Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates/Archive

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Listed here are previously Featured Articles, that have been removed for some reason. The reasons for removing them are discussed beneath the header listing the article. For information on renomination of these articles for Featured Article, see the Featured article nomination policy.

Contents 1 Christopher Pike (20 July, 2008) 2 Borg-Species 8472 War (June 6, 2008) 3 USS Equinox (June 4, 2008) 4 Maquis (Feb 14, 2008) 5 Sovereign class (Feb 7, 2008) 6 Terran Empire ranks (July 07, 2007) 7 Intrepid-class (March 29, 2007) 8 Klingon (March 20) 9 Janice Rand (March 6) 10 Miles O'Brien (August 2nd) 11 Borg (January 26th) 12 Khan Noonien Singh (January 26th) 13 Shinzon (December 18th) 14 Klingon Empire (October 21st) 15 Ethan Novakovich (October 21st) 16 Emergence (July 13th) 17 James T. Kirk (January 13th) 18 Galaxy class (January 30th) 19 Romulan (March 5th) 20 Dominion (March 20th) 21 The Doctor (June 18th)

[edit] Christopher Pike (20 July, 2008)

This article was originally featured on May 24, 2004 and, IMO does not stand up to our current standards or expectations. It currently reads like a synopsis, and barely scratches the surface of Pike's psyche, which I feel was explained much better in the episodes he appeared in that this article currently depicts. I also feel this is lacking in a "personal" section on the character as well. In nominating this article for featured removal, I did add the updated character sidebar and removed the "biographical timeline" section, which was essentially a chronology of the episodes in question rather than an actual "biography" of Pike (view my changes here). This all goes without saying what the future may yet hold for this character as well... --Alan 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the removal of the timeline, and the "dossier." But is there a reason the Pike City reference was removed? - AJ Halliwell 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite it as being a legitimate reference to Christopher Pike, or is that just speculation because it contains the same common name? At least in terms of the shuttle, the encyclopedia explicitly states that it was named after Pike, I'm not sure the same can be said for the name "Pike City (Pioneers)". --Alan 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Support removal as a featured article. A decent article, but it doesn't read like the other featured articles. I agree that without a citation the Pike City reference should be removed.--31dot 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Archived. – Cleanse 06:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borg-Species 8472 War (June 6, 2008)

I would like to suggest the removal of the article Borg-Species 8472 War from FA status because of the formatting error. How can this article be an FA when there is a sign at the bottom that says it needs attention? TrekFan 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support unless changes are made to it to satisfy the pna. It seems to be more incomplete than unformatted, though.--31dot 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Agree with 31dot about the PNA. Plus, with the self-nomination and single supporting vote back from 2004, how can we call this a featured article? — Topher 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Archived.– Cleanse 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Equinox (June 4, 2008)

The USS Equinox article was self-nominated in June 2004 and did not meet today's criteria of nominating a featured article. According to the talk page, it was nominated, seconded, and received one additional vote only after having the criteria clarified by MA founder Dan Carlson.

To confuse things further, in November 2006, it was labeled PNA while still being labeled featured! Three months later, Alan questioned the legitimacy of the FA voting and removed the featured tag out of hand, but left the PNA. This is the way it was for nearly a year when records of the voting finally turned up. Alan archived the vote on the talk page and the FA tag was reinstated in February 2008. It still retained the PNA tag, though, until Cleanse removed the PNA two months later.

