(→‎Nominations with objections: Removed Fed History article. Uncommented on for two weeks)
Line 3: Line 3:
==Nominations with objections==
==Nominations with objections==
===[[Federation history]]===
Having found this article more or less as a stub, I've majorly expanded it. After all, Federation history states one of the most centric topics of Star Trek in my eyes. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Very nicely laid out article that goes into depth about Federation history and covers, as far as I can see, all points relevant to the article. The images are relevant to the text and nicely chosen. I would also have to say that Federation history is one of the major aspects of Star Trek. -- [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': The "fan"-type comments in the background section need to be eliminated. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan]] 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
**Done. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': It'd be really nice to get at least ''some'' more feedback.--[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': I was reserving an oppose vote to see what kind of feedback came from other users but there hasn't been much comment on this article so far. With that, my main issue is that this article and the main [[Federation]] article seem to duplicate each other in some respects. For this to be a true "branch article", there should not be any one section which is largely repeated in both articles. I also think the article would tremendously benefit from a "key dates" section which breaks down the lenghty narrative into a single timetable at the end of each section or the article as a whole. Last but not least (and this is not something I would soley object about) there has been no peer review that I could find. I am also kind of in the camp of Alan with the recent tidle wave of FA nominations and feel that we've a bit loose with these. For an article to be an FA it should simply display such a lasting impression that one would want to return to Memory Alpha and read it again and again. This article does not convey that impression, at least for me. -[[User:FleetCaptain|FC]] 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
**I started a peer review a couple of weeks ago, albeit without getting any resonance. Furthermore, there are numerous articles on MA displaying the same info in parts. The main Federation article does have a history-section, too, giving kind of an extremely short summary. I think it is absolutely beneficial to have a very short summary of a branch article on a main article-page. After all, articles like [[Federation]] state some kind of a collection of summarized branch articles. Moreover, I'd like to know if there is a limitation of FA proposals over a certain period of time? I see no problem in proposing new FAs week after week as long peer reviews were conducted before. Nevertheless, I thank you for your idea of a key dates-section. I'll look into that. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
*** I've added a Summary of key dates to the article. --[[User:36ophiuchi|36ophiuchi]] 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. I also fear that (although I have not been here nearly as long as anyone else) that we are being a little more cavalier with featured articles than we should be. There is very little doubt to me that this is a well written article that has had a lot of time, research, and effort put into it. That said, I think FAs should be truly spectacular, and I just don't get that feeling from it. I share the concerns that FC had. As some of those seem to be in the process of being addressed, I will not outright oppose this article, but I don't support it either.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:20, 6 September 2008


Nominations without objections

Nominations with objections

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