Nominations without objections

  • Dreadnought -- Acually read this for the first time today and I was supremely impressed with it. — THOR 18:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Court Martial -- Self Nomination. This is what I've become accustomed to calling a "Defiant-class" episode article. (I think some of you know what I mean ;-)) As I watched the episode, I believe I caught all the information, minor or major. I now offer my work, unto you...-AJHalliwell 02:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - I agree this article is very well written, and I also agree that it's up to "Defiant-class" standard!. zsingaya 06:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - Although we all look to Defiant as the user with the standard to model all future summaries after, it isn't always realistic. This summary fulfills the expectation of what the summary needs to contain. -- Dmsdbo 12:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, agreed on quality issues. — THOR 16:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Michael Eddington -- Not to toot my own horn, but I believe that I have covered all there is to know about the character, and other users have filled in additional minor info and helped with the formatting. Just added the info on "Our Man Bashir" and "The Adversary" in addition to what I had already submitted. -- Dmsdbo 20:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I have now further expanded the article -- I REALLY think this is all that can be logically said about the character. -- Dmsdbo 23:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, well written, succinct, and informative. I really like it. — THOR 20:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Support - minor characters seem to be having a well-overdue makeover recently, and this one looks like he's going to join the rank of featured! zsingaya 06:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Organian -- It seems to be fully inclusive of the known subject matter and is both interesting and highly readable. -- Dmsdbo 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wary - the information presented is well written, but it needs a section at the bottom with references to episodes. zsingaya 08:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Added by you it seems -- any change in opinion? -- Dmsdbo 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Support - As they were only mentioned in two episodes of Star Trek, this page seems to contain alot of good information, so, I'm going to Agree that this page should be featured. zsingaya 06:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • This article gets better and better every time something is added! Well done on adding the picture from ENT, Dmsdbo, this adds some balance to the article. zsingaya 06:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Leonard H. McCoy -- This article seems to have been extensively added to over the last few days by an unregistered contributor. I and some others have done a bit of cleanup and some wiki work. The big question: is it ready for the featured article status? I happen to say yes - anything that can be added would be largely a bonus at this stage, I think -- Dmsdbo 01:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Reservations - I think this article is already pretty good, but it looks like (from the editing page) that certain sections were ear-marked for expansion, but were never completed. These include more references to TOS: "The Man Trap", TAS: "The Ambergris Element", "Once Upon a Planet", and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The pictures were not arranged near to the specific parts of the text, but I've corrrected this. zsingaya 16:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Second - Dmsdbo, thank you for the nomination! I appreciate your taking notice of the additions I made over the past few days. I noted your request for bonus additions, and expanded on the "later career" section, as well. I hope this helps. I am not savvy with pictures, however, and would appreciate some help--can anyone add a picture or two of McCoy at work? Operating or healing someone? Having a drink with the captain? Is there a picture depository we can draw from? Thank you! -- CMO 16:52, 4 May 2005 (EST)
    • Opposed- I would like to think I got the ball rolling on this article, and it still hasn't fulfilled the expectations I had for it when I introduced the <!--NOTES--> within the article for what would be nice to have added to it. IMHO, it still needs additions from "The Ambergris Element", "Once Upon a Planet", and more on Star Trek VI. --Gvsualan 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that is an unfair assessment of the article. What has already been included puts some other main cast featured articles, such as Miles O'Brien, in a lower tier. There has to be a difference between necessary additions and improvements. -- Dmsdbo 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I meant no disrespect to previous contributors, and give them full marks for what they have done before me. We're all working together on this project, and I think we all feel elated when someone takes notice of our work. As for the TAS episodes, I myself have not seen these two and did not wish to contribute something I knew nothing about. Let me put out the call: has anyone seen these episodes enough to make a quick contribution to them? -- CMO 10:20, 5 May 2005 (EST)
