Nominations without objections

TNG: Evolution


Self nomination: I would like to nominate the episode article "Evolution" for FA status. I have spent a fair amount of time on this article, adding the summary, images and quotes. Trying not to sound big-headed, I believe it is a significant improvement from what it once was. -- TrekFan Talk 23:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - While this is not one of my favorite episodes, the article is very well written. The picture quotes are also done well. Great job! ---- Willie LLAP 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Is anyone else willing to vote on this article? -- TrekFan Talk 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. To me, it meets the criteria for an FA. Good work.--31dot 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
SupportCleanse 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent illustration, good text. --36ophiuchi 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Anyone else? We only need one more vote. -- TrekFan Talk 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Support: Very well written, great pics. Lots of info. This is a great article! DaveSubspace Message 16:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I've given a support to it, shouldn't it now be an FA? DaveSubspace Message 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ENT: The Xindi

"The Xindi"

Self nomination: It has been a while since I did a major re-write of this article (March 2008) including images, but there have been around 30 changes since, people filling in the blanks such as characters portrayed and references. I believe this is a good candidate for FA status now. DaveSubspace Message 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

World War III

World War III

I'm typically not one to nominate stuff around here, but taking into account the vast effort and discussion that went into honing this article to a fine point, this article is by every definition of the term a collaborative effort. Despite this article's modest size and the lack of actually being there for this conflict, there has been over a dozen decent references to this subject, which have been more than adequately pieced together to build a stable foundation for this article that flows smoothly from the Eugenics Wars to First Contact. --Alan 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - The article is, IMO, detailed enough to be considered a featured article and the length seems adequate. A very informative article, with all references to WWIII included, as far as I can tell. The references page serves to add as evidence to the time and effort gone into creating this article. -- TrekFan Talk 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - A well written article. Seems stable enough as well. Great gob! ---- Willie LLAP 16:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - the article combines much the scattered canon evidence to make a quite engaging narrative. I agree that an incredible amount of effort has gone into this article, and this is certainly amongst the best articles on MA for that reason. – Cleanse 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - No one else? I'd hate for this to lapse with no oppose votes...– Cleanse 11:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You vote support but are encouraging oppose votes... --Alan 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
What? I was commenting that it would suck for this vote to fail because of lack of votes, rather than any opposition.– Cleanse 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well...then you probably meant something more like "I'd hate for this to lapse without receiving enough support votes" vs. "I'd hate for this to lapse with no oppose votes." The latter sounds like a call for oppose votes rather than more support votes. --Alan 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, it was just poor phrasing. I intended to write something like "I'd hate for this to lapse when it has no oppose votes", or "I'd hate for this to lapse, with no oppose votes".
I already clarified my comment; no need to keep arguing. Especially when it's pretty damned obvious I was just calling for more votes. – Cleanse 23:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Chill holmes...wow. --Alan 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Support: Well written by Alan. I wish I had the skill to work on a collaborative effort such as that.--Tim Thomason 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The Background section is really written in a non-encyclopedic form. Lines like It was clearly an understatement, and one is left to wonder what O'Brien saw that was more "rough" than nuclear war and the 600 million casualties of World War III. and the second paragraph is very speculative and such (the last paragraph is fine). The rest of the article is great and I support FA pending what I feel are poorly written Background notes. (If everyone disagrees anyway I'll withdraw) — Morder 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support. I'll second Morder's comment. --31dot 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph is written based on vague information following a visit to a period that would have been smack dab in the middle of the war (that may or may not have happened in that timeline) summed up by an asinine and understated comment (which implies the war really wasnt that bad)...without going into indepth analysis of this and that, without speculating about how it is possible SanFran wasn't involved in the war, etc.. --Alan 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.