(→‎Jonathan Archer: + support)
(→‎Patricia Tallman: successful!)
Line 2: Line 2:
==Nominations without objections==
==Nominations without objections==
===[[Patricia Tallman]]===
Like I said on the "peer review" page I want to nominate this article for a featured article. I've worked on it and changed it from a stub like article to one which covers Pat Tallman and her ''Star Trek'' connections completely. The peer review was left without comments so here is the nomination. – [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support, with minor concerns''' - Well-written and constructed (I contributed some minor details to the article). My only concern is that her actual work on ''Star Trek'' is only a single paragraph in the prose. This perhaps could be expanded, but is not an obstacle for my support - the article is strong as-is. -- [[User:DarkHorizon|Michael Warren]] | [[User talk:DarkHorizon|''Talk'']] 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I would agree with Michael, although this would not stop me from supporting its application for FA. [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support, also with minor concerns''' - Michael, I know exactly where you're coming from. Her career in other roles other than Trek take up a lot of space, and IMHO it's not all too necessary - although every other actor/stunt on MA has a background career on their pages as well. But for checking all the connections would definitely have taken a while, I know what it's like sifting through hundreds of pages looking for the right information. [[User:Dvp7|Dave]] 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Come on, guys! We only need two more votes to secure an FA! [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - This is another one that I would not have known that she played so many characters. Great job! ----[[User:Mainphramephreak|<span style="color:#3300CC;"> '''Willie'''</span>]]<sup>[[User Talk:Mainphramephreak|<span style="color:#FF7000;"> '''LLAP'''</span>]]</sup> 00:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Not very often you see such an informative and well written article for an actress who has played many non-primary characters. Definitely worthy of FA status. [[User:Melak|<span style="color:#25595B;">'''Melak'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Melak|<span style="color:#6C5C0D;">talk</span>]]</sup> 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
===[[Jonathan Archer]]===
===[[Jonathan Archer]]===

Revision as of 10:06, 2 July 2008


Nominations without objections

Jonathan Archer

Having just read this article, I think that it is very detailed, there are plenty of pictures to break up the text, everything looks really good. As one of the "main captains", it has to be detailed, and this has been done very well. Dave 01:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I was just reading this article and thought the same thing. Very well written article. TrekFan 01:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Just want to know what still needs to be cited in the article- once that it resolved, I support this being a FA.--31dot 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with those before me that this is a well written article and worthy of FA status – Melak 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Anyone else want to vote? Dave 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I like this article and also the bunch of information in it. For the few "incite" pna's: Should be expanded. And maybe a gallery of his love interests would look good (?). But I think it should be a featured one. – Tom 09:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Jean-Luc Picard

The Jean-Luc Picard article is very detailed, including lots of references, images and a timeline of events, as well as relevant quotes and detailed background information. I would like to nominate it for FA status. TrekFan 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: My main objection to this being a featured article is the quote which has come and gone several times from the top of the article; in fact, that single quote has sparked at least three edit wars. This is not the marking of a featured article if agreement cannot even come to what quote we should have up there. Not to mention there is frequent editing on this article and it is not all that stable with reverts, pasting, and removed-readded material appearing and disappearing quite frequently. I do like the article, but alas I must object for now. -FC 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a fantastic article, very well detailed. As for the quote, a suggestion I would make is perhaps Admiral J.P. Hanson's line from TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II", which went: "I've never known anyone with more drive, determination or more courage than Jean-Luc Picard." Dave 07:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - A fitting quote. I have added it to the page. TrekFan 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I too like the article. I think it is extremely detailed and has virtually everything we know about Picard in it. I do have a few concerns, some minor:
    1. One is the section in appendices "References in Other Trek Series". The whole section is in-universe, so it needs an in-universe title.
    2. I don't like the idea of the "Miscellaneous Information" section. This can surely be incorporated elsewhere into the article.
    3. I can't help but feel the relationships section, while nicely detailed for each person, is rather selective. Shouldn't Troi and Wesley get a short section each?
    4. His actions in the Klingon arc are noted in the intro paragraph, but I feel they should have their own section. Career-wise, they're certainly as significant as his encounters with the Borg and Q.– Cleanse 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have changed the title (point #1) to "References by other people". I will look at incorporating point #2 into the article itself. - TrekFan 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: While I do believe some of the points made here are valid, I also believe that this article is well written, and more then qualifies for FA as is. Melak talk 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.