m (rm Ship in a Bottle, Star Trek: First Contact -- nominations unsuccessful :()
Line 8: Line 8:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===[[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 {{film|2}}'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. [[User:Deevolution|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.) [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 11:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::'''Support'''. This is one of the best articles I've read on M/A.--[[User:LtCmdr-Vulcan|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. --[[User:HopefulNebula|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.– [[User:Orr6000|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. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 11:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::'''Oppose'''. Now, this summary ''really'' is too long. I tried reading through it to catch possible misspellings etc., but had to give up after Act One. We had this discussion before, without any clear consensus, but I still think that lengthy "retellings" such as this are not what the majority of readers expects. At least, if we're having a retelling, we should ''also'' have a ''real'' summary (=a much shorter section that just mentions the major plot points), but preferably ''only'' the summary. I also wonder if some of the behind-the-scenes information might not better be moved to other articles (conception of the new Enterprise to [[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)]], Borg re-design to [[Borg]] etc.). -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
this is a response to both of the opposing votes: in my opinion detail (and therefore length) are not detractors from a quality page - they are hallmarks. of course there are likely things that could be pared down and i will certainly revise with an eye out of superfluous details, but the information included was done so in order to adequately summarize the film which is a fairly complex story. the quotes were chosen not because of their memorability but because they helped further the summary and added variation. this may just be a question of taste as some (like myself) seem to prefer a longer summary, while others would prefer a blurb. i wonder though, has MA specified what amounts to an adequate summary - are we looking for a quick read that may leave some details behind in favor of brevity, or are we looking for complete accuracy and detail? as for the background information, while i agree much of the information belongs in the other articles, i think it ''also'' belongs here again to completely summarize the process that brought the film to the screen. i am curious, which articles on MA do either of you feel contain sufficient summaries? an example would help the process. [[User:Deevolution|Deevolution]] 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::''Detail'' may generally be a good thing, but that surely doesn't mean that the simple formula ''more=better'' always holds true. There can be too much information, and I think this is the case here. Just looking at the beginning of this summary for an example, there are three and a half paragraphs plus two images describing Picard's initial nightmare about the Borg. Reading this probably takes longer than the scene on film itself, and the ''factual information'' (which is what I'd expect from a summary more than a lyrical renarration) could be reduced to one short paragraph describing that Picard awakens from a nightmare about his abduction by the Borg. Keeping in mind that we ''do'' have separate articles about each and every person and object seen in the movie, I think a summary would be better with less detail and much less pathos. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
===[[Ship in a Bottle]]===
'''Self Nomination'''I 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. -[[User:Nmajmani|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. [[User:Ottens|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. -[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
:::<strike>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.</strike> 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. [[User:Ottens|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. -[[User:Nmajmani|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 {{e|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. --[[User:TommyRaiko|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. [[User:Ottens|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. -[[User:Nmajmani|Nmajmani]] 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

Revision as of 06:24, 12 August 2007


Nominations without objections

Christopher Lloyd

We are currently in need of more featured performer articles, but that's not the only reason I'm nomination this. At the risk of "tooting my own horn", as it were (I contributed to the bulk of the article), I think this is a well-written, highly detailed profile of a great actor who had a memorable Star Trek role. As with many of the other performer pages, it includes a brief biography, detail on his more well-known film, stage and television work, and connections with other Star Trek performers, and it has images of the actor in and out of makeup. All the qualifications for featured status are there, and I think it would be a worthy addition. So... have at it! --From Andoria with Love 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support (evident from nomination) --From Andoria with Love 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I like how this one's formatted, and it describes the actor well. --Nmajmani 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

Nominations with objections

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