While I understand that this was a good article when it was written, it has had some major changes and issues with it in the four years since it was declared a featured article. Does it live up to the high standards we hold featured articles to today? – Topher 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this article is still deserving of FA status. In my opinion, the article itself is detailed enough and there are a decent amount of images to compliment it. TrekFan 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal suggestion. The very shaky "FA history" of this article makes it a bad example to present as "our best work". At least, it should have another FA nomination discussion, and this suggestion would be the first step for that... (For the record, I personally don't think that this is still "the best" we have to offer, in any case.) -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Cid that the weak justification for remaining an FA would call for another nomination. I agree the article is not our best work today.– Cleanse 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Support removal. I agree with Cid and Cleanse's words.--31dot 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Archived. – Cleanse 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maquis (Feb 14, 2008)

Maquis: This should have never been featured:

Self-nomination. A long article about the entire history of the Maquis movement. Much longer than the short Encyclopedia blurb about the group! ;-) -- Dan Carlson 22:17, 24 May 2004 (CEST)

Then it was archived as a "successful nomination" three days later by User:MinutiaeMan, with no additional votes.

Last year March, User:Renegade54 suggested:

Should we remove featured status from this article until the citation issues are cleared up? It kinda looks bad to have a big fat PNA in the middle of a featured article...

To which I later agreed on 26 June 2007. Since then the citation thing seems to have been somewhat resolved.

Regardless, the changes from the original featured and now are quite drastic, and as I stated above, a self-nomination/self-featured no-vote article should not be considered a FA on MA as there is clearly no community involvement outside of this discussion. --Alan del Beccio 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: Disregarding the legitimate issue of different guidelines, and the massive changes to the article since it was nominated, it does seem to have odd sectioning and a low number of citations in places.--Tim Thomason 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - for reasons given by Alan. – Cleanse 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. - also for the reasons Alan gave. --31dot 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever voted on the site, so forgive my ignorance. I've read through the guidelines and whatnot though, and I think I've got the basics. Now, I read through the Maquis article and it seems extremely well written to me. Am I correct in thinking that the main reason you're suggesting it be removed is because it didn't fulfill all the criteria when it was first added? If that is so, I can see your point, but at the same time, if it's a good article, then what difference does it make now how it was added in the first place. Can we not put it down to proverbial 'computer error' and just accept the quality of the article as is? Like I say, I'm new to this, and I could have just asked the dumbest question in history here, so if that's the case, be gentle with me! – Bertaut ^talk 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived. --Alan del Beccio 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign class (Feb 7, 2008)

Sovereign class: This article is hardly complete - even though I noticed reference to Stellar cartography and Transporter room 3 in Star Trek: First Contact, there was no mention of any of that in the article! It instead states that the Sovereign-class has 29 decks when Picard states, again in Star Trek: First Contact, that the Enterprise has 24 decks! What's more, the vast majority of the images used come from Star Trek Nemesis to the extent that I believe there inadequate visual attention paid to Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection - for example, I'm pretty sure a better image of sickbay could be taken from Star Trek: First Contact, and that's just for starters! --Defiant 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deck 29 was referenced twice in Star Trek Nemesis. --Alan del Beccio 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Featured With only minor touching up, this could easily meet the standards you would like to see. I could probably do it on the weekend. And as for sickbay, it comes from Star Trek Nemesis because that was the only film which got a special sickbay built for 1701-E. FC used Voyager's sickbay. --Nmajmani 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove, while I'm sure this article is "almost there", what needs to be factored into this is the fact that it became featured in 2004, with only 3 "yes" votes. While acceptable then, today's FA standards require 5 votes of support. I would much rather see all featured articles run completely through the ringer before becoming featured, leaving no stone, or reference unturned. Compare original featured to now. Big difference, in fact, not even the same article. In contrast, I can point out more than one FA that is nearly as old that has barely changed since the FA tag was added. --Alan del Beccio 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment As both 24 and 29 decks were mentioned, why not say something like "between 24 and 29 decks" - it doesn't need to be too specific as it's a ship class, not just a single ship and both amounts are canon & true! Also, why not have images of sickbay from both Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek Nemesis? I really don't see why it has to be one or the other! The fact that the sickbay set used for Star Trek: First Contact was borrowed from Star Trek: Voyager makes very little difference as it is still a Sovereign-class sickbay in canon! --Defiant 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the diff Alan provided convinces me of this suggestion - the revision that was featured back then is a completely different article than what we have now. Re-nomination seems like the way to go. (As an aside, stating that the ship has "between 24 and 29 decks" seems a little - strange.) -- Cid Highwind 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I take my comment back. After seeing the info provided by Alan, I support the removal of this article as FA. --Nmajmani 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of featured status. As Alan has pointed out, it has changed a great deal and isn't close to the same article, even ignoring the fast-track approval it seemed to have. If someone wants to improve it, fine, but the featured status should be removed and the article should be renominated.--31dot 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terran Empire ranks (July 07, 2007)

