(→‎United Federation of Planets: archiving; objections not met)
Line 17: Line 17:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===[[United Federation of Planets]]===
In keeping with the decision that was made two months ago, I have waited two months until re-submitting this nomination.
I now hereby re-nominate this article for Featured Article status. I believe it to be a good representation of MA's work in terms of clarity, structure, organization and content. What say ye all?
&ndash; [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...'']]<sup>[[User Talk:Eyes Only|<span style="color:#00FF00;"> ''listening...''</span>]]</sup> 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
* What the heck, '''Support''' ;-). But I think it would be even better if it had a sidebar along the lines of [[Romulan Star Empire]].&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] 07:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''OPPOSE''' I feel that [[United_Federation_of_Planets#Government|the section about the government]] is a bit too weak, in particular the part about the judicary. An expansion of this entire area would be very helpful and give it the *umph* that it needs to be a FA. For instance, what about the [[Seventh Guarantee]]? Or [[Aaron Satie]]? Or the justice process in [[Author, Author (episode)|Author, Author]]? How about the relationship between the President and [[Starfleet]] and what we saw in [[Homefront]]? Those are just a few examples of what I mean. I also think a large section could be added speaking about the development of the Federation in ''Star Trek'', in particular how it was referred to in the Original Series vs TNG vs Deep Space Nine as well as an appendix section comparing various facets of the Federation to real world governments. This article has promise, but right now I just think its there yet. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
** You make very good points, and indeed, the article does need a bit of tightening. Well, the Fed Constitution and the Seventh Guarantee are already in the article under Federation Constitution. I believe most of the stuff you mention should be covered at [[Federation law]] (and I'll add a section which summaries and links to that article). The relationship between the President and Starfleet should indeed be added, probably under a new heading "Military" (where we can also given an overview and link to [[Starfleet]]). As for background on the development of the Federation, we have the information on various episode pages (especially those DS9 background sections contributed by [[User:Bertaut|Bertaut]]). Condensing this information on the UFP page would indeed be a good idea.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
***I move that this be moved back to the peer review/article talk page and I'll work from there to improve this. We can resubmit when its a bit more advanced. Right now, I think it is lacking some key elements. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:07, 3 June 2008


Nominations without objections

Endgame (episode)

I would like to suggest that this article be put up for nomination as it has a detailed summary, lots of quotes and a relevant background information. There doesn't seem to be much more that can be added to it. TrekFan 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT (Provisionally): There are three red links in the co-star section. I think the main body of the article and the sub-sections should all link to existing articles (note that this does not include the references section at the very bottom which also has several red links). I support this so long as those three red links are turned towards existing articles, even just stubs. -FC 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT. It is refreshing to have a Featured Article nomination that isn't a self-nomination. I have been watching this article for over a year since I made a comment on the talk page and it has come a long way in that time. I have fixed the links as Fleet Captain suggested. Definitely deserving article! – Topher 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I wrote the summary. I'm very glad it meets with such approval. I thank those who have contributed further to it. – Watching... listening... 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • WHY ARE WE ALL SHOUTING! :-p. Support. Nice summary, nicely illustrated, nice quotes, detailed background info with citations. In regards to red links, I don't think that the existence of these in an article should be a bar to being FA. Unless it's a link that needs fixing (admittedly like one here) or is inappropriate, it reflects absolutely nothing on the quality of the article itself. On the contrary, if the article becomes an FA hopefully more people will see the red links and fill in the gaps.– Cleanse 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


I stumbled across this article and was highly impressed. Comprehensive and well-written. This article was previously nominated in 2005 - See here, where the problem was a lack of in-line citations. This has since been resolved and the article is very well-cited.– Cleanse 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

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