Nominations without objections


I think this article soundly covers M'Ress. - Archduk3 06:04, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

  • 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)
Anyone else? It would be a shame for this one to fail simply because it needed one more vote. -- TrekFan Open a channel 17:55, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - for sulfur. - Archduk3 09:54, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Reginald Barclay

I believe the article is well written, and follows the Manual of Style. -- Captain Rixx 03:33, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Nominations with objections


I'd like to nominate this article, having thoroughly researched the episode's making. I was quite impressed by the summary, too, when I read it today. --Defiant 15:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. First, I think that there's something screwy with the Acts - Voyager episodes have five acts and a teaser, if I'm not mistaken. More significantly, I have some quibbles about the wording in the background section. While comprehensive, I think it's a bit wordy and repetitive in places. Things like stating "The holographic Leonardo da Vinci was added to the story at the request of Janeway actress Kate Mulgrew" and then quoting her three (!!!) times to that effect. Just because she said it three times, doesn't make it necessary to copy here. Heck, since it's just a simple statement, the quotes didn't really illuminate anything. I removed that example (and a few others), but I think some of what remains could be tightened up. Some of the notes could be more easily stated by paraphrasing several quotes from the same person, then having all the citations at the end. Please don't take this as knocking your (as always) excellent research, but rather as something that would make the article even better for readers.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Also, there are a few page numbers missing from the citations (e.g. in points one and two under the first subsection). These should be added if you've got them.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:47, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose: Though the article is well-written and comprehensive, I echo Cleanse's comments on the act structure. I do not see any problems with the background information, however. It has some interesting points that are thoroughly cited, albeit there are a couple of page numbers missing. Overall, good job! If the act layout is amended and the page numbers added, you'll certainly get my vote. -- TrekFan Open a channel 12:21, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • 'Comment: thanks for the conditional supports and comments, guys. Though I'm quite busy today, I don't see page numbers and acts being problematic (besides finding the time to put them in & make sure they're correct). Maybe someone could double-check the acts thing(?) If not, I'll get to it tomorrow. Although these aren't problematic, I do have several quibbles about the edit you made, Cleanse, and have my reasons for them; for example, the Kate Mulgrew/Leonardo thing – the quotes indicate a different level of involvement in the development of the idea as, in two of the quotes, she says that she "brought them" the idea while, in another, she states that she merely helped them come up with the idea (indicating a lesser degree of involvement). As we weren't there at the time & don't know exactly how big her participation in thinking up the Leonardo hologram was, I do find those quotes quite insightful and important. --Defiant 13:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • Update: I've now added the requested page numbers. Coincidentally, they both came from page 37 of their respective publications! Feel free to let me know if any more are required. --Defiant 14:02, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I found where the missing act was and I have amended the article accordingly. Though the summary of Act Two is a little sparse, I still feel the article as a whole is worthy of FA status. If more is willing to be done to that section in the meantime, it could only improve it. -- TrekFan Open a channel 15:00, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.