    • Fine, in the interest everyone making a big deal out of this and since this is a community effort...I'll add the TAS stuff later and give it my approval now. I'm not trying to be an ass, and yes, we do have lesser articles with featured status. However, those articles were given approval a long time ago and we, as writers, have been able to greatly improve our skills since then and therefore should be expected to have higher overall standards. We shouldnt have the frame of "well this is better than that one?", we should be asking "is it as good as this one?". --Gvsualan 15:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

  • Defiant class -- I'm frankly surprised that this isn't a featured article. Plenty of information, beautifully laid out and appropriate use of pictures. Just as well written as the featured Sovereign class, Galaxy class and Intrepid class articles, IMHO.--Scimitar 18:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, I agree this is at least as good as the Intrepid-class article. All the major parts of the ship are well represented. zsingaya 08:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • After having re-read the sections on the tactical information, its become obvious that hardly any of it has actually come from on-screen information. I know inclusion of information from the technical manuals is accepted, but I thought it should be in italics, and it shouldn't make up the majority of an article. zsingaya 16:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Considering I wrote the bulk of the article, it wouldnt be really fair to vote. The main reason of objection at the time was that the article did not include in-line references, if I recall correctly... Anyhow, nice to see it featured now. Ottens 15:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support, could use a bit more fleshing out but otherwise as good as the other class articles listed. -- Dmsdbo 00:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Opposed. I gave this a wiki markup, I think that should be a required part of final acceptance/completion. --Gvsualan 10:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, on second thoughts I'm going to have to agree with Ottens below, there is a LOT of DS9 Tech Manual stuff in there and that needs to be more clearly pointed out. --Gvsualan 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I last voted on this a week ago, and I still see no one has clarified which information came from the DS9 Tech Manual and so on. Since I did not add the info, nor do I have the DS9 tech manual, I cannot make such a contribution. --Gvsualan 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I also don't have a DS9 techical manual, but I'm sure that all the information that isn't followed up by a reference to an episode, must come from the manual. Most of this is pure conjecture, but worthy of noting on the page because it fills in the gaps. zsingaya 06:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Most is based on on-screen evidence. The part on the Warhead is, of course, from the Tech Manual, since its usage was never seen on the show. The rest is all either mentioned on the show or based upon on-screen observation.
        • "I gave this a wiki markup, I think that should be a required part of final acceptance/completion." Well, now that you gave it a wiki markup, it's part of the article... I dont really see your point of objection there. Ottens 11:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Because you are not reading the right objection. Try the 2 comments below that. My concerns are were in partial agreement with your comment about the significant amount of DS9 Tech Man contributions, etc, that are not referenced. --Gvsualan 15:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Trials and Tribble-ations -- This page has good background info on the episode, and it provides a good summary. It's as extensive as any of the other episode pages that have been added.--docdude316 15:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Support -- rebelstrike 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wary, having become accustomed to Defiant's terribly in-depth and sectioned out episodic articles; I'm afraid this one doesn't yet measure up. But I'm worried that I'm holding it to too high of a standard perhaps and that maybe Defiant's articles go above and beyond a standard of excellence that this article still meets. For now, I'll posture to be neutral. — THOR 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Reservations - I agree with THOR, and I think the summary should have sections, IE: Act 1, Act 2 etc. Defiant's style of episodes should be the standard to which all episode articles should be tested, IMHO. zsingaya 18:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Against - Not only is it much shorter and less detailed than the summaries provided by Defiant, the choppy style does not work towards its advantage. It is a solid start, but must be widely fleshed out. -- Dmsdbo 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - simply due to summary length. Whilst I don't share the same beliefs with regards to the inclusion of headings (I certainly don't like using them in my own episode summaries), there needs to be more detail. Compare with Sacrifice of Angels or Storm Front. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Starship Down -- Its a well written article and has a good structure to it. -- rebelstrike 22:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose, its well written but would certainly benefit from images; at least one or two. — THOR 23:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - images would be good, and the summary sectioning needs to go. It's not particularly relevant to the sections being described. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Neutral - Have added images to the article. -- Dmsdbo 12:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.