Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

• Organian -- It seems to be fully inclusive of the known subject matter and is both interesting and highly readable. -- Dmsdbo 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wary - the information presented is well written, but it needs a section at the bottom with references to episodes. zsingaya 08:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Added by you it seems -- any change in opinion? -- Dmsdbo 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • As they were only mentioned in two episodes of Star Trek, this page seems to contain alot of good information, so, I'm going to Agree that this page should be featured. zsingaya 06:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

• Leonard H. McCoy -- This article seems to have been extensively added to over the last few days by an unregistered contributor. I and some others have done a bit of cleanup and some wiki work. The big question: is it ready for the featured article status? I happen to say yes - anything that can be added would be largely a bonus at this stage, I think -- Dmsdbo 01:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Reservations - I think this article is already pretty good, but it looks like (from the editing page) that certain sections were ear-marked for expansion, but were never completed. These include more references to TOS: "The Man Trap", TAS: "The Ambergris Element", "Once Upon a Planet", and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The pictures were not arranged near to the specific parts of the text, but I've corrrected this. zsingaya 16:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Second - Dmsdbo, thank you for the nomination! I appreciate your taking notice of the additions I made over the past few days. I noted your request for bonus additions, and expanded on the "later career" section, as well. I hope this helps. I am not savvy with pictures, however, and would appreciate some help--can anyone add a picture or two of McCoy at work? Operating or healing someone? Having a drink with the captain? Is there a picture depository we can draw from? Thank you! -- CMO 16:52, 4 May 2005 (EST)
  • Opposed- I would like to think I got the ball rolling on this article, and it still hasn't fulfilled the expectations I had for it when I introduced the <!--NOTES--> within the article for what would be nice to have added to it. IMHO, it still needs additions from "The Ambergris Element", "Once Upon a Planet", and more on Star Trek VI. --Gvsualan 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Defiant class -- I'm frankly surprised that this isn't a featured article. Plenty of information, beautifully laid out and appropriate use of pictures. Just as well written as the featured Sovereign class, Galaxy class and Intrepid class articles, IMHO.--Scimitar 18:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree this is at least as good as the Intrepid-class article. All the major parts of the ship are well represented. zsingaya 08:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • After having re-read the sections on the tactical information, its become obvious that hardly any of it has actually come from on-screen information. I know inclusion of information from the technical manuals is accepted, but I thought it should be in italics, and it shouldn't make up the majority of an article. zsingaya 16:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Considering I wrote the bulk of the article, it wouldnt be really fair to vote. The main reason of objection at the time was that the article did not include in-line references, if I recall correctly... Anyhow, nice to see it featured now. Ottens 15:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, could use a bit more fleshing out but otherwise as good as the other class articles listed. -- Dmsdbo 00:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Opposed. I gave this a wiki markup, I think that should be a required part of final acceptance/completion. --Gvsualan 10:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, on second thoughts I'm going to have to agree with Ottens below, there is a LOT of DS9 Tech Manual stuff in there and that needs to be more clearly pointed out. --Gvsualan 23:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I last voted on this a week ago, and I still see no one has clarified which information came from the DS9 Tech Manual and so on. Since I did not add the info, nor do I have the DS9 tech manual, I cannot make such a contribution. --Gvsualan 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Trials and Tribble-ations -- This page has good background info on the episode, and it provides a good summary. It's as extensive as any of the other episode pages that have been added.--docdude316 15:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- rebelstrike 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wary, having become accustomed to Defiant's terribly in-depth and sectioned out episodic articles; I'm afraid this one doesn't yet measure up. But I'm worried that I'm holding it to too high of a standard perhaps and that maybe Defiant's articles go above and beyond a standard of excellence that this article still meets. For now, I'll posture to be neutral. — THOR 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reservations - I agree with THOR, and I think the summary should have sections, IE: Act 1, Act 2 etc. Defiant's style of episodes should be the standard to which all episode articles should be tested, IMHO. zsingaya 18:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Against - Not only is it much shorter and less detailed than the summaries provided by Defiant, the choppy style does not work towards its advantage. It is a solid start, but must be widely fleshed out. -- Dmsdbo 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - simply due to summary length. Whilst I don't share the same beliefs with regards to the inclusion of headings (I certainly don't like using them in my own episode summaries), there needs to be more detail. Compare with Sacrifice of Angels or Storm Front. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Starship Down -- Its a well written article and has a good structure to it. -- rebelstrike 22:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, its well written but would certainly benefit from images; at least one or two. — THOR 23:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - images would be good, and the summary sectioning needs to go. It's not particularly relevant to the sections being described. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)