Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

Latest revision as of 01:01, 29 March 2022

About → Policies and guidelines → FA policies → FA criteria → FA nominations → Featured articles → Featured article reviews

Memory Alpha articles are never truly finished. Even featured articles, examples of Memory Alpha's best work, will over time have to undergo revisions to keep them up to date. Therefore, it's important to review the featured articles from time to time to ensure that these revisions have not only happened, but have maintained the quality expected of a featured article.

If you would like to help by starting a review, a good place to start is featured articles more than five years old, which are listed here. Please make sure you are familiar with the review policy before proceeding, though. For past reviews, please see the archive.

Reviews can be started by beginning a new discussion on this page. If you think that a featured articles' status should be upheld, add it to the "Uphold" section. If you think that the article should be removed from the feature article list, it should be added to the "Remove" section. Either way, be sure to state the reason(s) why you think the article should be reviewed. Reviews should display, and have a link to, the blurb used on the portals, by adding {{Blurb|ARTICLE}} before the discussion.

Sample format:

=== ARTICLE ===
{{Blurb|ARTICLE}}
<reasoning> - <signature>

Once this is done, a notice that the article's status is being reviewed should be added to the article in question by inserting {{far}} at the top of the page, above any other templates except the article type template.

When you are commenting on a review, please take the time to read the entire article before you decide whether to Support or Oppose the motion. When supporting or opposing an article, please use a bullet point (by adding a * before your comment) without any indent so these will be easy to find later. General comments should be indented as usual, and, as always, please sign your nominations and comments with "~~~~".

