Nominations without objections

Elite Force (comic)

Yes, another comic already. Was thinking about Peer Review, but seems like there's not much more to add. (but feel free to tell me I'm wrong) Indepth summary, while still being outweighed by background information and character descriptions. (The number of errors is particularly astonishing, as well as the Star Wars references.) I could see it as being one of those "complete, but not FA" articles, but I'd like to see what can happen. - AJ Halliwell 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Julian Bashir, Secret Agent

Several people, including Defiant, Vedek Dukat, Weyoun and Excelsior, have done a good job on the page. Informative and well written. -- Tough Little Ship 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Support - Article is well written and covers the topic throughly--AndreMcKay 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I could go either way on this one but before I vote I think that it could use a few more pics, and some editing. The paragraph that mentions Miles playing Felix, emphasizing "- yet again", doesn't work because there is no previous mention of his playing Felix. The emphasis doesn't have a precedent. I also think the article could relate the info in a fashion that doesn't emphasize one episode reference after another. Logan 5 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Object. The article could be more comprehensive and better written. For example, the article doesn't even begin with placing the program into context in terms of when it was run. And like above, there is usage of "this time willingly" without a precedent section describing when it wasn't. A rewrite from a consistent point of view might help. And the title of the article itself is presumed by the article to be the title of the series of holonovels, but I do not believe that that has been established anywhere; I think it is simply a convenient way of describing them collectively. I also think that the title should be "Felix's Cold War Secret Agent Holonovels" or some such thing, though, to better describe it. So, a good editorial scrub and renaming would be good places to start fixing this one up. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this article could have alot more. The 'gadgets' don't seem to be mentioned at all, such as (this is the only one I remember, but I think there were more) the shoe+pen=gun. I remember a sketch of this from somewhere that would make a great image for the background section. Also, the lone picture on the page is a close up shot of Bashir's head! Not exactly describing the entire program. Mention of his apartment with all the guns (or something that spun from around a bar, i repeat: I haven't seen this episode in quite some time) is missing as well. It could go more indepth (without seeming like an episode summary) in the Our Man Bashir episode, and any more details on the similarities to the 007 movies would make good background as well. This page certainly doesn't seem complete, whether lone featured-article status. - AJ Halliwell 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

K't'inga class

Self nomination. Right amount of (relevant) pictures alongside a comprehensive and well balanced write up. --Alan del Beccio 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet decided, but a couple of questions: the article claims that "By 2375, the days of the battle cruiser were winding down, as these warships were described as being too slow and unwieldy compared to many of their more formidable counterparts." It cites DS9: "Once More Unto the Breach", yet the dialogue only says "The battle cruisers are too slow and unwieldy for this kind of mission." Meaning that for other missions they were just fine. So how does this support the broad statement? And why is Star Trek: Starship Spotter (not a permitted Memory Alpha resource) used for dimensions when the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual (a permitted resource) has the information? If clearly erroneous, I would think that the information would be entirely relegated to background since the Spotter can't really be a cite. Also, there is at least one consistent typo ("its'" instead of "its" in at least two instances) that needs correction, and it should be gone over again for any other such things. Aholland 04:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a simple solutions to me. Seeing you already have all the answers then go ahead and brunt some of the weight yourself and have at it...this is a collaborative effort, afterall. --Alan del Beccio 06:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't want to make broad changes to a nominated article without at least finding out if my suggestions (other than the typos, of course) were way off base. My assumption was that it was nominated because it was thought to be accurate "as is". I'll be happy to give it an edit for the above and anything else I may see in the process - but it won't be this morning! :) Aholland 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I just made a variety of changes to the article. In addition to typos and the stuff from above, there was other information that was inaccurate or not organized in what I felt was the best way. But given that the article is in great flux, should we wait and see what else (if anything) happens on it before putting it up for nomination? I still haven't voted, but am leaning toward no because of the state it was in and the numerous changes that have been introduced (albeit by me) since its nomination. But take a look and see what I'm talking about. Aholland 17:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great. Very detailed. Jaz talk28px 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Big time. Love this ship. Great article. Ooh-rah. --From Andoria with Love 06:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is in too much flux. I made a large change to it for a variety of reasons on June 3. Since then no fewer than a dozen changes have been made. Some were minor or formatting, but others added or deleted actual article information (e.g., whether or not they could be called "sleeper ships"). I agree that this is shaping up to be a great article, but it needs to settle down a bit before being featured, I believe. Aholland 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The only part of the article that is truely in "flux" is the sidebar info. For all I care the damned sidebar can be removed completely for the sake of this seemingly petty reason to oppose a nomination that otherwise completely ignores the body of the pages content, aside from some very minor grammarical errors, is in rather solid shape. Afterall, you can only please some of the people some of the time, those who will never be pleased shouldn't be the ones raining on everyone elses parade...--Alan del Beccio 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.