Nominations without objections

Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination.


Self-nomination. A detailed article about one of my favorite DS9 characters. (Or does he count as five characters? :-D) -- Dan Carlson 22:33, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Yesterday's Enterprise

Nominated mainly for its great summary of a great episode. -- Dan Carlson 22:33, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Galaxy class

Self-nomination. Ottens 20:44, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Deep Space 9

Self-nomination. A detailed article about the history of DS9, plus a description of its structure. It could probably use some minor additions for incidental facts and the like, but it's complete enough to deserve Featured Article status! -- Dan Carlson 20:00, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. Ottens 20:15, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. -- Redge 20:25, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Genesis Planet

A lengthy description that accurately covers the events surrounding this complex planet. -- Dan Carlson 17:56, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. Ottens 17:59, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • I don´t know. When I read the article, I got the disinct feeling that it was more or less a transcript of the movie, focussing on the Genesis planet. It isn´t so much as I´d sort that information for an encyclopdia. Take for instance the mention of the Genesis effect using protomatter and not being stable. It´s mentioned between two less important paragraphs. Maybe it just needs to be resorted a little. -- Redge 20:04, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Xindi superweapon

A comprehensive description of the Xindi planet-killer and its two prototypes, plus the events leading up to its destruction. (I've done some work on this article.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. I did a lot of work on this before I registered under my guise of --Steve 17:35, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. Ottens 10:02, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. -- Redge 20:04, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)


A good description of the Romulan species, it's history and culture. Ottens 13:19, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Nominations with objections

Doomsday machine

Self-nomination. A fairly long and detailed article about one of the best TOS episodes there was. -- Dan Carlson 17:01, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • I disagree. This is a good article, but IMO misplaced. Read Talk:Doomsday machine. -- K 17:16, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Seconded. Ottens 18:59, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D)

Self-nomination. Ottens 20:43, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Suggested by Ottens (You forgot to add your name). -- Redge
  • Opposed. Still needs a lot of work. Surely there is more to be told of a ship that featured in a series for years... e.g.: what do you mean by ´red line´? -- Redge 20:25, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Opposed. It's a great start, but it still needs to be expanded. This is, after all, the most popular ship of the most popular Star Trek series ever! -- Dan Carlson 20:29, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Hmm... to be honest, you are probably right, yes. There would be probably more to tell about a ship that was featured in seven seasons of The Next Generation. Only I personally don't have that knowledge... ;-) Ottens 20:44, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • True.. the 1701-D has had the most onscreen time of any single vessel in trek history Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:53, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Klingon blade weapons

An exceptional detailed article on minor equipment. Ottens 10:01, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Opposed. That article should be split up, with one article for each of the different weapons. -- Dan Carlson 16:32, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)

USS Equinox

Self-nomination. A detailed analysis of the ship's voyage - IMO, a change from the (somewhat necessarily) formulaic nature of the starship entries. -- Michael Warren 00:51, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)

  • Seconded. Nice detail for a "generic" starship article. -- Dan Carlson 16:35, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Opposed. It's a very good article, especially for a ship only mentioned in two eppisodes. However, the ammount of info available is irrelevant when featuring an article. And IMO this article does not messure up with the rest of the featured articles. No offence, how could it with so little info to go on. It's good, but not good enough to be featured. -- Redge 15:39, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
    • The article is not of the same type as other featured articles, so should not be compared with them. I believe this article meets the majority of criteria that are covered in Memory Alpha:The perfect article. On amount of info available and length, I refer you to the point This may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject. However, where such information is available, it should always be included. -- Michael Warren 18:31, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST)
    • I still think that this article qualifies for Featured Article status. As long as it's well-written and of reasonable length, I think it's acceptable. (Articles that are just two or three paragraphs wouldn't be long enough, IMO, but something longer should.) -- Dan Carlson 16:25, 8 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.