Nominations without objections
Nominations with objections
Self-nomination: I have done quite a bit on this article using Ghosts (Marvel) as a guide since this is the only other comic book FA and, trying not to blow my own trumpet, I think it is a considerable improvement from it's original form. I have written the complete summary aswell as quotes section and added a couple more points to the existing background information. I have also added some images to the text to make it a bit more pleasing to the eye. I notice Sulfur has also been through the text and picked out any typos/other errors he could see too. All in all, I think it is a complete article, noting as much as it can about the comic book and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on it. Thanks! :) -- TrekFan Open a channel 01:33, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose : owing to the informal tone of the summary. It seems to require more work. --Defiant 11:24, January 30, 2011 (UTC) Oppose (see below) for reasons stated on the article talk page.— Cepstrum (talk) 19:30, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Support. With the recent improvements made, it looks quite solid. The summary flows well and is an appropriate length, there's some good pictures, the background information is cited where appropriate and the references look good.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:18, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Qualified support. Comments/reasons for switch:
- The support given by Cleanse (and his reasons) lead me to question the validity of my objections, which are on the talk page. This is my first involvement with an FA nomination, and I don't want to object for invalid reasons. (And, obviously, an admin such as Cleanse knows far more about it than I.) So let me clarify my position:
- I do have "issues" with certain parts of the prose – viz., its deviations from "standard English" (though there's no such thing as a clear-cut, agreed rule system for English.) If I were to edit it, I'd "correct" certain non-standard grammar/prose renderings. But, AFAIK, unless gross (ie, glaringly distracting) "errors" are present, I don't think my rather arcane grammar disputes are valid objections.
- I actually happen to like the general flow/style of the narrative. Its quasi-melodramatic "feel" gives the summary an exciting flair – a refreshing break from the (necessary) dull, encyclopædic tone we see in most articles.
- Bottom line: I'd retract my oppose if others don't have an issue with the (few) minor standard English deviations: it's the content, not the commas that matter!
- My sole remaining objection is the lack of explanation of certain details that appear (I assume) in the drawings. As readers, we have only the text. IMO, that means it must contain more expository info to fill in the gaps left by the "missing" drawings. (Then again, MA is only supposed to summarize these works, not retell them so thoroughly that readers won't purchase the comics. Imagine if we had in, eg, the TNG TM article so much info that it was essentially a paraphrase of the actual work: I think there'd be copyright issues.) TrekFan has already addressed some one my earlier questions, so I'm now thinking it deserves at least my qualified support. (Besides, most FAs contain prose/grammar "errors" that make me uneasy, yet they clearly are good work and represent clear writing, as does this article.) Sorry for the detail. Just trying to be clear! — Cepstrum (talk) 15:19, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Support. - Archduk3 21:23, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Opposed. See comments on the talk page, especially those about the BG. Currently the BG is a bit misleading as to story germination, etc. There are more details out there on the genesis of this story (and that of Countdown), including interviews on TrekMovie.com as to how things really came about. -- sulfur 21:28, February 1, 2011 (UTC)#
- Support: in light of recent developments. I've included bg info that relates specifically to this issue. Other bg info, relating more to the Star Trek: Nero comic series in general, is more relevant for the page about the series. --Defiant 01:53, February 2, 2011 (UTC)