Nominations without objections


I saw Vedek Dukat mention this article as having more potential than Noah, and I'm not sure what constitutes a featured article, so I added some stuff to it to see what people think. Weyoun 04:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Broken Bow

  • A short and concise summary (especially for a two-parter) with an extremely detailed Background Information section, packed with information about this episode. --Defiant | Talk 02:11, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Strong Support. An wonderful job, Defiant, as always. I'm glad I could help out with the background info for this. Do we make a great team, or what? :) --From Andoria with Love 22:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Hippocrates Noah

Self-nomination. I figure we need something here, and more importantly a non-episode. He's a solid article and I think he'd do nicely as an FA. --Schrei 07:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. --Mike Nobody 08:31, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Content-wise this is a complete article that covers the topic without getting boring or turning into an episode summary for the sake of length, it meets all the critera. But I'm biased against single-episode characters like this, so I don't think I can support it (I agree that Brooks should be a Bond villain though). Vedek Dukat 18:30, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. To me this one falls in the mirky area between clearly non-FA worthy characters like Grathon Tolar/Ethan Novakovich and ones like R'Mor. There's a little more back linking with this character, so thats a point in its favor, but even though its "complete" there's no real information here outside of action summary. Logan 5 19:00, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. While I agree with Logan and was the one who nominated Grathon Tolar for removal, it seems to have retained its featured status. I'm not sure about this article, as I don't think I'm experienced enough with MA and the like to judge it, but I do think that it should be possible to have a well-written and comprehensive aritlce without automatically featuring it. Makon 19:41, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd rather see something like Ishka featured than this, if you're looking for something to spruce up. Vedek Dukat 02:57, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; I feel this falls well within the criteria of being well written and comprehensive of the subject matter to qualify as a Featured Article. I really liked this character, and I'm glad to see him 'done up' really well. — THOR =/\= 15:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Aren't the featured articles supposed to be the creme de la creme? I don't think complete, comprehensive, and well written should be the standard for just featured articles but all of Memory Alpha. Minor ones like this that meet those criteria, I would mark it on my checklist and move on, not feature it. Weyoun 02:01, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. It is an extremely well-written article. However, it has the same problem that caused Ethan Novakovich to have its FA status removed -- namely, there just isn't enough information to the character for us to cover, having appeared in only one episode. However, unlike Novakovich, this has a quotes and background section to supplement the main text, and I believe it covers the character a bit more. I'm just not sure if that can be enough for it to earn FA status. (Of course, I may change my mind later, so stay tuned. :P) --From Andoria with Love 23:00, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • What's the difference then between these and Grathon? I'm not voicing an opinion; I'm genuinely confused about the whole featured thing right now. Weyoun 23:33, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Different time, different people voting, different point of view. Personaly, I support this, it's my opinion that an article that is any more than a couple of paragraphs should be up for being featured once it is complete. Jaf 23:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • That's definitely not the way to go, because by your logic I could make almost anything into a featured article. Wikipedia's ratio is 1 in 1000 for FAs, so ours shouldn't be 1 in 5. But this isn't the place to discuss policy. :-) Sorry. Weyoun 23:44, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Klingon history

  • After this was moved from Klingon Empire the original article will be de-featured because of the shrinking, but this one is still FA-worthy. --Memory 23:05, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - The Future section needs episode citation. --Defiant | Talk 11:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'd like to see some apocrypha because the Klingons have been featured in books, but otherwise it looks good. I cited the future part. Coke 21:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Klingon Empire was apparently featured on account of this section. Now that it has its own article, Klingon Empire looks like it will be de-listed, and I think this more than stands its ground as a separate, featured article. Weyoun 03:54, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In its former life it was incorporated into an article and now that it is no longer in that article, the page, as a stand alone, looks like it was just plopped into where it is at from another page, which is exactly what it was. The "introduction" to the article is non-existant, and the first sentence regarding the Zanxthkolt Dynasty seems almost completely random for an intro to "early history". The "future" is just two listed facts and not really a competant future-- much less the fact that alternate timeline futures (from "The Visitor", "Endgame" and "All Good Things..." are absent. It also could be merged with the history section on the Klingon page as well. --Alan del Beccio 09:34, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • "The Visitor" and AGT have been addressed by me and others, I don't know what kind of introduction you want, you can't summarize a history article in three sentences. --Memory 20:55, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. However, I would like to see the intro fleshed out a tad. Maybe just a very brief summary of Klingon events or something like that, before going on to the main material? --From Andoria with Love 22:53, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.