Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Phase cannon

A self-nomination of sorts, although many others have contributed to its improvement. This article has everything that is required – a complete write-up of how and when the cannons are used, the right amount of images, and a hearty (though recently trimmed) background section. Also, the text flows smoothly from one point to the next, IMO, so it should keep a reader's interest in the article throughout. This is pretty much "my baby", "my pride & joy" – I worked on it for a few months, reviewing episodes of all four seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise and keeping close tabs of every bit of info about the cannons. And I think it turned out pretty darn good. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very well done! An excellent read, very detailed, very informative. Ottens 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well researched, great examples, good background info on the installation ('appearance') of random cannons. And it's long without being annoyingly wordy, which is what I prefer in things like major characters or major components. I'm also looking into some things for the background section, which I'll add if I can find, but very nice. - AJ Halliwell 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Alhough detailed and to the point, I feel that the majority of this article is about the phase cannons of the Enterprise and not the phase cannons themselves. Just my observation. -- Q 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Umm... since the only phase cannons primarily shown were those of the Enterprise, what else would we use to show examples of what the cannons were used for and how they are used? After all, phase cannons are phase cannons. ;) (For the record, only two ships were shown to use phase cannons – the Enterprise and the Columbia. Other starships had phase cannon-like beams, but since those weren't specifically referred to as phase cannons, we can't assume that they are, especially since, as the background points out, the shuttlepods used similar beams but those were specifically referred to as plasma cannons.) --From Andoria with Love 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I knew you were gone to say that :) Yes, the Enterprise and Columbia were the only two known starships with phase cannons and it is unknown if there were any other ships fitted with this weapon. The accent of the article is about the Enterprise, for the History part that's oke, but the more generic part could be about the NX-class ship. As the Columbia was also fitted with phase cannons. Such as ' The cannons were mounted on retractable turrets which extended from... ' might be ' On NX-class starships the cannons were mounted on retractable turrets which extended from... '. The same goes for the positioning of the phase cannons themselves and some other information which is now linked to the Enterprise but also could linked to the NX-class starships. Although unknown if other Starfleet ships had those weapons, I don't think it's a problem to suggest there were more ships but unknown to us. Keep in mind that this is only nitpicking from my side, so please ignore if appropriate ;-) -- Q 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me, especially since we have two ships of the same class that both have the same weapon. We have decided on the stats of the whole Prometheus class based on the appearance of a single ship. We should do the same with phase canons and NX, since we have two ships (more if you count the mirror universe ships) of the class with the same info. It should be OK to say that the rest of the class is the same. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I see... well, feel free to edit the article to the way you described if I don't get to it. This is a collaborative effort, after all. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Then again, you must also consider the possibility (and likelihood) that the Enterprise and Columbia may have had their cannons configured differently, especially since Columbia was launched over three years after Enterprise, so tread carefully. --From Andoria with Love 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Still waiting for those modifications you had planned, Q. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • gee, whats you hurry. It's far to nice weather to sit behind a computer ;-) I did made some changes, hopefully they fit, if not, well.. -- Q 10:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --Bp 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Hells yeah! --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice read, and seems to be very complete. Good work :) -- Cid Highwind 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good! -- Renegade54 11:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Starfleet Operations

Well, Bfgreen added the "Featured Article Candidate" template (and therefore is responsible for the nomination, not me) to the article, but didn't put it here. Being the nice guy that I am, I've done it for him. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, as we don't really know what Starfleet Operations even is. I'll put up the first sentence of the article here:

Starfleet Operations (also known as Fleet Operations or Fleet Ops) is a division of Starfleet based at Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco, presumably the branch that oversees the day-to-day running of the fleet.

Presumadly. In other words, we are speculating. I also doubt the completeness of the current contents of the article. I am guessing that these names of people are from the dedication plaques. For one thing, shouldn't that fact be noted somewhere? For another, we have seen more dedication plaques than this, so where are the other names?

This article seems far from completion, and doesn't have a real definition of what it even is. This is not what I would consider among MA's best. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's more of a list than an article, and lists do not make suitable candidates. As it is, it's nowhere close to being "one of the best examples of the Memory Alpha community's work". --From Andoria with Love 06:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)