I really find nothing significant or special about this article or it's content, and believe that our standards for FA have changed significantly since this article was nominated. --Alan 10:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, I think this is a prime example of how some favorite material gets the benefit of the doubt despite not having much "there" there. Logan 5 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. -- Renegade54 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Archived --Alan 07:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intrepid-class (March 29, 2007)

Any article with 21 {{incite}}s shouldn't be a featured article. It was originally marked as a featured article on July 24, 2004 by user Redge, apparently without a nomination or discussion, and has changed significantly since then. -- Renegade54 16:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Support removal. Not sure about whether it really was nominated or not (the 2004 archive is highly unreliable), but the incite markers are more than enough. -- Cid Highwind 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support removal. Yikes, 21 citation failures?! — THOR ^=/\= 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redge was notorious for doing that, based on my investigations on other questionable and old featured articles. However, in this case, I did find the votes for this nomination and had them archived here for posterity, where interestingly he noted: "Though it does still need a lot of references, I'm sure these will be filled in later." Until we can get things cited, I vote to remove it as well. --Alan del Beccio 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion of citing stuff and putting through a peer review as quickly as possibly to get this featured again. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: From what I see, it appears many of the uncited references may be based on observational references. We currently have no way to cite such references, unless we simply cite the first episode that particular observation was made in. --Alan del Beccio 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That would seem to be a pretty good solution right there... --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support removal of FA status, would like to see it back to FA soon, perhaps. Mafeu 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support for removal of FA status as well. I think it still needs some work for it to be an FA. - Enzo Aquarius 13:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Archived --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klingon (March 20)

This article was originally marked as a featured article on September 11, 2004 and has changed rather significantly since then. The Dominion article changed less than this, and was removed as a featured article because of it.

In addition to the large number of changes, there is also a lot of speculation in the article, which really adds to what we want to present as a featured article (sarcasm intended). -- Sulfur 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support removal. -- Renegade54 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed and Archived. -- Sulfur 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janice Rand (March 6)

Clearly nominated and approved in the Dark Ages of M/A, I don't find this article particularly impressive by today's standards. When it comes to her later career, there is more background information about the inconsistencies in her rank than there is information on where she appeared or what she actually did. "Flashback" really builds a lot on the Rand character, relatively speaking, and that is barely even explored in the article. In fact, the last sentence in her article isn't even about her, it's about the Excelsior, and has nothing to do with her role in the Excelsior's role. Dinner roll, anyone? Also, while I'm not opposed to the inclusion of images from all her appearances, as it currently stands, there really should be some more text to supplement their inclusion. --Alan del Beccio 08:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, Mild support. Not much to the second half of the article. Either it's incomplete or needs to be re-written and re-structured so that the emphasis is on the content, not the background. Also, if it's unclear whether the picture of the "Woman in Cafeteria"/Commander is her or not it should be moved to Background or Apocrypha and noted there. Logan 5 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, all in all, I think we should recognize all appearances of Grace as Rand, just as we do with all are other background characters played by the same performer. Other than that "BUMP" --Alan del Beccio 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal, for the reasons stated above. It isn't really an "outstanding" article by current standards. -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should recognize her Star Trek III appearance as Rand (Richard Sarstedt, Josh Clark), but other than that, it should be removed based on the fact that it doesn't fully cover her "Flashback" appearance and so on.--Tim Thomason 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archived. --Alan del Beccio 05:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miles O'Brien (August 2nd)

