Nominations without objections

  • The Doctor- An article I started, but numerous people have contributed to make it what is, I believe, a substantial article into the character. -- MiChaos 01:22, 20 Aug 2004 (CEST).
  • Dukat- Well written, documented, and extensive. One of the best character profiles I've seen. I added a whole lot and I think it looks great. Ryan123450 12:04, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST)
    • Seconded. -- Redge | Talk 19:11, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Minor oppose. Needs a little cleanup with reference to.. well, references. Style should be adhered to (quotation marks), no need to repeat DS9 constantly, and any that occur in the main article should be removed from the separate section on Appearances. Would support once that is done. Support. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:37, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST)
  • Excelsior class Lots of people have contributed to this article, to make sure everything was indeed canon, and I believe that all we know about the Excelsior class has been included now. Ottens 12:43, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Would now support this article. Good collaborative work. -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:10, Aug 13, 2004 (CEST)
    • I'm still not happy with those notes, but since that has nothing to do with the article itself, I support. -- Redge | Talk 15:03, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Janice Rand Self-nominated. I've watched all the early TOS episodes in which Rand's character made an appearance, and I believe all important events from Rand's life have been included on this page. Ottens 12:45, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Needs a good spelling and grammar check, but would support once done. -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:10, Aug 13, 2004 (CEST)
      • I've done a grammer check, and corrected some. I believe all bad spelling is now gone. Ottens 11:43, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Nominations with objections

  • Degra Self-nominated. I think we should put him in as a featured article. He had a big role in the third season of Enterprise. I think that page has all the info we can include.-B-101 1:12 PM (EST) 8/15/2004
    • Oppose. Needs more work. Especially needs expansion with regards to "Stratagem", which is barely featured in the article at all, and is a vital character episode for Degra. Also, a few pronouns wouldn't go amiss. The article is awash with "Degra [is]..." "Degra [was]...", which makes it extremely clunky. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:09, Aug 15, 2004 (CEST)
      • I just looked at the article. I didn't see any "is" which should be "was". Also, I'm not sure how much more of Stratagem we can put in. We should put in the info of Degra getting tricked into revealing the weapon, but I think we put in all his personal info we could.-B-101
        • That's not a pronoun! I was referring to the constant referring to "Degra [is]...", ie, the name. If you have included information from "Stratagem", it should be given a reference alongside said information. It is only listed in ==Other Appearances==. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:27, Aug 16, 2004 (CEST)
  • Warp drive - I've almost completely rewritten the article, to make it canon-referenced, and pretty much comprehensive. -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:10, Aug 13, 2004 (CEST)
    • Oppose. Already a very good article, but there is still lots of info that needs to be added to this article. Think of the numerous episodes in Star Trek revolving around a strange phenomenon affecting the Warp drive. Those need to be listed. -- Redge | Talk 17:33, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Although I am in support of Redge, I still think the article is comprehensive enough to be featured. Support nomination. Ottens 13:19, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Borg. It's not complete yet, but it already has so much so well organised information I feel it would already make a good featured article. -- Redge 20:46, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST)
    • This would make a good featured article, but I think we still need a lot of information there on the Borg in the Delta Quadrant, prior to Endgame. Opposed, for now... Ottens 10:45, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • You're right. Let's keep this listing for another day, than archive it. -- Redge | Talk 19:12, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Michael Eddington - Well organised, well written and contributed to by a few different people. Alex Peckover 08:47, Aug 5, 2004 (CEST)
    • I helped write a large chunk of this one, and I agree. Ryan123450 12:04, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST)
    • Oppose (for now). I find the article clear and conscise. Maybe a bit to conscise. I feel there should be more info added about what we learned in "For the Uniform". -- Redge | Talk 19:11, 11 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Oppose. Needs more detail. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:44, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.