Nominations without objections
- Support: Though I will confess I know very little about the animated series, this article seems to cover the character well, combining information from multiple episodes in an informative way. The length of the article could be contested though I don't see this as a problem as the article is well-written and includes more sources than Telek R'Mor, for example, which only has references from one or two episodes yet is featured. There are also good background and apocrypha sections and relevant images throughout. -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:25, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: if the following were made a bit more understandable, I'd probably be happy to support this: "M'Ress became concerned the change in the planet's behavior from providing fun and amusement to hostility." --Defiant 10:53, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support: informative, moderately well-written and good pics. --Defiant 18:32, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Re: "moderately well-written": I ran into wording issues in the opening lines. (Voice/tense changes in the middle of a sentence.) I also found other awkward phrasings. I don't know how important prose style is for a FA, and I'm not voting on an article with that type of stickler-ish criterion. I'm sure it's a worthy article; it's received a lot of support already. I must "recuse" myself. ;) — Cepstrum (talk) 16:50, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Support I don't know much about TAS either, but I learned some from reading this article. --31dot 20:14, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - a well-rounded article.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:28, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
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. (see below – at bottom – for my revised vote) 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)
- All of my concerns have been addressed/fixed.
- Also: it's improved significantly IMO, and comes reasonably close to being The perfect article. :) --<unsigned post by Cepstrum> Note: really sorry; I completely forgot to sign! Rats. :-/ (thanks, Defiant, for catching it!) — Cepstrum (talk) 19:40, February 2, 2011 (UTC)</s>
- Comment: Anyone else willing to consider voting? -- TrekFan Open a channel 08:16, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Sulfur would still need to withdraw his objection either way. Also, please only use the bullet point for a "support" or "oppose". - Archduk3 08:35, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware Sufur would need to retract his vote aswell. My comment was more to illumiate the fact the nomination is still here to the rest of the community. -- TrekFan Open a channel 09:26, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Take a look at how this article has changed after it was nominated for FA (diff). That's not just fixing a small issue here or there, that's basically a total rewrite. Based on that observation, I don't see this one becoming an FA immediately for two main reasons: First, if all these changes were necessary, then the article wasn't a good FA candidate to begin with. A peer review would have been a better choice (and, in fact, this nomination has become one). In that case, "gaming the system" (even if done unintentionally, which I presume) shouldn't lead to a successful nomination. Second, as is always the case if a peer review has just happened, the article can not be considered totally stable. Some time should pass before another FA nomination, so that we can be sure that all of these changes were for the better and won't be reverted soon. -- Cid Highwind 14:29, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, for reasons Cid mentioned below. I'm forced to concur. (I hope I did this vote change correctly; I looked at the FA voting guidelines.) — Cepstrum (talk) 16:33, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I tend to agree with Cid's oppose, too. I did recommend to TrekFan that the article be put up for peer review, rather than immediately seeking FA status (the latter seemed a little too much like jumping the gun!) Unfortunately, I didn't feel that recommendation was listened to. --Defiant 02:30, February 8, 2011 (UTC)