About → Policies and guidelines → FA policies → FA criteria → Nominations for FAs → Featured articles → Reconfirmation of featured articles| Featured articles needing reconfirmation (120 total) |
|
Every two years a featured article will need to be brought up for reconfirmation, to ensure it is still an example of Memory Alpha's best work. Featured articles more than two years old will be automatically added to the list to the right. It is expected that these articles will have undergone revisions over that time to keep them up to date, but it's important to make sure that these revisions have maintained the quality expected of a featured article.
Before starting a reconfirmation discussion, please make sure you are familiar with the reconfirmation policy. For past reconfirmation discussions, please see the archive.
Reconfirmations can be started by beginning a new discussion under either "Nominations without objections", for articles you support or have no preference to, or "Nominations with objections", for articles you oppose, with a heading containing a link back to the article you want to suggest. Early reconfirmations should be under the section of the same name. Reconfirmations should display, and have a link to, the blurb used on the main page, just add {{Blurb|ARTICLE NAME}} before the discussion, and it's generally a good idea to link to the FA history on the article's talk page as well. If you have a preference on the article, please briefly state why.
Once this is done, a notice that the article is up for reconfirmation should be added to the article in question by inserting {{faupdate}} at the top of the page, above any other templates. Early reconfirmations should use the {{farc}} template.
When you are commenting on a reconfirmation, please take the time to read the entire article before you decide whether to Support or Oppose it. When supporting or opposing an article, please use a bullet point (by adding a * before your comment) without any indent so these will be easy to find later. General comments should be indented as usual, and, as always, please sign your nominations and comments with "~~~~".
Contents |
Reconfirmations without objections
Edit
D'deridex class Edit
The massive D'deridex-class, or Type-B, Warbird was one of the most advanced vessels in the Romulan Star Empire and served as the backbone of the Romulan fleet during the mid-to-late-24th century.
Roughly twice as long as a Federation Galaxy-class starship, the D'Deridex-class Warbird had a notable advantage in fire power, over its Federation counterpart, but a lower overall maximum speed and less combat maneuverability.
Like earlier Romulan warships, D'deridex-class Warbirds were equipped with cloaking devices, which protect them from detection in most evasive situations. However, cloaked Warbirds radiated a slight subspace variance at warp speeds; therefore ships traveling at speeds above warp 6 run a much greater risk of being detected through their cloak. While traveling under cloak, all electromagnetic emissions, including communications, aboard a Warbird were carefully monitored.
The emergence of a D'deridex-class Warbird in 2364, during an encounter with the USS Enterprise-D on the edge of the Neutral Zone, signaled the end of a fifty-three year Romulan isolation.- Needs a blurb, but otherwise I think this still fits the criteria of a FA; comprehensive and well written. 31dot (talk) 15:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- While I'm wondering if some tightening up of some of the "micro paragraphs" in the Interiors section is required, I otherwise Agree with 31dots assessment--Sennim (talk) 11:09, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- A good read, but still suffers from some inconsistent use of past/present tense in in-universe text. --Defiant (talk) 10:25, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
- There are also a few bits that make very little sense to me and could do with some clarification, such as the use of "the following month" at the start of the text about the studio models, when no previous month has been clearly stated. Similarly, if there were 2 studio models created, wouldn't it be better to write the text from that perspective to make it clearer? For example, the first sentence says how Jein crafted "the studio model" (singular). Well, did he craft both studio models or just the first? --Defiant (talk) 11:51, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Sennim's work on the page, I'm now more-or-less entirely happy with the bg info. The mix-up of past and present tenses in the in-universe wordings could still be tidied, though, which I'll endeavour to do. --Defiant (talk) 14:20, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm now happy with the tenses, but would like to echo Sennim's assessment that some of the tiny paragraphs could maybe be tightened up. Also, I'm wondering about the "additional reading" link to Star Trek: Starship Spotter. If that book contains anything useful that could be added, it should be. Otherwise, deletion of the link would seem to be in order. --Defiant (talk) 15:14, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, neither is the apocrypha stuff, so it doesn't mean it's a completely useless source, generally! I'm just wondering what relevance it has in this case; what info it has on the D'deridex-class. --Defiant (talk) 18:49, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've checked my copy, it only has some general writing in a style akin to that of the Fact Files, that in essence is largely covered in the main body of text. It's technical specifications sheet, where coinciding, is the same as the Manual, but more extensive (and thus speculative)...I'm bit unsure what the status of the Spotter is. The pics are valid BG-info as they were constructed by bonafide production staffers from the actual CG-models; but the writers are no staffers...I'm leaning toward considering them as "fan" writers of tech stuff and as such I'm agreeing with your assessment that the book reference is superfluous..--Sennim (talk) 19:21, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I think it is a featured article. Well written and enough images to illustrate the article. Tom (talk) 19:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
DenominateEdit
Though there are three votes in favor, including mine, according to current guidelines, this is not enough to maintain this article's FA-status...So, as this (re-)nomination has been up for 4 months (way, way, incredibly way beyond the alloted time), an admin should by now follow up and de-feature this one...-( May I notice that this procedure has gone down the drain, big time...----Sennim (talk) 02:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
- I have some thoughts about this whole process, but I will save them for later and a more appropriate location. 31dot (talk) 02:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Lemme know, Duke's original intent was good, but it does not seem to work, unfortunately...----Sennim (talk) 02:33, December 22, 2012 (UTC)