Uphold

Remove

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{farc}}
+{{FAReview}}
+==Uphold==
+==Remove==
-==Articles nominated for removal==
-===[[Grathon Tolar]]===
-Someone said that [[Solbor]], an article of nearly identical length, one paragraph difference, is not fit because the character is not feature material. How is this featured then? It's not right to have this in the same category as [[Benjamin Sisko]]. [[User:Makon|Makon]] 04:54, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-:Definitely '''agree'''.  It's well written, and complete, but there is almost NO informatio about the character himself, it's all episode summary material.  I'm not sure how a character in 3 scenes from one episode (albeit a great episode) even got through a FA nomination process.  [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 18:12, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
-* ''"It's not right to have this in the same category as [[Benjamin Sisko]]."'' The same can be said about episode summaries, but yet they are. The [[Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria|criteria is quite clear]], and frankly, if you are going to nominate something for removal, you shouldn't be looking at length, but rather if it is '''well-written''', '''comprehensive''', '''accurate''', '''undisputed & stable'''. I see no factors in this nomination that evaluate those factors -- just "length" -- which '''is not a limiting factor'''. The '''key''' is that it is ''well written'', and has nothing to do with how many times they appeared, length or other trivial matters -- which is obviously limited by single-appearance characters -- it has to how the subject and limited imformation is handled. If the character plays a ''significant'' role in the episode, obviously a portion of the article is going to sound like the episode -- simply because the character was featured in the episode and a portion of the episode revolved around the character! [[Telek R'Mor]], a minor character that really acted as the motivator for getting [[Ethan Novakovich]] and [[Grathon Tolar]] nominated, would seem to be an ideal example of a character with a one-time appearance that was well handled without sounding like an episode summary. If you really have doubts about why this or other "short" articles were featured, read the talk page(s) and evaluate the votes for nomination there before posting a page here for a reason that was ''clearly discussed'' in the nomination process. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 14:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
-**I think there is a clear difference between the Tolar-Novakovich type character and R'Mor or the main dude from [[The Defector]].  Both of the latter characters had plenty of extra information to add about themselves, their culture, and the events around the episode.  These guys could just as easily been labled "Alien guest star" or "Unamed crewman" and had just as much info as they do now.  It just bears pointing out that "well-written" is a ''necessary'' but not a ''sufficient'' criteria for nomination, nor is complete.  It has to be a combination of those things, plus, IMO, the additional factor of really adding to MA by expanding beyond just the action on the screen to real character development (or in the case of episodes, meta-Trek). [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 14:58, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
-: I've been extremely reluctant to make my opinion heard in this forum for my (very rational) fear of being the ''bitchy, whiny guy who complains when people disagree with him''.  But I'd like to bring up the same points I was making with an administrator regarding the invalidity of removing the '''Featured Article''' status from both [[Grathon Tolar]] and [[Ethan Novakovich]].
-: The most central point to my dissertation is that you are objecting to their '''FA''' status on the grounds that they don't meet with criteria which do not exist.  When I originally nominated both of these articles as Featured Articles, I examined the stated criteria of being an "''...especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject.''" and I personally desided that they did, in fact, meet those criteria.  Once up for nomination (see [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Grathon_Tolar#Votes_for_featured_status] and [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Ethan_Novakovich#Moved_from_Nominations_for_featured_articles] respectively), it was clearly stated in both nominations that the articles in question were covering "minor subjects"; in reply it was noted by an administer in support of the nomination that "''The fact that it is a minor subject is irrelevant''".  Both of these articles were voted on by the [[Memory Alpha:Archivists|Memory Alpha community]] with ''no'' objections and were made Featured Articles.
-: Your argument that "''<nowiki>'</nowiki>well-written<nowiki>'</nowiki> is a necessary but not a sufficient criteria for nomination, nor is complete.''" is not bourne out by the two places the criteria ''are'' mentioned, neither of which stipulate anything additional except for what has already been stated: well-written, informative, and comprehensive.  There is nothing dictating length, significance of subject matter, or "meta-Trek" as qualifiers for Featured Articles.
-: Succinctly, if this discourse led to a discussion where the Featured Article criteria were reevaluated and made more specific and detailing (such as, if the community wanted to change the parameters for a Featured Article and dictate that it should be a certain length in addition to being of high-quality to be featured), I would be in '''''whole and complete support''''' of helping with that process; and should any articles I contributed substantially to ''not'' qualify under those reevaluated rules, I would be the first to stand by their status removal.  But the criteria now are the exact same as they were when those articles were initially nominated and accepted by a majority of '''MA''' contributers.
-: Based on the information presented above, I anticipate one of two results to occur.  Either [[Ethan Novakovich]] will revert the loss of his FA removal status and [[Grathon Tolar]] will be removed from this list; or a new forum will be opened for discussion and decision-making for the purpose of defining new and more detailing/stringent criteria for the acceptance of Featured Articles, after which all current Featured Articles will have to undergo a reevaluation process to determine whether they may maintain their status under the new protocols.  Either way, I greatly look forward to one or the other conclusion.  —  '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 18:00, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
-===Bolian===
-;[[Bolian]] : This article may be complete, but I don't think it really qualifies as "one of MA's best written articles", which is, in my opinion, the definition of a "featured article". Most of it reads like a simple list of unrelated facts. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 12:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-:I definitely '''agree''' with this, and frankly, feel the same way about the [[Andorian]] article.  The relatively scant content on the Bolian page, most of it anectdotal, hardly makes it a FA in my opinion.  And I think both it and the Andorian article get their nominations not really because of the depth or breadth of the content that I believe make FA's stand out, but because people like these species.  The Andorian article even had several things in it that I don't believe were supported by canon and yet it made the FA list.   [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 13:46, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-::I think if we are going to remove them for this reason we should also removed [[Tellarite]], [[Tholian]] and [[Breen]]. Actually, really all of the species besides the "regs", because all of their articles are built up the same way, complied list of canon references. [[User:Jaf|Jaf]] 14:06, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
