FANDOM


(Cardassian ATR-4107: + input;)
Line 9: Line 9:
   
 
:'''Remove''' as a FA. First, I agree that the fact there was only one vote in favor originally should at least cause us to re-discuss the issue. Second, it reads to me as little more than a summary of the episode. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think a FA should be unique and different.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:'''Remove''' as a FA. First, I agree that the fact there was only one vote in favor originally should at least cause us to re-discuss the issue. Second, it reads to me as little more than a summary of the episode. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think a FA should be unique and different.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  +
: '''Oppose''' w/o any specific complaints against the article (as are below with regard to [[doomsday machine]]); I find the article well-written, comprehensive, accurate, and undisputed. <!-- re: the following, I'd honestly forgotten I'd made the initial nomination --> As for the nomination, while only two editors explicitly supported the nomination, nobody opposed it or had any specific arguments (in fact, the parenthetical comment by [[User:Dmsdbo]] seems ot have been resolved since). — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">THOR</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#FF9933;">''=/\=''</span>]]</sup> 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
   
 
===Grathon Tolar===
 
===Grathon Tolar===

Revision as of 16:41, October 7, 2008

Template:Farc

Articles nominated for removal

Cardassian ATR-4107

I do not think the Cardassian ATR-4107 article is worthy of FA status. Although it is detailed, I just do not think it compares with the likes of Force field or Cloaking device for example - similarly themed articles. Also, looking back at the voting process, there was only one vote for FA status. I think this article needs to be reconsidered. -- TrekFan Talk 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove as a FA. First, I agree that the fact there was only one vote in favor originally should at least cause us to re-discuss the issue. Second, it reads to me as little more than a summary of the episode. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think a FA should be unique and different.--31dot 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose w/o any specific complaints against the article (as are below with regard to doomsday machine); I find the article well-written, comprehensive, accurate, and undisputed. As for the nomination, while only two editors explicitly supported the nomination, nobody opposed it or had any specific arguments (in fact, the parenthetical comment by User:Dmsdbo seems ot have been resolved since). — THOR =/\= 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Grathon Tolar

This article simply does not meet the requirements for FA IMO. There is only one source for the information in this article and it is too short. -- TrekFan Talk 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Just as a note, this has been discussed before.
As said on the nomination page, length is not relevant to its status as a FA. Also, there is only one source because the character was only in the one episode. --31dot 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday machine

Doomsday machine - has been awarded FA status in 2004. Since then parts of it have been shifted around, others have been considerably rewritten (diff), which at least warrants another look at this articles FA status.

I think this article no longer is "one of the best" MA has to offer. One thing that bugs me is the huge Apocrypha section making up about 1/3 of the page. While we do allow some of that stuff, I think an "excellent" article should restrict itself in that regard, and instead link to Memory Beta.

Instead, some more background info about the creative process might be a valuable addition. I think I read about the first designs of that device somewhere, and how it became what we saw due to budget restrictions. Some comparison between TOS and TOS-R might be added as well.

Finally, the structuring of the article could be better. There's just a tiny paragraph about the device (which is the topic of the article, after all), followed by a huge section about the battle against it. This should be restructured to have more of the modus operandi of the machine in the first section, and eventually a less detailed battle depiction in the second. -- Cid Highwind 09:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Cid's reasoning.– Cleanse 10:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Support. As with the Dreadnought article, a FA should be more than a summary of the episode it was in(which, for some reason, was why it was nominated, according to the original discussion).--31dot 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.