Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Geordi La Forge

I have no idea why this article isn't featured. I helped sort it out and add credits. I feel that it's very concise, yet detailed, and exceedingly well organized. Any changes that would need to be made would undoubtedly be minor. --Werideatdusk

Elite Force (comic)

Yes, another comic already. Was thinking about Peer Review, but seems like there's not much more to add. (but feel free to tell me I'm wrong) Indepth summary, while still being outweighed by background information and character descriptions. (The number of errors is particularly astonishing, as well as the Star Wars references.) I could see it as being one of those "complete, but not FA" articles, but I'd like to see what can happen. - AJ Halliwell 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. Really well done. -- Jaz ^talkFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I like this article and I'm inclined to support it. However I do wonder, given the huuuuuge number of possible comic articles, if we want to think about how high the bar should be set. This is by far one of the best of the current comics articles, but is it what we hope will be the best work of the community on comics articles in general? Logan 5 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I just made a number of typographical corrections, but I'm going to guess there are others I missed. Also, some sentences seem to be missing words. Like: "The intelligence behind the Forge tells them to get out now, that he forges stolen material to make new, with the purpose of conquest of the entire galaxy." New what? Or the odd grammar of "Telsia, Alex and Chell find the entity, that claims the Tarlus will rule the galaxy, and he is doing their bidding." I guessed at one sentence with missing words, but since I've never read the comic it is hard for me to know what to put in. So . . . if this article is to represent the best of the best, it should at least have proper grammar and sentence construction. The content is very good, and it appears quite complete. But until it gets a good editorial scrub by someone who knows the comic, I suggest that it is not ready for featured status. After that, I'd be all for it. Aholland 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

With the recent modifications by AJHalliwell and the other non-controversial edits that have taken place I Support the nomination. The article has what any synopsis article should have - comic or otherwise - for featured status: more than a blow-by-blow account, no matter how well written. Aholland 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. At moments like this I regret not to have a better understanding of the English language. (see the 'huge amount off' grammer corrects on articles I worked on) No offense, but to me the article reads very strange. Let me give you some examples. ...is fighting off the encroaching Borg drones with the help of his.... encroaching ? Is this correct when referring to someone instead of something ? Beissman, hitting Borg left and right and armed with two phasers, is... How does he do that ? Is he hitting Borg with his phasers of actually shooting them ? ...a bolt of energy knocks out several of the drones Afterward Foster tells them it was an I-MOD. Should there not be a referral as who fired the bolt ? Janeway begins to order that they start repairs until they can figure out where they are... Should 'that they' not be replaced by 'to' ? I find it a strange sentence. It looks like repairs are about to stop after Janeway finds out where they are. True ? Scans show another ship is approaching, but slowly. So Janeway has Seven meet her in the Brig to... Are the scans performed slowly ? To me this, Scans show another ship is slowly approaching., sounds better. It also looks that the only reason Seven and Janeway start the interrogation is because of the approaching vessel. Is is not because they have captured a Borg drone ? Is the article correct, aka grammer etc.., as it is or is it just me ? -- Q 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone whose French grammar is - I am certain - insondable, but who has an undergraduate degree in English, let me provide some opinions. "Encroaching" can be used with both persons and things. "Hitting" can refer to using hands or firing shots from a phaser. There could be a referral as to who fired the I-MOD, but I thought it implied from who called it an I-MOD - no problem and nothing wrong with being clear about it, though. "That they start" is acceptable, although "to" is acceptable as well. You are right about the implication that once they figure out who the aliens are that the repairs will stop, but I know that is not the intent of the sentence. The "but slowly" is okay as a reference to the ship rather than the scan, however your rephrasing of it is also okay. Broadly speaking, I believe the article is correct as to grammar - but as with most questions of language, it is nothing but an opinion. Hope that helps! Aholland 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Off course it helps :) I still find the article not that easy to read, some sentences needs re-reading before it is clear what is happening. In my opinion sentences should be straightforward and clear from start to finish. I also think some commas can be removed. I do wonder why in the captains log there are non-italicized words (maybe to let them stand out from the crowed ?) while as per MA MoS, quotations need to be italicized in its entirety. -- Q 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the words that are not italicized within the italics are, themselves, italicized in the actual comic book. The convention in English is that if you italicize a quote that, itself, has italics in it you reverse the emphasis such that the originally italicized words are now in a normal typeface. The MA convention applies to the spoken word (like from a movie), rather than a textual quote from a comic or book. Does that make sense or did I just confuse things further? Aholland 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense. I just was curious what it was about. -- Q 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your guess is accurate Aholland. In the comic it's in italics and bolded, so I figured I'd better show it's importance somehow on here. - AJ Halliwell 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Worf

For the character with the single most Trek appearances this article is incredibly detailed and covers every aspect I can think of. It's got extensive quotes and background info, touches on all major relationships and assignments. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated before. Logan 5 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. Despite being our longest article, it still is not complete. It needs more information on Worf's relationship with Ezri. -- Jaz ^talkFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Julian Bashir, Secret Agent