The most striking thing is that there is a distinct lack of any information pertaining to Julian, especially in the friends section; (Oh my mistake, there is that one itty-bitty paragraph) that seems odd to me. Also, the page seems overall short; compared to other main character articles of late, Miles is one of the longest running ongoing Characters in trek- I think there's more info on him. Also, the citations seem to be missing in many places. On another note, his "voting" isn't on his talk page, so is it possible someone just added it and we didn't notice? Eh, maybe not, but I'll keep looking. - AJ Halliwell 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• remove. --Bp 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• remove. --From Andoria with Love 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• remove. --Ortzinator 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borg (January 26th)

Since it {{featured}} status in November 2004 a lot of information is added to this article. In my opinion this article does no longer qualify as "featured". Some information in it was dead wrong (already changed this) and some text needs to be wikified. I also believe that this article should be written from the Borgs POV, like the Vulcan, Andorian, Klingon does. All it does now is sum up the dealings the Federation had with the Borg. I also finds its structure not the way it should be. The Origins are part of the Borgs history and should therefore be place under it. The same goes for some of the information now placed under the Quadrant headings. All in all this arcticle could do with a good overhaul. -- Q 23:24, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. This article just nees some cleaning up. If an article has been featured, its done. That is the way it goes (in my opinion). It just needs to be monitored and tended to more. --Galaxy001 22:21, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. If the article needs to be cleaned up and tended to, that necessitates removing its featured status. I do see a lot of red links towards the bottom, which while not part of the official criteria is an indicator that something needs attention. I wouldl ike to see the part about the Borg's ultimate fate moved into a separate section, for one. But as for the POV, I think I understand where Q is coming from: it needs to talk about the Borrg encountering the Enterprise not visa-versa, and so on. Overall a very good article, but as both pointed out, it needs work (which justifies removing the {{featured}}, at least for now). --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 22:36, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Now I Agree. After cleanup, however, it should be considered to be added back to the featured list. --Galaxy001 01:13, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - once cleaned up it can be re-nominated for FA, but for now it's not looking its best. - Hayter 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - The reason I agree are the many articles to be created/edited under the "Drone Technology" area. Once these articles are given suitable information I would reconsider this article for FA. nWo 4 Life 05:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khan Noonien Singh (January 26th)

This article is currently rewritten in its entirety. As far as I am concerned when a {{featured}} article is rewritten it loses automatically its featured status. If a article like this undergoes a major rewrite it needs to be checked again if it is up to MA standards, one could argue that if a featured article needs a major rewrite is was not ready to be featured et al, but that is debatable. Because an article was featured, does not mean the rewrite can stay featured also. -- Q 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, AureliusKirk had the exact same thoughts as you concerning the article's featured status. I told him he didn't need to nominate it here automatically and that someone else would if they thought the quality was lower because of his work. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the case; if the changes mean it no longer qualifies, take it off, otherwise it should be left alone. Unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to judge it one way or another. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

reply. It is not really a matter of better or worse quality. When the initial feature status was given it was done so at the account of the then present article structure and wording. When a major rewrite is done this all changes and it should again go through the peerreview/nomination proces. At least as far as I am concerned. -- Q 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Support - It was my intention to nominate this article for Featured removal, you guys just beat me to it. It is substantially different. Even if everyone thought the latest version was clear improvement, I'd still nominate it based on the radical change. If I thought removing the featured tag was within my "rights" I would have done so, but I thought this was the proper forum. --Aurelius Kirk 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

reply. It is within you "rights" so to speak. Everyone can place an article on the removal list if they find it does no longer qualify as {{featured}}. Removing the featured status without letting it go through the removal proces is not done. -- Q 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shinzon (December 18th)

