Wikia

Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations

Discuss96
37,559pages on
this wiki
Revision as of 00:36, October 12, 2005 by Weyoun (Talk | contribs)

Template:FeatNom

Nominations without objections

Occupation of Bajor

I tried to arrange the pictures on there because I wanted to make my first nomination a good one. As I read it over, I couldn't think of anything other than some minor details (which I added) that should be on this page and isn't. Weyoun 00:36, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nominations with objections

The Collaborator

  • Support. Hopefully this isnt like the occupation article where someone was working on it but not ready. I was looking for an article to spruce up and maybe make featured, but this one's already there and with no red links in the entire article! Ben Sisqo 23:12, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Comment - neither red links nor the size of an article should matter to the nomination process. It's the quality of the writing that matters. That's why TATV should be featured and why Grathon Tolar is already featured - it doesn't matter that it's quite a small article. --Defiant | Talk 02:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I never said I nominated it because of its length. I nominated it because it's a good article... TATV is a good article just way too long. And the red links part may not be an official factor but it does look better without them. Ben Sisqo 03:44, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a pretty good article, with a well-balanced episode summary, well-chosen images and significant background information. To Ben Sisqo, though, I would like to say: if you come across an article that you think is up to Featured Article-status, then please do nominate it, but please don't go on the "look-out" for articles to nominate merely for the sport of it ;-) Ottens 10:02, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This article was a victim of overzealous nominations (see nominations archive), much like I think the episode is often a victim of people overlooking DS9's second season, which had some great episodes. Anyway, after the last nomination, I made a conscious effort to include as much background info as possible, so I think it's on par this time. --Schrei 17:00, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose/Neutral If I can hedge my vote like that I'd like to. I don't want to be the only one standing in the way of rewarding the hard work here but the summary is overly-written, and some of the info in "Significance" is either total speculation, opinion, or just a stretch to be included. If I'm the only oppose I'll change this to neutral but right now this isn't the same quality as Trials and Tribble-ations, or what The Cage or Emissary could be. Logan 5 20:28, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying so when you have an objection. Have you heard of the Milgram experiments? Put that phrase into a search engine and you will see why free speech is important. I have however removed the thematic explanation from Sisqo and whoever added the part about Opaka's seclusion being tied to Kendra Valley. Makon 20:50, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not that I don't want to oppose articles, but there's been so much debate on episode articles lately and my opposition is based on length of summary (subjective and no hard policy on it yet) and some nitpicks in the background. Consequently it's a weak oppose.... Logan 5 20:55, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I was going to say that I agree this might not be the best candidate by our emerging unofficial background criterion for episode articles... But if it's just about the length of the summary, well, at least you're willing to compromise? I don't know why nobody spoke up when people approved all those Defiant-class episode pages. --Schrei 23:45, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you can't, please choose. If you oppose you're "blocking" the nomination for the moment, if you don't you don't. What is it that you want? We cant be the ones to choose for you. :) -- Cid Highwind 17:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • If I can't hedge I'll go neutral, with the comments above. I'm not going to oppose it solely for being over-written (which it is IMO), and I don't think there are obvious non-inclusions the way there are for The Cage or FBTS which would definitely be justificatiton for opposing without reservations. Logan 5 18:54, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It drives me insane to think that some people can't follow the rules/guidelines and vote on these nominations based on the quality of the actual articles. Ignore the size of paragraphs or articles and just analyse the actual writing! --Defiant | Talk 01:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • To which I can only reply that some people need to realize that over-writing and excessive length does affect the quality of the writing, and hence my vote. I know you're big on writing every single action that's on the screen but to me that's not the hallmark of well-written. Logan 5 03:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • To which I say that for every person like you there is a person like Defiant, for every Ben Sisqo there is an Ottens, and for every pair of opposing view points there is someone like me caught in the middle and someone like that one person who said during Crossover's nomination that he made a stink about the number of episodes and yet never opposed them based on his prefrences. There is no way to please everyone at once, which is why this article (which you feel is over written) and Tribblations (which Ottens