-:I disagree slightly with this.  I feel like all those species articles are somehow more robust, with more indepth material.  I mean, at least they have all been featured in episodes that revealed numerous facts about them, especially the Breen and Tellarites.  Whereas Bolians have never been a major focus of even one episode I can think of and almost all the references are from one or two lines of dialogue in unrelated eps.  I suppose I'd have to support keeping the Andorians by this logic, and I'm fine with that.  I also acknowledge that it's a personal bias as species with far more content like the Ferengi ''don't'' get accepted and yet these do despite the paucity of info on them. [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 14:22, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-:::Is there anything more to say about them? If yes - remove it, if not - '''oppose'''. The way ''how'' it is said is maybe a reason for editing, but not for removal. --[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:31, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-::::Now we see what happens when no one participates in their God-given right to vote around here. :) The question is, if you don't like it, what are your suggestions to fix it? Clearly if someone has reservations about the status of article they must also have resolutions on how to resolve it. Obviously no one here can begin to repair it without knowing where to begin. Additionally, the fact of the matter is, ''all we know about the Bolians, Andorians, Breen, Tellarites, Tholians, Gorn, Benzites is a bunch of unrelated facts. That really doesn't give one much to work with -- and keeping that fact in mind, these articles handle that quite well. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 18:20, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-::Actually, I think a lot of what makes them such good articles is the fact that we had so little to work with in the first place. It makes for a nice challange, I vote '''oppose'''. [[User:Jaf|Jaf]] 19:33, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
-RE:Gvsualan: It's pretty simple. As I wrote, the article is just a list of unrelated facts, each mentioned in a separate paragraph. This is definitely not what I would call "well-written" (which is part of the definition of "featured articles"). The solution? Rewrite it to make it a more coherent reading. If this is not possible because all we know about Bolians are those incoherent factoids - tough luck, in that case the article shouldn't have become "featured" in the first place. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:27, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-::::Despite the fact everyone here seems to be a critic and no one a doer, I should probably note that I did fumble around with the article a few days back, as it seems I am the only one that somewhat cares about repairing page. I should also mention again, that now we see what happens when no one participates in their God-given right to vote around here. It might also help if the nominator, attempts to contribute on some level to the pages enhancement, we all might be able to help bring it up to par. Thanks. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 20:24, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-:Well, I've re-read the article and looked for ways to improve it and honestly I'm not sure  how.  So much of what's there is unrelated that I can't see how re-writing will make it smoother.  In fact, even the relation of some of the material to the headings is loose at best, in my opinion.  So I'd like to offer suggestions, or put this in the new PeerReview category, but in the end I'm lead back to my original position:  I just don't think there is enough here to turn this into a fully fleshed FA on par with the other species articles. It's complete, sure, but doesn't go much beyond that.  [[User:Logan 5|Logan 5]] 21:32, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-:::::I've also read it, and it's seems to be complete. I don't see anything wrong with the article, just that some say it could use more info (being complete, I'm curious what the battle plan is with that...) so I '''oppose''' de-FA'd. Or at least move it to peer review. - [[User:AJHalliwell|AJHalliwell]] 23:13, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-I don't think there's any need for hostilities. The reason for my "non-contribution" is that, frankly, I don't know how to edit that article so that it deserves the FA status it already has for whatever reasons. If all we know about Bolians are those loosely related tidbits, it simply ''doesn't'' deserve that status IMO. Featured articles shouldn't simply be ''complete'' (as in "listing all known facts"), they should be comprehensive, interesting to read etc.
-Alan, since this is the second time you are talking about the "god-given right to vote" - apparently, I didn't catch that nomination. If I had, I would have objected at that time, not now, after the fact. That doesn't mean that I don't have the right to voice my concerns now, this is what we have this page for. Seeing that it is nearly impossible to remove FA status from even such an article, you can be sure that I will try to be more active in the nomination process in the future. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 23:33, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-* Addressing my attempts to rally support to fix the article by saying "tough luck" really doesn't seem to be an appropriate choice of words from somebody who wishes to contribute. As you can see, I've already ''attempted'' to pull it together, and have once again, clearly made some changes that I believe have tied many (not all, but many) related points together. I've also thrown some ideas in there that I can't seem to work out that someone else may be able to tweak, such as the fact that Bolians are always offering, lets say, "free advice"-"know-it-all"-"outspoken"-type personality traits we've commonly seen in [[Chell]], [[Vadosia]], [[Mot]], and [[Hars Adislo]]. I'm also pretty sure that with some ad lib or fluff the Culture section can also be brought together more yet. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 03:09, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
-* Any chance we can wrap this thing up? It has been a solid month since this was nominated and nearly as long since '''I''' went through and revamped a large portion of it ([http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Bolian&diff=175953&oldid=158678 compare here]). Since then, no one has either commented OR assisted, which is rather disappointing. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 04:00, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
-If I get this right we have 2 "support" and 3 "oppose", so if there are no more votes I'll remove this tomorrow as failed. (I tend to oppose too) --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 20:30, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)