Nominations without objections

Darien Wallace

Another nice piece of work by Jorg. This thing really can't be missing anything. There are some short paragraphs, but this should be expected for a background character. Jaf 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Cardassian history

Self nominated. I have had this article listed under peer review for some time now and have received no advice on how to improve the article, nor has anyone else edited this article for some time. I spent hours on this article cleaning it up and making sure it contains as much relevant information on Cardassian history as possible, and meeting the featured article criteria. I think it would make for an excellent Featured Article. Support. -Thot Prad, 16:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Great article. Hopefully some others will join in nominating. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: A great article and an enjoyable read! - Enzo Aquarius 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-written, engaging tone and excellent layout. A good primer on one of the more fascinating peoples of Star Trek. --GNDN 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Informative and thorough, though I wish it could be spiced up with more/different pictures. This may be difficult to do without becoming redundant with Cardassia Prime. -- StAkAr Karnak 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Thomas Riker

Self-nomination. I've spent a great deal of work on this article, and it was listed as peer-reviewed for 2 weeks without any feedback. I think this would make for an excellent Featured Article, and I welcome feedback and/or thoughts. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Well done, to all who were involved with this article. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Haven't read the text itself yet, but what I immediately noticed was the bad image quality. All three images (Image:Thomas Riker (2369).jpg, Image:Thomas Riker.jpg, Image:Thomas Riker 2371.jpg) currently on the page show serious artifacts from either the bad VHS tape this was taken from, or from JPEG compression. If those exact images are to be kept, I would at least like to see them re-uploaded in better quality. Additionally, I could see one of the two similar "2369" images be removed from the sidebar and another one, perhaps showing Thomas with either Will, Deanna, or both, be added where appropriate. Regarding the sidebar in general, a possible "Featured article" might be a good start to think about what's really important to have on a character sidebar. Is "Created as duplicate" or "Affiliation:Maquis" really something we need to have on the sidebar (instead of in the text)? I'll leave another note once I read the article text itself. -- Cid Highwind 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Noted regarding the graphics. I'll see if I can acquire better screenshots. I'm going to copy your comment and add it to the Talk:Thomas Riker/peerreview page. Any willing to assist in improving the article are advised to take the discussion there. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I now read the whole text and left another note one the peer review page. If those two points are addressed, I'd support this nomination. -- Cid Highwind 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Borg history

All discussed issues concerning this article (structure, factual accuracy concerning the Hansens) seem to be solved so that it is now stating a well-structured, well-illustrated and comprehensive article on Borg history. --BlueMars 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Compared to Cardassian history, which has subsections like "Early History", "First Contact", "Cardassian Union", "First Republic", "Modern Empire", "Degeneration", "Restoration", "Membership in the Dominion", "Early Success", "Puppet Government & Rebellion", this reads like a timeline and summary of all Borg references and encounters. Its subsections clearly reflect this: "Origin", "21st Century", "22nd Century", "23rd Century", "24th Century." I think this needs to be addressed, possibly with a peer review. --Alan del Beccio 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a good start, but I agree w/Alan. I left comments on the article's talk page as well. Suggest a peer review. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, basically for the reasons already stated above. I just checked several other "* history" articles, and most of them use a better system of subsections than this one - as Alan said, this shouldn't read like a timeline; instead, it should talk about specific important "phases" and "events" in Borg history. Speaking of which, some of the events listed on the page aren't even "Borg history" (like, for example, 2293), or aren't really "history-worthy" (like, for example, 2367). "Comprehensive", in my opinion, might sometimes mean to leave out facts that are more appropriate on other pages instead. Additionally, when restructuring this article, most of the ---- separators should be removed, and eventually the rest of the formatting be checked. -- Cid Highwind 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above, and because the article has changed very little since when it failed a previous nomination. --OuroborosCobra talk Klingon Empire logo.png 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I disagree with you guys, although I guess it might be too late to make a difference for this one. Having it split up by dates is just so darn practical. I'd hate to see this split into titles that we make up just for the purpose of making it look prettier. Jaf 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf


This biography of the franchise's leading extra is suprisingly exhaustive and entertaining. It rivals the articles on James T. Kirk and Spock, which may not be inappropriate since the character appeared in the second TOS pilot, and remained throughout the series run. He has even been through death and life, just as his more illustrious crewmates have done. (I had nothing to do with this article, but it is interesting to note that the bulk of the work has been done by unnamed archivists identified only by IP numbers.)

  • Support. --GNDN 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Kyle C. Haight 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There sure is a lot of good info here, and I want to see this as a FA, but as is, I suggest a peer review. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged, as well as some other copyediting. Good suggestion GNDN, let's work on improving this article. -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm new to this nomination business, but I do support -Humu­humu­nuku­nuku­āpuaʻa's suggestion regarding peer review. If we go this route, should the nomination be tabled (or de-listed)? In the alternative, could peer review be conducted concurrently? --GNDN 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.