|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
==Articles nominated for removal== |
|
==Articles nominated for removal== |
| − |
|
|
| − |
===[[Sickbay]] (July 8th)=== |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
This article has featured status, yet it does not say one word about the sickbay of [[Enterprise NX-01]]. Unless someone can point out a good reason for ''why''-though I fail to see one as we even had [[A Night in Sickbay]] as an ENT episode- I propose to remove sickbay from the featured list. [[User:Kennelly|Kennelly]] 12:56, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
| − |
* I '''second''' the motion. — [[User:Pd THOR|THOR]] 13:17, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
| − |
* '''Dispute'''. The problem was easily rectified by transplanting information from [[NX class]] and adding from various other sources... even so, I don't feel as if having information on the NX really enhances the main purpose of the article--to describe sickbay as a whole. -- [[User:SmokeDetector47|SmokeDetector47]] // [[User_talk:SmokeDetector47|''talk'']] 17:34, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
| − |
* '''Dispute'''. With the current information on the NX class sickbay there, I think it still deserves featured status. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 11:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Dispute'''-It seems fine now and should keep its status sinc ei feel the ENT sickbay problem has been fixed.-[[User:Kahless|Kahless]] 06:30, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| |
===[[Emergence]] (July 13th)=== |
|
===[[Emergence]] (July 13th)=== |
| − |
|
|
| |
Since the criteria for featured status have become more stringent, I do not feel that this article is any longer worthy of featured status for the following reasons: <br /> |
|
Since the criteria for featured status have become more stringent, I do not feel that this article is any longer worthy of featured status for the following reasons: <br /> |
| |
- Numerous spelling and grammatical errors<br /> |
|
- Numerous spelling and grammatical errors<br /> |
| Line 21: |
Line 11: |
| |
* '''Second'''. Because of spelling and grammatic errors and poor formatting. Lack of background information and "questionable" image use are, in my opinion, no reason to object featured status. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 11:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
* '''Second'''. Because of spelling and grammatic errors and poor formatting. Lack of background information and "questionable" image use are, in my opinion, no reason to object featured status. [[User:Ottens|Ottens]] 11:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
| |
* '''Abstention'''. The article has been edited, see its talk page. [[User:Mornsbar|Mornsbar]] 16:08, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
|
* '''Abstention'''. The article has been edited, see its talk page. [[User:Mornsbar|Mornsbar]] 16:08, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC) |
| |
+ |
*This page needs to be re-evaluated since the above changes were made. --[[User:Gvsualan|Alan del Beccio]] 06:22, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) |
NoticeThe status of this article as a "featured article" is currently being discussed. Please participate in that discussion here.
Articles nominated for removal
Since the criteria for featured status have become more stringent, I do not feel that this article is any longer worthy of featured status for the following reasons:
- Numerous spelling and grammatical errors
- Absent background information
- Poorly formatted references
- Questionable use of pictures
Personally, I think that there are better written articles that are not featured (and probably do not deserve the status as of yet).--Scimitar 13:29, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Second. Because of spelling and grammatic errors and poor formatting. Lack of background information and "questionable" image use are, in my opinion, no reason to object featured status. Ottens 11:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Abstention. The article has been edited, see its talk page. Mornsbar 16:08, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- This page needs to be re-evaluated since the above changes were made. --Alan del Beccio 06:22, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
