Nominations without objections

Force of Nature (self nomination) - I've changed/removed a few of the pictures and I think that they are better fitting for the article or do you still think that they're superfluous? If you don't like a picture, why not change it instead of complain about it.--Scimitar 21:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition
Has a very good and complete list of the rules, as well as a complete text explaning what they are. The article is very long in length, it's a big part of Trek, and seems to be complete. User:Tobyk777 11, July 2005
Neutral since I don't have a valid reason to oppose. It's a nice article, no doubt, but I wouldn't say it deserves featured status -- to me, it seems merely a list of references... Ottens 10:04, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Neutral for the same reasons as Ottens.--Scimitar 10:23, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Quantum torpedo
Seems to be all there. Big part of Trek. - User:Tobyk777 9 July, 2005
  • Abosultely oppose. Completeness does not necessarily warrant featured status. As I said before, the article on an osteogenic stimulator is pretty much complete but it's far from worthy of becoming a featured article.--Scimitar 11:00, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
the "fac" plate was on, so I added it here.
  • Oppose - It looks like alot of his time on Enterprise is missing, there's only the Kahless note for all of Season 6! And Jadzia seems like she deserves more then a paragraph, maybe even a picture of their wedding. This page still needs work in my opinion. - AJHalliwell 06:36, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. It was far from the quality a featured article should be. Personal history, relationships, interest, all needs to be heavily expanded. Ottens 09:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Opposed -- I'm curious as to who nominated this? Shouldn't the fact its unsigned and posted 'because a "fac" place was on the page' constitute a removal from the page rather than an unsigned nomination? Anyway, the article needs to be restructured and expanded. --Alan del Beccio 10:37, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Starship Down
An extremely well-written episode description. The numerous pictures and breaking down of the description into Acts scores points with me. I saw this episode a few days ago in syndication here in Ireland, and having read this article my memory of it is completly refreshed.Gul Reid 21:50, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Needs wiki markup and I believe the summary is too short, but I also think that it's a good start. --Defiant | Talk 01:07, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fixed tables, but I agree, the summary's to short, and seems kinda messy. -AJHalliwell 01:37, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. As Defiant said, the summary is on the short side and the article in general could do with a bit of tidying up. I think that the write-up that I did for "Cause and Effect" is on par with the one for "Starship Down" but personally I don't think that either are worthy of featured status as yet.--Scimitar 11:43, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.