(→‎[[Cardassian]]: rmv - no new votes after 12 days)
(→‎[[Thomas Riker]]: rmv - less than 5 votes, still under peer-review and should be re-nominated)
Line 5: Line 5:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===[[Thomas Riker]] ===
'''Self-nomination.''' I've spent a great deal of work on this article, and it was listed as peer-reviewed for 2 weeks without any feedback. I think this would make for an excellent Featured Article, and I welcome feedback and/or thoughts. -[[User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa]] 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Well done, to all who were involved with this article. :) --[[User:Shran|From Andoria with Love]] 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Haven't read the text itself yet, but what I immediately noticed was the bad image quality. All three images ([[:Image:Thomas Riker (2369).jpg]], [[:Image:Thomas Riker.jpg]], [[:Image:Thomas Riker 2371.jpg]]) currently on the page show serious artifacts from either the bad VHS tape this was taken from, or from JPEG compression. If ''those'' exact images are to be kept, I would at least like to see them re-uploaded in better quality. Additionally, I could see one of the two similar "2369" images be removed from the sidebar and another one, perhaps showing Thomas with either Will, Deanna, or both, be added where appropriate. Regarding the sidebar in general, a possible "Featured article" might be a good start to think about what's ''really'' important to have on a character sidebar. Is "Created as duplicate" or "Affiliation:Maquis" really something we need to have on the sidebar (instead of in the text)? I'll leave another note once I read the article text itself. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''': Noted regarding the graphics. I'll see if I can acquire better screenshots. I'm going to copy your comment and add it to the [[Talk:Thomas Riker/peerreview]] page. Any willing to assist in improving the article are advised to take the discussion there. -[[User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa]] 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''': I now read the whole text and left another note one the peer review page. If those two points are addressed, I'd support this nomination. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''': New versions of images have been uploaded, as has a new image of Tom and Deanna. I welcome futher comments/support. I have decided to leave both 2369 images in the sidebar, as other FA have set this precedent ([[Jean-Luc Picard]], etc) -[[User:Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa|Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa]] 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''', very thorough. -- [[User:Jaz|Jaz]] <sup> [[User Talk:Jaz|<span style="color:#9900FF;">talk</span></sup>]][[Image:United Federation of Planets logo.png|27px]] 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
=== [[Leslie]] ===
=== [[Leslie]] ===

Revision as of 00:19, 16 January 2007


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections


This biography of the franchise's leading extra is suprisingly exhaustive and entertaining. It rivals the articles on James T. Kirk and Spock, which may not be inappropriate since the character appeared in the second TOS pilot, and remained throughout the series run. He has even been through death and life, just as his more illustrious crewmates have done. (I had nothing to do with this article, but it is interesting to note that the bulk of the work has been done by unnamed archivists identified only by IP numbers.)

  • Support. --GNDN 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Kyle C. Haight 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There sure is a lot of good info here, and I want to see this as a FA, but as is, I suggest a peer review. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged, as well as some other copyediting. Good suggestion GNDN, let's work on improving this article. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm new to this nomination business, but I do support -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa's suggestion regarding peer review. If we go this route, should the nomination be tabled (or de-listed)? In the alternative, could peer review be conducted concurrently? --GNDN 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as is. I love how he has relationships with other background characters. Cracks me up. Jaf 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf
  • Support Very interesting article, lots of information. - Enzo Aquarius 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support The length, breadth, and depth of this article are the definition of Memory Alpha at its best. It's so good, it makes other articles look bad by comparison. -- StAkAr Karnak 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm amazed and impressed with such a thorough, serious approach to an extra. --Sasoriza 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.