Nominations without 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)
Comment: Now that all the nitpicks Cleanse mentioned have been cleared up, I'm unsure why there's still opposition to this nomination. --Defiant 10:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think Cleanse has seen the comments on this page yet. Give him some time. I'm sure he'll change his vote once he has read the updates. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:18, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial Support: Well written and comprehensive background etc but the summary section is too long. You might want to consider shortening it a bit and not mentioning every minute detail. People can watch the episode if they want it all.Distantlycharmed 22:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have to politely disagree. It's my belief that an article should be as comprehensive as possible, including episode articles. Yeah, they can watch the episode aswell. But chances are, they won't be reading the article first if they haven't already watched the episode. The summary should contain as much information as possible in an informative and entertaining way. This also allows us to build the web with more links. Aside from that, thoroughly written summaries showcase the expertise and abilities of the Memory Alpha community. We could easily turn into one of those lazy wikis that copies a two paragraph summary from another website, but we aren't and we don't (hopefully!). :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
This is a summary though - not the retelling of the entire script in prose. A summary can still be well written and comprehensive without regurgitating everything and every detail in the episode. We had FA status removed based on excessive episode summary length (or they did not achieve FA status until that was cleared) See "Learning Curve". We dont know why people will read episode summaries but Mr Trek Fan, between two paragraphs posing as a summary and a novel there are a myriad of possibilities begging to make your acquaintance :) (catch the reference there? ;) Distantlycharmed 01:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: after editing the summary for length and reasons mentioned above. Distantlycharmed 02:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the wording in background has been tightened up a bit.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


Self-nomination: I spent several hours working on this episode article, writing the summary, quotes and adding images. Also, Cleanse has added some very nice background information so thanks to him for that. I did put this through a peer review, but as with many peer reviews, it went unnoticed. I took this as a sign it was ready for nomination and I personaly think it is as complete as it can get. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:13, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Reginald Barclay

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

  • Oppose - it doesn't really include any info about the illusory Barclay in VOY: "Projections" and some of the "Apocrypha" subsection seems quite badly written. --Defiant 12:48, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I have reworded and reorganised the article slightly, paying particular attention to the apocrypha section that was very confusing, I'll have to admit. I've also added another image to compliment the text. I think this is ready to become a featured article now. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:59, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I've also now personally done some work on this article, but I'm still not entirely happy with it. I'm somewhat frustrated with the wording of the fourth (MU-related) point in the apocrypha section. Also, there still seems to be insufficient info about the illusory Barclay in "Projections". So (for now, at least), I'm maintaining my opposing vote. --Defiant 17:22, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have re-worded the mirror universe point in the apocrypha section and I'm going to re-watch "Projections" now to get an idea of what to write. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:32, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Update:I have further edited it with slight rewording to the main body (and with another image) and I have included a "Holographic duplicates" section where his hologram in "Projections" is mentioned. Hopefully, this resolves the objection. Barclay is one of my favourite recurring characters in Star Trek. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:31, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Since the Reg hologram is currently a separate article, there's no reason to duplicate it on this one. If we want to do that, they should be suggested for a merge, if not, a link will suffice. - Archduk3 19:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's any problem with mentioning it in the article as it is now, since it was Barclay's idea in the first place. Besides, holographic duplicates are mentioned in Jean-Luc Picard and Tom Paris, to name two examples. If the reader wants to know more information on the specifics, they can click the link to go to the article on the hologram itself. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:00, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
The point is the event is already talked about in the article and at another article, so another recap seems excessive. As for the comparisons, those don't apply, since they're there because the separate hologram articles was merged into the characters. The section should still cover the Projections hologram, and have a link to holographic duplicate, but the other one is already covered twice. - Archduk3 20:11, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
When I rewrote the section in Barclay's article dealing with the events in "Inside Man", I was careful to focus on Barclay himself so you'll notice the hologram doesn't get much of a mention. In the "Holographic duplicates" section, I focussed on his creation of the hologram and subsequent alterations as opposed to the man himself. However, after thinking about it, I would tend to agree that the Reginald Barclay (hologram) article should be merged with Reginald Barclay and I'm going to bring that up on the talk page now. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:02, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem with mentioning the hologram on the Reginald Barclay page. It doesn't go into too much detail and the user can always click on the link to the article for more information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:15, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
For the why and how of the hologram sections: read Forum:X (hologram) pages. Each mention isn't suppose to be more than a few sentences, similar to what's on holographic duplicate. Right now, there's way more information then necessary. - Archduk3 21:28, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I wasn't aware of that discussion. How about now? I have amended the description to be even shorter with a link to the main article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Needs to be fleshed out. Copy editing. Also Needs a relationships section. Yes I know, it is not mandated, but given his role it would not hurt to mention his relationship with Deanna Troi and Geordi etc. It also needs some dividing of his duties aboard Enterprise and then during the Pathfinder project etc. Distantlycharmed 22:19, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.