Several people, including Defiant, Vedek Dukat, Weyoun and Excelsior, have done a good job on the page. Informative and well written. -- Tough Little Ship 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support - Article is well written and covers the topic throughly--AndreMcKay 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I could go either way on this one but before I vote I think that it could use a few more pics, and some editing. The paragraph that mentions Miles playing Felix, emphasizing "- yet again", doesn't work because there is no previous mention of his playing Felix. The emphasis doesn't have a precedent. I also think the article could relate the info in a fashion that doesn't emphasize one episode reference after another. Logan 5 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Object. The article could be more comprehensive and better written. For example, the article doesn't even begin with placing the program into context in terms of when it was run. And like above, there is usage of "this time willingly" without a precedent section describing when it wasn't. A rewrite from a consistent point of view might help. And the title of the article itself is presumed by the article to be the title of the series of holonovels, but I do not believe that that has been established anywhere; I think it is simply a convenient way of describing them collectively. I also think that the title should be "Felix's Cold War Secret Agent Holonovels" or some such thing, though, to better describe it. So, a good editorial scrub and renaming would be good places to start fixing this one up. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this article could have alot more. The 'gadgets' don't seem to be mentioned at all, such as (this is the only one I remember, but I think there were more) the shoe+pen=gun. I remember a sketch of this from somewhere that would make a great image for the background section. Also, the lone picture on the page is a close up shot of Bashir's head! Not exactly describing the entire program. Mention of his apartment with all the guns (or something that spun from around a bar, i repeat: I haven't seen this episode in quite some time) is missing as well. It could go more indepth (without seeming like an episode summary) in the Our Man Bashir episode, and any more details on the similarities to the 007 movies would make good background as well. This page certainly doesn't seem complete, whether lone featured-article status. - AJ Halliwell 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

K't'inga class

Self nomination. Right amount of (relevant) pictures alongside a comprehensive and well balanced write up. --Alan del Beccio 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet decided, but a couple of questions: the article claims that "By 2375, the days of the battle cruiser were winding down, as these warships were described as being too slow and unwieldy compared to many of their more formidable counterparts." It cites DS9: "Once More Unto the Breach", yet the dialogue only says "The battle cruisers are too slow and unwieldy for this kind of mission." Meaning that for other missions they were just fine. So how does this support the broad statement? And why is Star Trek: Starship Spotter (not a permitted Memory Alpha resource) used for dimensions when the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual (a permitted resource) has the information? If clearly erroneous, I would think that the information would be entirely relegated to background since the Spotter can't really be a cite. Also, there is at least one consistent typo ("its'" instead of "its" in at least two instances) that needs correction, and it should be gone over again for any other such things. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a simple solutions to me. Seeing you already have all the answers then go ahead and brunt some of the weight yourself and have at it...this is a collaborative effort, afterall. --Alan del Beccio 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to make broad changes to a nominated article without at least finding out if my suggestions (other than the typos, of course) were way off base. My assumption was that it was nominated because it was thought to be accurate "as is". I'll be happy to give it an edit for the above and anything else I may see in the process - but it won't be this morning!  :) Aholland 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just made a variety of changes to the article. In addition to typos and the stuff from above, there was other information that was inaccurate or not organized in what I felt was the best way. But given that the article is in great flux, should we wait and see what else (if anything) happens on it before putting it up for nomination? I still haven't voted, but am leaning toward no because of the state it was in and the numerous changes that have been introduced (albeit by me) since its nomination. But take a look and see what I'm talking about. Aholland 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great. Very detailed. Jaz ^talkFile:United Federation of Planets logo.png 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Big time. Love this ship. Great article. Ooh-rah. --From Andoria with Love 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is in too much flux. I made a large change to it for a variety of reasons on June 3. Since then no fewer than a dozen changes have been made. Some were minor or formatting, but others added or deleted actual article information (e.g., whether or not they could be called "sleeper ships"). I agree that this is shaping up to be a great article, but it needs to settle down a bit before being featured, I believe. Aholland 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The only part of the article that is truely in "flux" is the sidebar info. For all I care the damned sidebar can be removed completely for the sake of this seemingly petty reason to oppose a nomination that otherwise completely ignores the body of the pages content, aside from some very minor grammarical errors, is in rather solid shape. Afterall, you can only please some of the people some of the time, those who will never be pleased shouldn't be the ones raining on everyone elses parade...--Alan del Beccio 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There have now been even more changes to the article that have little to do with the sidebar data. 23 in total over a week and a half. The question isn't whether a parade is rained on, but simply if the article is stable. That is one of the criteria for featured status. The article is not yet stable; when the size issue is resolved or moved to background and the other editorial changes settle down such that there aren't nearly daily modifications to the article, then I think it would be a good featured article. I do like it; I do think it well done; but let's wait until it stops changing so much. Aholland 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)