Line 4: Line 4:
<!--When moving nominations to this section, add to top.-->
<!--When moving nominations to this section, add to top.-->
===[[James T. Kirk]]===
I'm nominating the large article on James T. Kirk for feature status. It's extensive, well cited, and well illustrated. It's broken down in chronological order and consistent in form and format throughout. It's is definitely deserving of feature status. --[[User:Bfgreen|Bfgreen]] 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Oppose'''</strike>, if you look at the article history, it is in a state of flux at the moment (and that was before the nomination). In addition, I am not happy with the pictures, particularly the first one in the sidebar. All we can see is a silhouette of some person. It needs to be replaced with one of the great shots of Kirk from Star Trek VI, or something. The information on the movies is very lacking, particularly some of the relationships he had then, with very little on [[Carol Marcus]], and nothing on [[Martia]] (who only has one sentence on her, and it is under McCoy), and very little about the events of Star Trek V and VI. I am sure if I read in more detail, I can find more problems. This article is long, but it's not ready, and articles don't just get featured because they are long. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup> [[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span></sup>]] [[Image:Klingon Empire logo.png|18px]] 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:*Actually, the image in the sidebar of Kirk's silhouette was a nifty little addition, IMO. It was an image of his famous entrance in ''Star Trek II''. The image kinda gave it that "Here he comes... you know who this is!" quality... if that makes sense. But, yeah... whatever. :P (by the way, that new image of Kirk from STVI? Yeah... that's gotta go, lol! Do you have a better image of him from the film? If not, I might be able to find one...) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::*My opinion of the sidebar is that it should be an image of the character that actually shows the character. As for a better image than what I put up, that was done after spending about 5 minutes trying to find something from Star Trek VI. If you can find a better one, go ahead and upload over mine. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup> [[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span></sup>]] [[Image:Klingon Empire logo.png|18px]] 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Admittedly, I worked a lot on this article. I think it covers the all the major bases effectively, and I'm pleased to see it nominated. I do wish there was more to say about Carol Marcus' relationship with Kirk, but from canon sources, there just isn't a whole lot of hard data to use. Other subjects not covered in lenghty detail have links to their appropriate articles. --[[User:AureliusKirk|Aurelius Kirk]] 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Looks good. Seems to cover almost everything (although it could use expansion in some areas). Just because an article is still being worked on now and then doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a featured article, IMO. --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Well, the article ir pretty good. [[User:Revenge|Revenge]] 16:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Conditional Support''' - I did some sp. edits, but otherwise the article seems really good. I would like to see this picture thing figured out ''before'' we make it featured though. I know it's traditional to have the "last time we saw them" pic at the top, but why not just have a '60s promotional image of him at the top? It's the first thing people think of about Captain Kirk anyway. (Maybe the one with the PADD, but I'd like to see that replaced.) We do do it sometimes, ie: [[Uhura]].
:Also: if we can replace any images of "peoples heads" with images of them ''with'' Captain Kirk, that'd improve the article a bit. IE: Janice Rand and Rayna is a persons head, where as the Edith Keeler image is a great example of him actually being involved with said person. And the "2266 and 2267" years have just peoples heads, can't we involve Kirk in'm ala 2268? - [[User:AJHalliwell|AJ Halliwell]] 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The article is impressingly comprehensive. The objections are insubstantial and/or subjective. -[[User:Skon|Skon]] 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
**I'm sorry Skon, but you are not yet eligeable to vote here. Per [[Memory Alpha:Featured article nomination policy#Voting for nominations]], you need to have been both registered for at least two weeks (you've only been making edits for 4 days), and have made at least 20 significant contributions to Memory Alpha. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup> [[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span></sup>]] [[Image:Klingon Empire logo.png|18px]] 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
***Ok! Would be nice if there were an automated notification for that. That would save a lot of work.-[[User:Skon|Skon]] 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*I am changing to '''support''' in recognition of all that is here. I still think the areas I outlined above need work, but I am willing to see that done after FA status, as they are relatively minor. --[[User:OuroborosCobra|OuroborosCobra]] <sup> [[User Talk:OuroborosCobra|<span style="color:#00FF00;">talk</span></sup>]] [[Image:Klingon Empire logo.png|18px]] 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As Skon said above, the article is incredibly comprehensive. It is well-organized, well-referenced and has a plethora of links to complementary articles. I'd like to see the few red links ([[gang]], [[rehabilitation colony]] and [[Jon Povill]] resolved to a page or removed, but that's just a personal preference. -Dave -[[User:TheBluesMan|TheBluesMan]] 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
=== [[Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan]] ===
=== [[Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan]] ===

Revision as of 04:31, 8 September 2006


Nominations without objections

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Self-nomination (for the most part). Recently updated the Summary, added images, wrote the Analysis section that details the movie's themes and motives, and created an extensive background information section that features the complete development of the film. Ottens 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: The Background section is actually very good, but I'd go so far as to say the summary could be a little better, but I don't know if this complaint is anti-FA worthy. - AJ Halliwell 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

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