m (Cardassian page is now a featured article, removed it from the list)
Line 4: Line 4:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
This article has been worked on considerably since its last nomination. The last time it was nominated it failed, solely because it was lacking a couple votes, (NOT because there were objections to the nomination). I have submitted the article for peer review, and have received no advice on how to improve it. Therefore, I feel the improvements already made to this article after its previous nomination should be more than enough for it to receive the sufficient votes for a featured article. '''Support''' - [[User:Thot Prad|Thot Prad]] 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
*<strike>'''Oppose''', for now. I don't see the peer review link up anymore otherwise I'd post there. I have some issues with the article that should be resolved first before I can support. It's mostly complete but the Philosophy section has a lot of content that would seem to fit better under Society and Culture, or perhaps Philosophy should be a sub-section of that? I see very little there that is revealing about Philosophy which I would consider to include Religion, the meaning of life and so on (see the Ferengi or Vulcan pages). Certainly bits about architecture and the paragraph following belong in Society. Also, I think there are some things missing here that can be gleaned from other episodes such as hostility between men and women often being a prelude to mating (Destiny). And given the importance of the military and intelligence services it definitely needs a section or sub-section for each even if it's brief and links off to the main articles a la the Klingon page. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)</strike>
:*By the way, the link to the peer review is [[Talk:Cardassian/peerreview|here]].--[[User:Tim Thomason|Tim Thomason]] 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
*Shouldn't this be resolved by now? ~[[User:Anya Prynn|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">Anya Prynn</span>]] | [[User talk:Anya Prynn|''Talk'']] 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:There, I have taken the time to add a considerable amount of information regarding the military, intelligence agency, education, religion, etc. and have formatted the page layout to be a bit better. I believe it will be to your satisfaction Logan. ''*UPDATE*'' Should you not change your "object" to "support" now that I have made the corrections and additions? I don't know why you haven't already... - [[User:Thot Prad|Thot Prad]] 19:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::*Hey, I've been busy! Given the changes I'm comfortable withdrawing my objection and putting in a '''mild support'''. The support is mild bc I still feel like there has to be additional info out there in other episodes, esp. Voyager given Seska's pregnancy (pointing to compatibility with other species), Mocet's experiments (in combo with treatment of Bajorans its further illustration of their racist tendencies). But it's much improved. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
*Well, I don't know if this is still open for discussion (shouldn't this have been resolved weeks ago?) but with the new additions, I heartily '''support''' this article's nomination. ~[[User:Anya Prynn|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">Anya Prynn</span>]] | [[User talk:Anya Prynn|''Talk'']] 01:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:As it stands, the article meets the criteria of a featured article. Rest assured, I will likely go through the Voyager episodes with Seska to obtain additional information which I will eventually add to the page. I am also going to be re-watching (more or less) all of Deep Space Nine, so any additional information I come across I will add. I appreciate your input and support Logan 5. - [[User:Thot Prad|Thot Prad]] 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Mild Support''' from me as well (because it may be lacking, but it is very well-written). For featured status, it needs one (five total) more support vote. After that we wait seven days for any objections. If there are no objections, it will (should) be featured then.--[[User:Tim Thomason|Tim Thomason]] 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
*This article has been expanded a lot since I was last here, Thot Prad really did a lot of good work on it. '''Support'''. ~[[User:Starchild|Starchild]] ~ [[User Talk:Starchild|Talk]] 5 July 2007
::I have added a '''large''' amount of information to this page, including the ability to breed with other species in the physiology section, as well as a bulk of information in the society and culture and philosophy sections which I think is quite important. I hope these additions will be sufficient to boost those "mild supports" to "supports". Not that it makes much of a difference in the votes, but I'd like my fellow Memory Alpha members to be pleased with the page and see my commitment to this site. Let me know if there is anything else you think should be added, though I think I've squeezed out almost all the important information on this species. - [[User:Thot Prad|Thot Prad]] 07:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:''It's been over a week since the last needed support vote, why has this not become a featured article yet?'' - [[User:Thot Prad|Thot Prad]] 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', at least temporarily. I just took the time to read through and copyedit the article, and made quite a few changes to the page (albeit relatively minor ones). In my mind, I shouldn't have been able to find nearly the number of fixes that I did in an article that's ready for featured status. Someone else should at least take a second copyedit pass on it first. -- [[User:Renegade54|Renegade54]] 01:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:*I understand where you're coming from Renegade54. I just reviewed the edits you made (the vast majority were formatting of links and templates and some grammar changes/minor rewording) and I appreciate you taking the time to do this for the whole page. I have just gone over the entire page myself (again), while also looking at the edits you made, and I have been unable to find anything requiring significant changes like what you just did. The page is broken up nicely into sections and sub sections, spelling and grammar has been checked numerously, links and references are all present, and now there are no multiple links to the same page (I just took the time to go through the links and make sure there weren't any unnecessary links to a page which has already been linked too). Any other changes made will be because of one's preference, not because they're necessary. Even Featured Articles get edited from time to time. Considering that the necessary time has already elapsed since the required votes for it to reach featured status, and I just copy-edited the page a second time, I think you that you should be ready to change your opposing vote. If you have any other concerns or comments, let me know. I've put a lot of time and effort into this page, and I'd hate to see all the support votes go to waste. I believe everything you’ve mentioned has been resolved at this point. - [[User:Thot Prad|Thot Prad]] 05:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
*That's fine, I just wanted one more set of eyes scanning the page to see if I missed anything. If not, then my objections have been met and I '''support''' the nomination. -- [[User:Renegade54|Renegade54]] 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
===[[Death Wish]]===
===[[Death Wish]]===
A very well, written artice, with comprehensive episode summary, lots of pictures, background information, and quotes. '''Support'''. ~[[User:Anya Prynn|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">Anya Prynn</span>]] | [[User talk:Anya Prynn|''Talk'']] 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
A very well, written artice, with comprehensive episode summary, lots of pictures, background information, and quotes. '''Support'''. ~[[User:Anya Prynn|<span style="color:#C0C0C0;">Anya Prynn</span>]] | [[User talk:Anya Prynn|''Talk'']] 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:54, 16 July 2007


