Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Self-nomination (for the most part). Recently updated the Summary, added images, wrote the Analysis section that details the movie's themes and motives, and created an extensive background information section that features the complete development of the film. Ottens 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The Background section is actually very good, but I'd go so far as to say the summary could be a little better, but I don't know if this complaint is anti-FA worthy. - AJ Halliwell 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

Borg history

Although I did some work on it I don't see this as a self nomination (I only threw in some raw material), the article is simply to extensive for one person to write. After some time I have read the whole article once more and I like it. The changes still made at this time are mostly minor spelling issues but I don't see that as a problem for nominating this article. As far as I can see all the major Borg events are there, it reads well without going to much into non-Borg details. Lots of archivists polished this article into what it is now, a worthy {{featured}} candidate. Besides that, I have a week spot for those semi-artificial guys:) -- Q 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm not sure about the somewhat unusual format for a history page. All events are organized by year, rather than by "era" as all other history pages are, and I must say I prefer that. A more appropriate title for this page would be "Borg timeline". Ottens 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Aside from the format (which should at least be broken into centuries) and my own concern about the title this article isn't what I'd call stable. It's been modified several times in the past few months for various reasons. Actually most Borg articles tend to fluctuate more than others, I think, and for that reason I'd like to see how long this one lasts without major changes before we promote it to FA status. Logan 5 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd go so far as to say this page needs a pna or a pna-unformatted. It's no longer a history, it's a "Borg timeline." Also, is that first section that describes it as "the history of the Borg is vague and hearsay" cited? Cause things like this should be ambiguous from the in-universe POV. IE: When we don't know something, but characters In-Universe do/may, we should try to be ambiguous to show we don't but they do. If that made any sense. - AJ Halliwell 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

James T. Kirk

I'm nominating the large article on James T. Kirk for feature status. It's extensive, well cited, and well illustrated. It's broken down in chronological order and consistent in form and format throughout. It's is definitely deserving of feature status. --Bfgreen 11:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, if you look at the article history, it is in a state of flux at the moment (and that was before the nomination). In addition, I am not happy with the pictures, particularly the first one in the sidebar. All we can see is a silhouette of some person. It needs to be replaced with one of the great shots of Kirk from Star Trek VI, or something. The information on the movies is very lacking, particularly some of the relationships he had then, with very little on Carol Marcus, and nothing on Martia (who only has one sentence on her, and it is under McCoy), and very little about the events of Star Trek V and VI. I am sure if I read in more detail, I can find more problems. This article is long, but it's not ready, and articles don't just get featured because they are long. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the image in the sidebar of Kirk's silhouette was a nifty little addition, IMO. It was an image of his famous entrance in Star Trek II. The image kinda gave it that "Here he comes... you know who this is!" quality... if that makes sense. But, yeah... whatever. :P (by the way, that new image of Kirk from STVI? Yeah... that's gotta go, lol! Do you have a better image of him from the film? If not, I might be able to find one...) --From Andoria with Love 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion of the sidebar is that it should be an image of the character that actually shows the character. As for a better image than what I put up, that was done after spending about 5 minutes trying to find something from Star Trek VI. If you can find a better one, go ahead and upload over mine. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Admittedly, I worked a lot on this article. I think it covers the all the major bases effectively, and I'm pleased to see it nominated. I do wish there was more to say about Carol Marcus' relationship with Kirk, but from canon sources, there just isn't a whole lot of hard data to use. Other subjects not covered in lenghty detail have links to their appropriate articles. --Aurelius Kirk 20:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Seems to cover almost everything (although it could use expansion in some areas). Just because an article is still being worked on now and then doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a featured article, IMO. --From Andoria with Love 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well, the article ir pretty good. Revenge 16:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I did some sp. edits, but otherwise the article seems really good. I would like to see this picture thing figured out before we make it featured though. I know it's traditional to have the "last time we saw them" pic at the top, but why not just have a '60s promotional image of him at the top? It's the first thing people think of about Captain Kirk anyway. (Maybe the one with the PADD, but I'd like to see that replaced.) We do do it sometimes, ie: Uhura.

Also: if we can replace any images of "peoples heads" with images of them with Captain Kirk, that'd improve the article a bit. IE: Janice Rand and Rayna is a persons head, where as the Edith Keeler image is a great example of him actually being involved with said person. And the "2266 and 2267" years have just peoples heads, can't we involve Kirk in'm ala 2268? - AJ Halliwell 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)