing it until it reaches that standard. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 17:27, April 11, 2018 (UTC)
:::You're interpretation of what this process is is [[Memory Alpha Talk: Featured article policies/archive#Split from FA nomination|completely wrong]], and I wonder what happened between [[Memory Alpha Talk: Peer review#Need?|2011 and now to change your mind]]. This is very much the place to discuss changes that would bring this up to FA status, and the nomination process is designed exactly for that. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig}} 06:01, April 12, 2018 (UTC)
:I had a feeling you would bring that up and to be honest, yes, maybe I have had a chance of mind since then. But seven years is a long time and I have been through a lot of difficult and trying life experiences which have changed my outlook and views on certain issues which in turn would naturally cause me to look on isses here differently. That aside, I'm just voicing my opinion on the matter. If I'm overuled by the majority then I fully accept that and will make no issue of it. Everything I post here is out of genuine concern to keep this wiki to a high standard. It's the only wiki - the only website - that I contribute to and invest a considerable amount of my spare time into and that is because I think it is a well organised community that I want to be a part of. I respect your view but I also have my own view which I am expressing because we're all individuals with different thoughts and feelings. Anyhoo, I think I may have steered the discussion slightly off-topic so apologies for that! --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 17:09, April 12, 2018 (UTC)
:::We actually are still on topic for this review, at least, since you raised an objection, and apparently some effort has gone into fixing that. I haven't yet had time to read the page myself, or have an opinion on the merits of the issues raised or how they were dealt with, if at all, but if there is no way to get you to remove your objection or support this because of your ''personal'' view of the nomination process, then we have a problem. As both an admin and the guy who last rewrote the policy, your view isn't the current policy, and this nomination has to be resolved using that policy as is. You can, of course, start a discussion on your issue with the policy on its talk page you want to, but we can't change the rules here mid-game. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig}} 05:27, April 13, 2018 (UTC)
:I'm still waiting for any sensible reply to one of my points, as I stated, "''Do we ''really'' need both [[:File:Robinson and Archer drinking together in 2150.jpg]] and [[:File:602 interior.jpg]]? They seem very similar.''" Both images are still on MA. Are they from different scenes (somewhat accounting for why they're both on this website) or are they even from the same scene (in which case, we should probably use the Ruby pic on this article)? Also, my opinion is that Trekfan's comments regarding the section headings have done nothing but damage the article. It now seems very lopsided, when there really should be consistency between the lengths of the sections. Therefore, at the very least, the "NX Project" section should likely be split into further subsections. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] ([[User talk:Defiant|talk]]) 06:46, April 13, 2018 (UTC)
Defiant - I uploaded the image a) without knowing of the other one and b) because it shows the two of them drinking together, socializing as friends (when they've stopped fighting), plus of the two images I was considering adding, this one showed Robinson's face better. The other one I considered was {{trekcore|s=ent|gallery/albums/2x24/firstflight_680.jpg|this one}} and there's always {{trekcore|s=ent|gallery/albums/2x24/firstflight_679.jpg|this one}} I suppose. The one I chose shows more camaraderie between Archer and Robinson than the one with Ruby - Archer seems more focused on her than him.
In addition, I re-added the section headings, albeit different ones. --[[User:LauraCC|LauraCC]] ([[User talk:LauraCC|talk]]) 14:50, April 13, 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it could use an image of his first test and the fisticuffs...--[[User:LauraCC|LauraCC]] ([[User talk:LauraCC|talk]]) 17:56, April 19, 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:25, 28 May 2018

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.