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

Death Wish

A very well, written artice, with comprehensive episode summary, lots of pictures, background information, and quotes. Support. ~Anya Prynn | Talk 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mild oppose. Summary is fine, but I believe that there should be more Background Information, particularly in the areas of story development, casting, and perhaps visual effects. Ottens 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree on with the previous editer. But if that is fixed, it has my full support.--Örlogskapten 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

I wrote the bulk of this article ("Analysis" and "Background Information") a while back and then revised the "Summary". Since it has been revised slightly and many of the images have been replaced with graphics of superior quality. I don't think it's lacking in any regard, and overall it makes for an excellent article that covers the film more extensively than any other source. Ottens 14:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Way. Too. Long. This is not an article, it is a book. It could (should?) be broken into small articles.--Connor Cabal 18:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think doing that is a good idea... --Alan 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Connor Cabal: You're objecting an article because it's "too long"? James T. Kirk might be "too long", or maybe Worf (both featured). Regardless, being a featured article isn't about length. Is the page too wordy? Are there bits in there that could be cut? While length could be included as one reason to oppose a page's nomination, it shouldn't be the sole reason. Featured articles are essentially those of good quality. Is the page a good read or does it drag on? If so, can you suggest any ways to fix it? Anyways, yeah, I agree with Alan, breaking up the page probably isn't a good idea... --From Andoria with Love 06:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing an article's nomination for featured article because it is too long? Now I never heard that one before. But if I may, perhaps you should take the time to read the article, and then point out which parts you think should be omitted or are relevant enough to earn their own article. We don't make separate articles for "Background information", which is after all the lengthiest section of this article, nor for "Analysis" of the themes of a film--or episode for that matter. Concluding, there is no content on this page that should be transferred to a separate page. Should you be unable to raise any further objections to this article's nomination for featured article, I would want to suggest your objection be ignored. Ottens 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ship in a Bottle

Self NominationI rewrote the summary for this article a couple of months ago, replacing a rather short one with the one now there. Several people have added onto it, and fixed my typo errors. I think that it has enough to become a Featured article. -Nmajmani 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

Oppose. 1.) The Summary is sufficient in length and scope, but the writing is somewhat awkward, it reads literally as a summary of every single thing said or done in the episode. I'd rather see that it read more fluently. 2.) Only two memorable quotes? It wasn't a very memorable episode, I admit that, but surely there were a few more lines worth remembering? 3.) The article lacks almost any Background Information. There should be far more about how the episode came to be. I'm particularly thinking about development of the story and script, creation of sets and costumes (19th century), etc. Allow me to suggest the Background Information section of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" article as good example. Ottens 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What would be the best source of background infromation. As for the summary, I'll clean it up a bit. And for quotes, I'll watch the episdoe today and add more. -Nmajmani 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
There are several behind-the-scenes works published for Voyager: a book by James Van Hise, "Trek, the Unauthorized Story behind Star Trek: Voyages" or something. I don't remember the exact title. The "Star Trek Voyager Companion" may also offer information. And allow me also to say that, not all articles have "feature" potential. There may simply not be enough material out there to make this article "featured" quality. For example, just hit the "Random page" button and you'll find plenty of pages that include all available information on the subject, yet due to the limited ammount of information available, they'll never achieve the quality that a featured article should have. Ottens 11:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I spent all of yesterday watching Background info, and could only ick up two or three background points particular to Ship in a Bottle. Do you think that perhaps I should just not try any harder, because there seems to be very little out there on this episode. I'll still be looking at the Star Trek Encyclopedia today, where the Okudas added some background stuff under some articles. -Nmajmani 12:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
Just as a tangential comment, this episode is often said to have been affected by negotiations with the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle related to the show's use of the Sherlock Holmes characters in "Elementary, Dear Data". If there's any authoritative source that describes that situation (without getting into the minutiae of copyright and trademarket law) then that's certainly one aspect of this episode that ought be addressed in its Background Information section. --TommyRaiko 13:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me the errors in my above comments, I confused this with the Voyager episodes nominated below. I meant to refer you to behind-the-scenes books for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Of help may be Trek, the Unauthorized Story behind Star Trek: The Next Generation by James Van Hise, Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Continuing Mission" by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, etc. Ottens 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the book references. Perhaps there is something in the Shelock Holmes website regarding this. I'll search around. -Nmajmani 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.