m (and now it's a nomination with objection. Thanks, Defiant! ;))
m (→‎Nominations without objections: no objections, nomination successful)
Line 2: Line 2:
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations without objections==
===[[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. [[User:Ottens|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.--[[User:Connor Cabal|Connor Cabal]] 18:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't think doing that is a good idea... --[[User:Gvsualan|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... --[[User:Shran|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. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:Upon further consideration, '''I withdraw my objection'''. My concern is not a question of content, but of aesthetics. Looking over the [[Memory Alpha:Featured articles]] page, "particularly comprehensive" seems to apply.
:As for Ottens' suggestion to read the article and point things out, there is the MA:Fa "well-written" qualifier also. I'm figuratively bored to tears before I am halfway through and am not able to focus my attention long enough to read the whole thing. I suppose the feature that strikes me the most as loquacious is the plot 'summary', which is easy to mistake for a novelization. How many ''paragraphs'' are necessary to ''summarize'' the story? Little more than a beginning, middle, and end are sufficient, IMHO. I've never been a big fan of TWOK, but if I hadn't seen it already, this yawn-inducing 'summary' would have dampened my interest in watching it.
:If you guys feel that this article deserves to be put out there as the best of what Memory Alpha has to offer, go right ahead. The issue here is the aesthetic POV of the majority. The answer to Shran's question "Is the page a good read or does it drag on?" depends on how much detail is necessary to cover the topic and the point where it becomes overkill. YMMV (someone once said that "good is a POV"). I don't want to rain on anybody's parade or downplay the hard work of anyone who has contributed to this article. My objection was my knee-jerk reaction and I reasoned that other vistiors could conceivably feel likewise. I haven't the interest in TWOK to invest in this conversation further. Regards.--[[User:Connor Cabal|Connor Cabal]] 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the Summary; it was my intention to shorten that section as much as possible. Many of the episode pages that are Featured, have much longer summaries, and then we're talking about ''episodes'', which are ''half'' the length of a film. (I randomly picked "[[Good Shepherd]]" as an example, and indeed dare I say that the summary of this particular episode is over ''twice'' the length of the TWOK summary) I agree that a summary should not attempt to cover every single event that occured in a film (or episode for that matter), and I believe that the Summary for this film is just the right size. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==

Revision as of 11:27, 27 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: First Contact

This is a self-nomination, I rewrote nearly the entire article with a new summary and a load of new images to go with it. The bullet point trivia sections have been mostly removed in favor of paragraph sections on the production and behind-the-scenes aspects of the film. Unfortunately I wasn't able to use all of the trivia so there is a small notes section, based on the format of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan's page. It didn't get any comments in Peer Review and several people have copy edited the thing, but I'm sure it could use a little more. Deevolution 07:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. An excellent article, though the Summary is a bit too long for my tastes. But the Background information is quite extensive, featuring--as far as I can tell--every aspect of the film's production. Well done! (I know that I pioneered this on the "Star Trek II" article, but maybe an "Analysis" section of the film's themes and motives could make an interesting addition for the future.) Ottens 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is one of the best articles I've read on M/A.--Örlogskapten 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. What all the people up there thataway said. I've fixed up one typo and will look over copy-editing the rest over the next few days. Even if objections crop up, it can't hurt. --CoffeeinthatNebula 03:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. Self-praise is no recommendation, but the thing is good. Nice, flowing, detailed camp-fire style, as how I write summaries.– Orr6000 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The summary reads too much like a novel, with unneeded description and quotes that are ramped up to the max! Ideally, the valuable quotes should be moved to the "Memorable Quotes" section. --Defiant 11:18, 27 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.