Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
About → Policies and guidelines → Featured article nomination policy → Featured article criteria → Nominations for featured articlesThis page is for the nomination and discussion of articles that may be potentially included in Memory Alpha's list of featured articles. Featured articles are also displayed on the main page of the wiki. A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject.
Any registered user may nominate any article for inclusion in the list of featured articles. When you nominate an article, include a short description of why you think that the article should be featured. If you are nominating an article that you have worked on, please note that fact in your description. The nomination is then open to discussion, and anyone may comment about the inclusion of the article in the list. For voting ("Support" or "Oppose") you have to fulfill some requirements. And, as always, please sign your nominations and comments with "~~~~".
When you are commenting on a nomination, please take the time to read the entire article before you decide whether to support or oppose the nomination.
A nomination can be resolved if it has been inactive for seven days. It is considered successful if there have been five or more votes, with all objections resolved.
Optionally, a notice that the article has been nominated as a featured article candidate may be added to the article by inserting {{fac}} at the top or bottom of the article.
See also
Nominations without objections
- Christine Chapel. Self-nomination. All important appearences on TOS are noted, as well as her actions on TAS and TMP. Ottens 16:31, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Observer Effect. I tried to make this a good page, I think I succeeded. Has detailed information and pictures. --Defiant | Talk 15:11, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Seeing the episode may take less time then reading the description here ;-) But really EXCELLENT work, very extended write-up of the episode, and you picked some good accompanying images. Keep up the fantastic work! Ottens 16:08, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Supported. Tyrant 19:19, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Supported, however, I find it humorous that there are red reference links at the bottom of the page. I say give it one more day. --Gvsualan 04:40, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)
Nominations with objections
- "Equinox, Part I" and "Equinox, Part II". Self-nomination, just added all details to this episode which I can think of. A few dead links at the moment, but I'm working on them -- MiChaos 19:09, 7 Nov 2004 (CET).
- Supported, but like Parallels, needs some pictures... Of course, thats not a reason to seriously object, but a suggestion. Ottens 19:20, 8 Nov 2004 (CET)
- Supported Is this down here for a reason? Tyrant 19:26, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Nay - as the Ottman said 4 months ago, both still need pics! --Gvsualan 04:40, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- United. Self-nominated. Extensive summary with informative pictures! --Defiant | Talk 21:06, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Supported Tyrant 21:51, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Opposed -- As long as those 30-some references to the "Raptor" exist in the article, it might as well be non-canon. I've been hell-bent for leather on this and no one seems to catch on, but: the term "RAPTOR" was NEVER EVER used in THIS episode or other two associated with it. It is wrong, it does not belong here. It is either Romulan drone-ship or modified-Warbird, or if using Archers terminology, "marauder" (which I would recommend not using either). --Gvsualan 04:40, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I've now deleted the references to "Raptor" in "Babel One", a featured page, and "United". Also, I plan to delete the references to "Raptor" in "The Aenar" soon. Now, what do I do if I want to nominate this page again? --Defiant | Talk 02:32, 27 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Federation-Cardassian War. Self-Nominated. Think I've got all references to this conflict. Tyrant 19:19, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Oppose - I'm sorry, but I really don't think this is good enough to make it as a featured article. Compared with other FAs of the same type, it's of significantly lesser quality. Whilst I recognise that this is because it has only been referred to in dialogue and snippets over half-a-dozen seasons, and may be comprehensive in terms of its coverage of what has been said, it doesn't feel like a Featured Article. In addition, the sectioning of the article is awkward, and indeed, poor. The small size of the article makes such sectioning unnecessary (and an "Overview" section is always frowned upon - such information should just be the initial paragraph, and not starting with a section header). Moreover, the content isn't correct - there has been no explanation as to the cause of the war, the references provided offer no evidence to support the paragraph. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Can an article of this type be featured? As it cannot have the quality of the other events because the necessary information simply does not exist. The sectioning has been removed, as has the misinformation, which for the record came from Maquis, I trusted it because that article is currently featured. Still maybe lacking feel. Tyrant 19:29, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Any article can be a featured article, as long as it's good enough. The length of an article should not be considered here, it's about the quality of the writing, and of course all available information should be included. Since I don't remember the episodes referred to, Michael could be correst as far as I know in saying these references do not support "facts" written here. That should be checked by those who have seen the episodes. As last remark, I would suggest not using the two symbols of the powers involved in this conflict in such a fashion - IMO it looks rather akward. I don't think there are any images of the actual conflict available, though... For now, opposed, but could make a well FA in the future. Ottens 16:24, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Well, I respect your opinions. I will make any changes requested of the community, as I would like to see this article featured. Futher suggestions? Tyrant 20:39, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Any article can be a featured article, as long as it's good enough. The length of an article should not be considered here, it's about the quality of the writing, and of course all available information should be included. Since I don't remember the episodes referred to, Michael could be correst as far as I know in saying these references do not support "facts" written here. That should be checked by those who have seen the episodes. As last remark, I would suggest not using the two symbols of the powers involved in this conflict in such a fashion - IMO it looks rather akward. I don't think there are any images of the actual conflict available, though... For now, opposed, but could make a well FA in the future. Ottens 16:24, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Can an article of this type be featured? As it cannot have the quality of the other events because the necessary information simply does not exist. The sectioning has been removed, as has the misinformation, which for the record came from Maquis, I trusted it because that article is currently featured. Still maybe lacking feel. Tyrant 19:29, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Oppose - I'm sorry, but I really don't think this is good enough to make it as a featured article. Compared with other FAs of the same type, it's of significantly lesser quality. Whilst I recognise that this is because it has only been referred to in dialogue and snippets over half-a-dozen seasons, and may be comprehensive in terms of its coverage of what has been said, it doesn't feel like a Featured Article. In addition, the sectioning of the article is awkward, and indeed, poor. The small size of the article makes such sectioning unnecessary (and an "Overview" section is always frowned upon - such information should just be the initial paragraph, and not starting with a section header). Moreover, the content isn't correct - there has been no explanation as to the cause of the war, the references provided offer no evidence to support the paragraph. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:15, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Cloaking device; Excellently written article, makes good use of images. Makes superb usage of available information, as well as duly noting inconsistancies. | THOR 23:24, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- I don't seem to miss any information. Good references, nice accompanying pictures, extensive write-up. Ottens 16:27, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Supported Tyrant 17:10, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant
- Supported - All the important points are there. Solid effort! -- Balok 18:36, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Support. -- SmokeDetector47 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Needs More. A few things come to mind that are missing, upon further review, such as references about chronitons, and a passing reference to "Past Tense, Part I". Also, "The Die is Cast", "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", "When the Bough Breaks" and "The Emissary" all contain useful references, or at the least, unexplored references to cloaks.--Gvsualan 17:48, 18 Feb 2005 (EST)
- What does "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" say about cloaks? There is an invisible budget-saving ship, but it does not use a cloak. The info on that is already at stealth, where it belongs. As for the others, I either haven't seen them ("Emissary", "Bough Breaks") or don't recall any relevance ("Past Tense" and "Die is Cast"). -- Steve 21:01, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
- Just because you haven't watched an episode, does not mean it's information is void. For specific reasons, they all possess nuggets, or the seed to other areas or abilities yet unrevealed in said article. All I am saying is that more research is required. --Gvsualan 23:32, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)