Put simply, I don't feel this is good enough to be a featured article. It lacks the clear sectioning used in other featured articles (see William T. Riker), and there is a mix of canon and apocryphal (sic?) data in contrast to the MA practice of including non-canon data at the bottom of a page. Clearly a page on a one movie villain who was only briefly expanded upon cannot be as in depth or elongated as the provided example above, but even featured pages about subjects such as the Cardassian Rebellion - an event which only lasted a few episodes and was never really covered directly (Kira & Damar's shown actions being largely tunnelled), we get a much more convincing layout than what's shown here. And if you think that a subject such as Shinzon simply cannot be detailed as much as this because there is simply less data, it seems clear that the article cannot be considered to be on the same level of quality. - Hayter 13:40, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Hayter, it looks like this one slipped through the net when it was put up for featured status. It needs a total overhaul, and probably a peer review before it gets re-assessed for FA status. Zsingaya ^Talk 14:21, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I support its removal as a featured article. This page has been incorrectly labeled as such since July 26th, 2004, and it was apparently never nominated. And it certainly could use some work before becoming a featured article. --From Andoria with Love 05:05, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Support removal, definetly. --Starchild 05:44, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Support; if for no other reason then because it wasn't voted on prior to featuring it. (I haven't seen the movie so can't judge its accuracy and such.) Sloan 05:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Support FA removal. Seems not to have been discussed before, and was edited considerably after. -- Cid Highwind 12:31, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klingon Empire (October 21st)

Klingon Empire

For the same reason Dominion lost it's featured status, after the creation of Dominion history (see: Removal Archive, I feel the same applies here. A hefty chunk of the article got removed, therefore meaning that it isn't the article it was when it was given featured status -- something that falls well within the requirements for the removal of said status. --Alan del Beccio 02:53, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• Support - this leads to the question how these articles can be "filled up" to regain featured status. --Memory 15:18, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Holy cow, there's hardly anything left after the other articles were created. Significant change to content (ie. not "stable") is definitely a reason to de-list. Logan 5 16:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think the current article lives up to featured states. I wonder why it was awarded such in the first place... Ottens 10:00, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Novakovich (October 21st)

Ethan Novakovich - Same thing as Solbor and Grathon Tolar, this character has almost nothing to contribute as a character that isn't based on episode summary material. It was nominated fairly recently (last spring) but I can't imagine how this meets that standards of FA other than being "complete" and how hard is that for such a minor character? To my mind, characters need to be of consequence to be FAs and need to have personal information that isn't based on re-written actions on screen. If they don't fit that, and aren't long-running recurring characters like Ayala, then I don't think they represent the best of MA. Logan 5 18:15, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just re-reading this article...there's NO personal information about this guy. How is this anything other than an action summary? What does it add? Someone tell me. Logan 5 15:01, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• Support - but only because of equity because something like Jean-Luc Picard is a far more difficult project, so there's some "unbalance" if the one is featured (with less work to do for) and the other (with a lot of work done) not. --Memory 16:05, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I wonder how it got through the nomination procedure in the first place. I don't think this article could ever become featured, as there's simply not enough information to make it complete. Ottens 10:01, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence (July 13th)

Since the criteria for featured status have become more stringent, I do not feel that this article is any longer worthy of featured status for the following reasons:
- Numerous spelling and grammatical errors
- Absent background information
- Poorly formatted references
- Questionable use of pictures
Personally, I think that there are better written articles that are not featured (and probably do not deserve the status as of yet).--Scimitar 13:29, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• Second. Because of spelling and grammatic errors and poor formatting. Lack of background information and "questionable" image use are, in my opinion, no reason to object featured status. Ottens 11:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
• Abstention. The article has been edited, see its talk page. Mornsbar 16:08, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
• This page needs to be re-evaluated since the above changes were made. --Alan del Beccio 06:22, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• I've re-evaluated it since and I'm still not satisfied with it. There are still grammatical errors and instead of correctly formatting the references, they have simply been truncated, almost like amputating a limb to avoid healing a scratch. The odd pointless references are made too such as "heading".--Scimitar 22:42, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• Third The article also does not follow the usual Act 1, 2 , 3 etc. format. I thought featured episodes must be in that format, rather than have chapter names. Also, there isn't enough info in any section but the summary. Tobyk777 22:45, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 00:30, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James T. Kirk (January 13th)

James T. Kirk, for one, the page has an "attention needed" notice. It needs a rewrite, some facts checked, a number of wiki-fixes and some additions made, especially from TOS - which is otherwise seriously overshadowed by Movie references. --Gvsualan 19:07, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)

I agree. For some reason, the {{featured}} message is already missing on that article - and I think it can stay this way. No article that "needs attention" should be "featured". -- Cid Highwind 23:31, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)

According to the log, I evidently removed it. To my knowledge I did it unintentionally, that or I mistook it as improperly belonging there because of the attention needed notice and removed it as an oversight prior to realizing it was legit. I will restore it in the meantime due to the fact that it is, at this point, already considered "featured" it should remain there, as long as it is under debate. --Gvsualan 23:42, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)

Yes, that would be the proper procedure. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 23:44, 2005 Jan 13 (CET)

I vote we take the FA off for now. Tyrant 19:39, 30 Jan 2005 (CET)Tyrant

The procedure has changed in the meantime, so I removed the message again and suggest to keep this discussion some more days (4-5?) to allow everyone to comment. -- Cid Highwind 22:06, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

[edit] Galaxy class (January 30th)

Galaxy-class - an extensive rewrite was started and is still in progress. This rewrite is, in my opinion, completely justified to remove TNGTM speculation. As such, the article probably shouldn't have been nominated in the first place - it's "Featured article"-status should definitely be reconsidered now. I suggest this article as a "FA removal candidate" and think it should be re-suggested as a FA once the rewrite is complete. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

Support. The article has been drastically changed from its original form; the community definitely needs to reconsider whether or not it wants to keep it as a featured article at some point in the future. -- SmokeDetector47 22:06, 2005 Jan 30 (CET)

I see that the "featured" was removed at one point, but was it has not mysteriously returned, was this a legitimate or frivolous add back? --Gvsualan 20:10, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)

[edit] Romulan (March 5th)

Romulan - this is still lacking a lot of info from DS9 and ENT. At least I think so, can't really be sure because I have no idea where half of the info is coming from as very little is cited. Tyrant 17:05, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

Support; for precisely the same reasons. || THOR 17:42, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)

This was the original featured article, I'm not sure it ever should have been in the first place. A lot of what I read in there seems to be pretty "fluffed" up (ie: caste system?). --Gvsualan 20:10, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)

[edit] Dominion (March 20th)

• Dominion, the article possibly needs a rework, but regardless to this suggestion, more than half of it was removed during the move of the 'History' section to Dominion history. In essence, it isn't the article it was when it was given said status. --Gvsualan 14:13, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • Agreed, remove status because of significant changes to the article. -- Cid Highwind 07:41, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

[edit] The Doctor (June 18th)

This is lacking quite a bit. It lacks his medical acomplishments, some of his recreational activities (holo-photography for example), and much of his personal relationships with the crew. Tyrant 16:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

• Disagree - while I do believe that those additions would be excellent, I do not feel that their absence reduces the deserved status of the article. -- Dmsdbo 13:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• Agree - This article does lack some information that's not crucial, but should be expected from a Featured Article. I've seen some articles that go deep in-depth into the characters, they are really great featured articles, but this one doesn't really reflect a lot of that. -AJHalliwell 04:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree - I agree that it lacks his medical achievements and there really should be a lot more information on his personal relationships with the crew. The article on Jean-Luc Picard, to me, is far more detailed yet it is not featured as it still lacks some crucial information.--Scimitar 10:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. The second on the Doctor's life is nice, but it completely lacks information on personal relationships and medical accomplishments. Ottens 12:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)