felt was under written) are both eligible. --Makon 05:44, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Huh? I was just trying to point out that I was following the guidelines by voting against an article I don't consider well written. Defiant implied I wasn't doing that because I have different standards for well written. Logan 5 16:08, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • I think that was Makon's point. You consider it well written for being to the point and compact, Defiant considers it well written for being thorough, and there are plenty who agree with both of you. I think Ottens' reservations about Trials and Tribble-ations and yours about this article are a perfect example of why length is not part of the criteria for FA status. --Schrei 21:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Am I required to give a reason? I think I agree with User:Ottens' rationale; not eye-poppingly spectacular, but impressive enough to be worthy of the label nonetheless. Weyoun 07:18, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some things that I have questions by.
Act one
Their is no transport that can be seen, only a ship docked. No evidence that it is Bareils transport.
'He observes' should it not be 'He told her' ?
'...an attempt on Bareil's life' as far as I know their was only one attempt to kill Bareil so should it not be '...the attempt'?
Act two
'Secretary Kubus' is spoken sarcastically by Odo, it is not his title anymore so to me it should be 'Former Secretary Kubus' or 'Kubus'. (Although the title is used multiple times throughout the episode)
' "But you did," Kira interjects as she enters. ' Should to me be 'Kira interrupts them as she enters.' and I mis what she entered.
'all Bajorans who helped the Cardassians' incorrect, not those who helped the Cardassians but the ones who were a member of the Cardassian occupational government were exiled.
'...inform him with some hesitance that some...' punctuation, should be '...inform him, with some hesitance, that some...'
'...sent to test the will of the Bajoran people...' not the will, its believes.
'..., she proceeded to contact the...' I think this should be '..., she contacted the...'
'... between the Vedek Assembly and the Cardassian occupational forces and a known associate of Kubus...' punctuation, '... between the Vedek Assembly, Cardassian occupational forces and a known associate of Kubus...' sound better to me.
Should 'thorough' be in italics ?
I mis the threat from Winn to Kira
Act three
'...,Winn observes that she never believed him...' again I don't think observes is the correct term, 'tells' or 'told'. One observes actions not their own words spoken to someone else.
'...in the cargo bay near Winn's ship...' says who, it is not spoken in the dialog Winn's ship is nearby.
'...in constant communication with a then-unknown source...' not unknown, it was the Vedek Assembly.
'...from Bek's office...' not his office but his quarters, which were in the same section as Kubus.
'...Kubus believes that Bareil ordered Bek to reveal the location of the encampment...' no he did not believed that. He believed that Beks only way out was suicide because Bareil would not allow Bek to confess
'...on withdrawing,...' on what did they withdraw ?
'... a pained look appears on Odo's surprised face...' not as far as I could see though.
'... a security seal placed upon them...' , '...a security seal present...' sounds better to me.
Act four
'...Odo begins to instruct him on how to access the Vedek Assembly ...' Odo does not instruct anyone he simply tells that the records can be accessed through the central archives.
'... Quark grabs Odo by the shoulders and escorts...' not his shoulders but his back. (yes I know nitpicking)
'...but Odo counters with the fact that...' 'counters with the fact' ? one counters in soccer but in conversation ? '...but Odo tells her that given the fact...' sounds better.
(Did'nt have time to read through Act five, will do so hopefuly tomorrow) -- Q 21:00, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound rude, but if you noticed all those things, why not fix them? Don't get me wrong; it's good that you're going over it so thoroughly. But I think just applying the changes and putting "grammar/accuracy" in the edit summary would take less time than typing all that out.
One thing, though: The comma use for "with some hesitance" is acceptable because it's the current style (I don't know how to explain, but a college professor could).Vedek Dukat 22:39, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I read it again, "Kira interjects" sounds fine. Kira is interjecting her comment into their conversation; an interjection is a word like "oh!" or "indeed!" that interrupts the flow of things, which is what Kira's doing. Vedek Dukat 22:50, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Broken Bow

The episode summary is short and concise, while the Background Information section is very detailed. --Defiant | Talk 11:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Mild oppose. The summary is good but for a pilot episode there should be more background/continuity/ephemera that distinguishes this. "Emissary" and "These Are the Voyages" are examples of what I mean; they don't just have a detailed background but additional sections that make them FA worthy, this particular episode article doesn't appear more significant than a run of the mill episode when it certainly should. Logan 5 15:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Oppose for the moment, while the peer review is still running. Perhaps it would be best not to have both at the same time, but instead nominate an article here only after it has passed the review. -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki