Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles/Archive

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

< Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles

An archive for Nominations that didn't make it for some reason. You can rewrite the articles, changing them on the points that were the main criteria for not featuring them, and then renominate them. When you do, shortly include the reasons it wasn't nominated the last time, and leave the archive entry standing here.

For previous year nominations see the 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 archives.

[edit] ENT: The Xindi (Jan 10, 2009)

"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. Dave^{Subspace Message} 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is this one just going to be ignored? Dave^{Subspace Message} 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: I think this episode article is detailed enough to be a featured article. It is certainly sufficiently detailed and there are relevant images accompanying the text (which I added!). -- TrekFan ^Talk 14:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Second. - Definitely at the same level of quality as the other featured articles on episodes. --36ophiuchi 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived, nomination failed: insufficient votes, inactive for seven after 40 days. --Alan 02:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Federation history (May 12, 2009)

Federation history

Self nomination: After I've majorly expanded and rewritten this article, I started a peer review in July 08. The first attempt to get it featured a couple of months ago was not successful, however. Nevertheless, the article has further matured and grown over the months and I've addressed all mentioned issues. I think it's finally ready to take the test... --36ophiuchi 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Needing some feedback please ;-) --36ophiuchi 21:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Well written and informative article. – Tom 11:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. A good article. Links lots of stuff together. --Pseudohuman 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments: Needs some touch-ups. It's definitely a good start, and while I corrected several formatting/spelling issues, to me it looks like it needs a good peer review (by Renegade54, Sulfur or Shran) to correct some other little things I've noticed (redundant links, grammar, formatting, several piped links that hide key terms that should be more visible). I don't have a lot of time this afternoon to implement this, but I do have a few suggestions for expansion, organization: 1) I am unsure if it is really necessary to get so in-depth with the Temporal Cold War/Xindi thing. A lot of that is/belongs in the Earth history page, or perhaps in the prehistory, such as the friction it caused between Archer and the Vulcans for not helping, and the Andorians misdirected attempt to assist Earth while at the same time serving their own needs. 2) I also think something could be added about the Polaric Test Ban Treaty and the Neutral Zone Treaty/Nimbus III experiment in the 23rd century, in terms of relations with the Romulans, as that information seems to be lacking from both here and the main article. 3) Other notes: Nothing about their involvement in the Klingon Civil War; a bit more could be said on the first contact between the Dominion and Federation surrounding DS9: "The Jem'Hadar", "The Search, Part I", "The Search, Part II"; and finally (for now), there is a complete lack of reference to the Maquis, a group that created something of a schism in the Federation. --Alan 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Alan for your comments. Actually there is a peer review of the article which I've already added in July 2008... As you can see it went unnoticed like so many peer reviews... The only place constructive criticism is issued seems to be here... As for the grammar bit: Although I'd tend to say that I'm more or less fluent in English, I'd definitely prefer a native speaker having a look on the article again. --36ophiuchi 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Adressed items 1) and 2) on your list so far. The Neutral Zone Treaty is hard to include in such a historical article, as we do not know when it was signed, by whom or what its exact content was. --36ophiuchi 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This is a minor issue, but the section "The future" needs to be rethought. According to our point of view all of those events are actually in the past. And the first paragraph in that section seems like speculation. Perhaps rewrite that first paragraph, move it under the "24th century" header, then rename "The future" section to something like "25th century and beyond"?– Cleanse 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've killed the speculative paragraph and renamed the section "26th to 31st century" as this is actually the time covered by it. --36ophiuchi 13:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived by User:Defiant. --Alan 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] VOY: Alliances (May 12, 2009)

"Alliances"

Self nomination: I nominate this article because I completely re-wrote the summary for this episode, which orginally was a very short paragraph summarizing it, to a very detailed episode summary. I also added several pictures to the summary and a memorable quotes section. --Delta2373 07:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments: While I think that it is great that you rewrote the section and added pics I find it way too long and wordy. This is supposed to be a "Summary" and not the abridged version of the original script. It needs to be more condensed, giving the reader the gist of the episode. There is way too much detail in this and overwhelming for anyone who is expecting a summary. This is supposed to engage the reader, not intimidate them. Also, there is little spacing/paragraphing, with just a big block/chunk of text in each section (which might have to do with this being entirely too long and wordy). I think this needs some serious trimming down. Hope this helps...– Distantlycharmed 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments: Thank you for your advice; you are right, it is too much. I went back to the article today and broke up some of the huge paragraphs to try to make it flow a little better. --Delta2373 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but I really believe that it is too long content-wise. It is too detailed and it does not need to be that long. It is only a Summary. – Distantlycharmed 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about "Prototype"? It got featured article status and it's longer than "Alliances". --Delta2373 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I think that wasnt right. "In a Mirror, Darkly" also got featured article status and just recently it was discussed as being way too long as well. I wasnt here when Prototype got nominated or maybe missed it, but something called a Summary cannot be that long, wordy and detailed. Either it shouldnt be called a Summary or if it is a Summary, the contents should reflect that accordingly. Please dont get me wrong, this is not a personal attack against you, but when you think about it, it really is not necessary or appropriate even for the episode page Summary to be in such painful detail. It doesnt even make sense. The whole point of a summary or synopsis is to outline the main points of the episode, addressing key points/aspects, giving the reader a gist of what is going on here etc, without going into every little detail and basically retelling the episode from every camera angle it was filmed from.

For example, in your Teaser (which is the lenght of two acts), you say "Captain Kathryn Janeway falls to the floor from her command chair after a hit by the Kazon rocks the bridge. A crewman helps her up. Ensign Harry Kim tells Janeway that the remaining Kazon vessel has retreated. First officer Commander Chakotay says that they must have hurt them." --> It is really too detailed. A summary doesnt need to include that she got up from the chair when someone helped her up and every word that was uttered in those 10 seconds (just as one example...there are many other similar instances).

The point is, it should be the quality of the Summary that matters and not the quantity. The writing is great, it is just the length. These super-long Summary pages are unappealing, inappropriate and just make the piece look unprofessional. I really liked "Blood Fever" because I think even though it was divided up into acts, it was still the appropriate length, and personally when I write a summary I try to keep it simple yet detailed enough. Why dont you try and edit it out? The coherency would really add quality and professionalism to the piece. Think of it like this: if you were the reader, would you wanna read something that long when in fact you are just looking for a Summary? – Distantlycharmed 03:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - the summary section is too long and detailed. In other words, it is not merely a "summary", but a rambling, over-long piece of work that would probably take more time to read than just to watch the episode, itself! In the past, I have been guilty of writing similar overly long summaries and, while these will likely need changed, more should not be added to the featured articles list. Sorry if I've inadvertently over-criticized the writer's work but sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind! --Defiant 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments: So how exactly does this work? Is someone going to edit this or should it be removed from the nominations page since it has been around so long with no resolution (except for objections that it is too long). – Distantlycharmed 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Archived by User:Defiant. --Alan 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James T. Kirk (alternate reality) [May 16, 2009]

James T. Kirk

Self nomination: I nominate this article after building it on Memory Alpha and Memory Beta. I see this article as well bit and fit to the terms of the Memory Alpha standards. Roger Murtaugh 06:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose The article is a mess of tenses, has far too informal a tone, is nowhere near complete, and will not be stable in any sense for months, if that. I'm sorry, but it's nowhere near featured status at this time. -- Michael Warren | Talk 06:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Full agreement here, it will take some time until articles from the new movie can be featured. I wouldn't expect that until the DVD/Blu-ray release of the movie, so proper screenshots can be added. --Jörg 06:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons stated above. --From Andoria with Love 06:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The article's obviously been worked on, but it's still rather small, considering that Kirk was the star of a film. There's no background section, the images seem off (especially not a very good lead image), and there's a lack of pertinent information from the sidebar and article. Also, the lack of a background section and messed up formatting (no categories, bad tenses, et cetera) are all added in its favor. It's way, way too soon (2.5 hrs) for a featured article from the film, but you have guts for trying. It's currently one of the more complete articles from the film and will only get better in the coming weeks.--Tim Thomason 06:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good start, and by all means, please continue working on it - but as has already been stated, articles being "featured" should be complete, have undergone serious community editing, and should be stable. All of this is obviously not the case here, so oppose for the moment. -- Cid Highwind 12:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Archived. --Alan 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Doctor [July 13, 2009]

This is a fantastic article, all the information is sorted into good sections. This has been well researched and should, in my opinion, be a featured article. Dave^{Subspace Message} 09:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support: An excellent and thorough article for an excellent character. The only thing I would change is "War Crimes" to something like "Accused War Crimes" since it is established that he (and Voyager) in fact committed none. DKqwerty 02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: An excellent article. Very informative. -- TrekFan ^Talk 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Though I would rather remove the photos of Kes and Janeway in the "relationships" section and add in photos of Denara Pel, his holo-family, etc. We know what K&J look like. Other than that, this is a fantastically well written and supported article that covers the many aspect of one of my favorite characters. -- DhaliaUnsung 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: IMHO, this article is not particularly well-written! Its use of punctuation is often incorrect (such as repeated inclusion of too many commas) and it has too many duplicated links (one example of which is to the Kes article). The major block paragraph about Seven of Nine should also be divided into smaller paragraphs, for easier readability. In addition, I agree with the comment above - that more useful images could be used in the "Relationships" section. And is it "the Doctor" or "The Doctor"? The article uses both! I think one method of these should definitively be settled upon (probably the same as is used in script sources), unless both are used in episode scripts (in which case, this information can be added to the "Background Information" section). Each of my criticisms above are minor nitpicks, however, and should be fairly easy to reconcile. I do, however, believe it is notable that two users have now commented on the use of images and how they may be improved. --Defiant 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've researched the naming tradition and all the scripts I could find refer to him as "the Doctor" except, of course, when written as the first words of a sentence. I've therefore changed the references in the article to fit this method. I've also tried to improve the use of punctuation and attempted to correct obvious grammatical errors, but the page still includes many examples of these as well as quite a few rambling sentences, strung together with "and"s! These would require someone more in-the-know about the fine details of grammatical structure (as well as a better knowledge of Voyager episodes) than I. --Defiant 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a once over, but I'm sure it could use another. -- DhaliaUnsung 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SupportBllasae 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. - Bell'Orso 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Defiant, do you still maintain your objection? If you do, or if there are other objections, I will resolve this as unsuccessful, as it has gone on long enough.--31dot 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived. --31dot 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign class [July 22,2009]

I would like to nominate this article for FA status, as I believe it is a fully comprehensive article, covering all aspects of the Sovereign class design. I do not believe anything more can be added to this article. -- TrekFan ^Talk 23:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't believe adequate citations have been utilized, as some sections of this article don't cite even a single source! --Defiant 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Would anyone else like to comment? -- TrekFan ^Talk 23:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: IMO there are some issues with this page. There is nothing on the change in the observation lounge, granted this isn't an article on the Enterprise, but it really is since she is the only source. The deck arrangement is missing details, deck 16 has no information from Star Trek: First Contact at all but has the tag; also the MSD is uncited and may be wrong, since the deck 16 Worf pointed to in FC is not the deck 16 as described prior. And, as Defiant said, there is a overall lack of citations. I'll try to get the first two things I mentioned when I can, but I don't have time to rewatch all 3 films. - Archduk3:talk 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived. --31dot 09:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bell Riots [September 30, 2009]

Bell Riots

Just rewrote this page. I think it now stands a good chance of becoming a featured article, with, or without, a little more input. - Archduk3:talk 13:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a little wary when I see a big content shuffle in an article that has basically been untouched since at least late 2006, immediately followed by a request to consider it one of the best articles that have been written. I think any "featured article" should have had community input and be relatively stable for a considerable amount of time - why don't we give it that time before applying for FA? -- Cid Highwind 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I felt a little wary about putting it up for FA status, but I rewrote the article for that very reason. I'm hoping for community input. I know someone out there has to hate my writing style or can catch some spelling or grammar error or that I would never see or just plan didn't like this episode. I want this article to be a FA, if the community can load on reasons not to do that now, then maybe it takes a few tries. I don't have an issue with this taking a few months to do, though I would hope for something more specific about the article then it only got rewritten yesterday. - Archduk3:talk 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a peer review, or a simple "request for comments" on the talk page, would have been better. I admit that those often don't get the number of responses the initiator would like to have, either, but at least it's not skipping some steps along the way. Regarding article stability, that's one of the few FA criteria that are explicitely given on Memory Alpha:Featured article criteria - so not exactly something totally "unspecific". -- Cid Highwind 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at what was it was before, all I really did was expand on what was already there, and then add sections titles. The content itself wasn't really change all that much, just the wording, most of which was to add links to related articles, as all the pages on these episodes are missing basic interconnecting links. I don't think anyone has even been over these since 2006, if not earlier. Though I do see your point, I would still prefer to let this run it's course either way, as there aren't any other articles up for FA status right now. - Archduk3:talk 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: whether there are other FA-nominated articles or not is completely beside the point; each article should follow due process and common procedure. For this article, that would be a peer review, prior to possible FA nomination. --Defiant 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived. - Archduk3:talk 08:10, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Create a new article Upload a new image
Search Random page Upload image Recent changes	Help Newest articles Special pages What links here Recent changes Random page