Wikia

Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Benjamin Sisko)
(archiving Sisko discussion at Talk:Benjamin Sisko)
Line 11: Line 11:
   
 
:'''Support'''. or '''Conditional Support'''. The summary section is way too long. Unless that is shortened to be more concise, this article should not be FA. – [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 17:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
:'''Support'''. or '''Conditional Support'''. The summary section is way too long. Unless that is shortened to be more concise, this article should not be FA. – [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 17:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
===Benjamin Sisko===
 
[[Benjamin Sisko]]
 
 
For the same reasons as the Dukat article (although Dukat is worse): lacks organization, the personal relationships section is missing for nearly all folks and his relationship to most of the crew members are somehow jumbled into one section. It goes on. Overall, this article does not represent "the best example of the Memory Alpha community's work". – [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 17:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
:'''Oppose''': I believe the article is fine and gives enough detail into Sisko's life, relationships, and career as depicted in DS9. Granted there is room for improvement in the personal relationships section, the necessary work doesn't warrant it's removal as a featured article. --[[User:Nero210|Nero210]] 19:15, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
Well, duh, if it needs that kind of improvement requiring a pna incomplete add, then there is obviously something lacking; it also means that it does not meet "the best example of the Memory Alpha community's work" criteria. By the way, everyone, when was it nominated? I cant find the nomination. – [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 19:35, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 
:Well then add the fricken info and be done with it! If that's all it needs....--[[Special:Contributions/70.176.184.44|70.176.184.44]] 16:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 
::Let's keep this civil guys. Also (assuming this is Nero210), please log in when commenting. Thanks.
 
 
::Anyway, I found the nomination and posted it on the talk page.&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 02:00, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
Cleanse!! You are good. How did you find it? I couldnt find it in the 2004 archives :(&ndash; [[User:Distantlycharmed|Distantlycharmed]] 04:50, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::Glad to help. :-) It was buried in the history of [[Memory Alpha: Nominations for featured articles]]. I had a hunch it would be towards the beginning; some of those earlier entries were done before there was a formal archive process for successful entries (as far as I'm aware).&ndash; [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 08:23, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 
:::'''Oppose'''. Being a featured article doesn't mean that it's done or that there aren't better articles. None of our articles are done, and they all have room for improvement. This article is still miles ahead of over 90% of the rest of them, and IMO the upper 10% should be our featured articles. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 03:42, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 
::::'''Oppose'''. I think that Featured status is warranted. If something is missing it can certainly be added, but that does not take away from what is there now.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 02:32, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 21:23, November 16, 2010

Template:Farc

Articles nominated for removal

Prototype (episode)

Prototype (episode)

It's got a rambling summary and a bg info section that, (at least) in my opinion, is not written from the right perspective; it's the episode that's under discussion, not the robots! So, I suggest changing the headings & possibly rearranging some of the info, but the info itself can (at least more or less) stay. --Defiant 09:45, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the background section a bit by putting the more traditional "Story", "Production", "Continuity" etc. headings. Feel free to improve on these. I added a couple of citation requests because some information appears to be assumed rather than based on production info. If they were cited, I'd say the background section would be reasonable enough for a Featured Article; not every episode has as much interesting stuff as say, "The Best of Both Worlds". I agree that the wall of text makes a mockery of the term "summary", so unless that is trimmed, and the background cited properly, I support removal.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:29, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Support. or Conditional Support. The summary section is way too long. Unless that is shortened to be more concise, this article should not be FA. – Distantlycharmed 17:51, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki