Wikia

Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(Landru)
m (rm Landru, failed)
Line 90: Line 90:
   
 
==Reconfirmations with objections==
 
==Reconfirmations with objections==
=== [[Landru]] ===
 
I'm actually unsure about what is supposed to happen if I bring up an article for reconfirmation and '''oppose''' that myself, but here it is: I don't think that [[Landru]] should be an FA any longer. As can be seen in [http://en.memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=Landru&diff=cur&oldid=233015 this diff], there haven't been any serious changes to this article between early 2005 and now. The article is a huge block of text without any internal structure like various sections (except for a small "see also" at the end); the initial sentence is too short, and not followed by a proper definition of "Landru" either. The prose of the following text is uninspired at best, nothing that really stands out as "good work". The background note at the end borders on the speculative. There could be some more ''proper'' background information if this is supposed to be a "really great" article. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 18:38, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
*'''Remove''' the FA status. I agree with Cid.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 00:54, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
:We try to fix it. If we can't, it gets removed. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 01:15, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
*'''Oppose''' reconfirmation/remove FA status. Pretty much as Cid says, the article is a big bland block of text. As for background, I flipped through a few reference books but couldn't find anything to add. The existing bg note should be removed, as there's no evidence the Borg were influenced at all by Landru. That being the case, it's just a random "some fans" opinion.&ndash;[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 07:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
*I should note that this system doesn't replace the FA removal one, just that this "forces" a reconfirmation. The idea is any minor changes needed after two years can be done (or better yet already were), but articles which have gone this far downhill (or in this case have been left behind) would hopefully be removed before they get here. That said, I'm '''opposing''' reconfirming this one, for the reasons already stated. We've most likely going to be too busy with the backlog to save articles that need this much work. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 08:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
 
:Forgot this: [[Template:FA/Landru]]. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 08:35, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
*'''Oppose''' reconfirmation for the reasons already stated. The article needs a larger overhaul than mere fixing minor shortcomings--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 13:03, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::'''Comment''': The parallel I've made between Landru and the Borg is indeed a personal observation. Similar observations have been made in the bg info section for [[Telek R'Mor]], though (unlike here) those haven't been opposed, so we should decide whether to accept such observations and then act on that decision. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:52, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
The difference is that one is an extrapolation based purely on canon facts, and the other is at least baseless speculation, and even wrong the way it is currently phrased. Landru never was a "precursor" to the Borg. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:07, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::They're both speculative, but I can sort of see what you mean by your point about taking into accent the basis of the speculation. As for your point about it being "even wrong," I disagree with this. If you look [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precursor here], you'll see that dictionary.com's first definition of precursor is "a person or thing that precedes, as in a job, a method, etc.; predecessor." Both in the canon of the ''Star Trek'' franchise and in its production history, Landru ''was'' (at least, in this context) indeed a precursor of the Borg. Though I don't accept "wrong," I'd probably accept "misleading." Regardless, we should check whether there's basis for this observation having been made elsewhere (e.g. by production staff), then decide on this particular case. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:20, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
::One more thing I'd like to point out is that the Borg/Landru similarity is not "baseless." Just like the speculations on the R'Mor page, the parallel is based on observations of the canon evidence. But I understand if there's some bias towards accepting observation of facts, over behavioral observations. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:26, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
But "precursor" (or "predecessor") implies some sort of deliberate evolution from one to the other. Indeed, if some production info can be found that basically states "we remembered that TOS guy Landru, and we wanted to create something along the same lines and got the Borg", then we can call Landru a precursor. If that production info does not exist (meaning that we must assume that no such idea was the reason for creating the Borg), it ''would'' be baseless speculation and wrong to imply as much. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 14:28, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
::I think the "wrong" part is imposing an implication on the word that is not stipulated in its dictionary definition, though &ndash; as I attempted to imply &ndash; I'll accept that others may make the same mistake, if it's a common error. A rewording, at the very least, should be made, IMO (obviously, deletion if no source can be cited). --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 14:41, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
If you want to rephrase that bit, please go ahead. In the end, whether this is outright wrong or "just" misleading and uncited doesn't matter much. It's still something worthy of "valid opposition" as far as its FA reconfirmation here is concerned - and on top of that, it's not the only thing that this reconfirmation is being opposed for. So, again: please feel free to enhance this article by adding whatever changes you deem appropriate. I'll let everyone know if that changes my opinion here. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 15:14, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
::No problem, Cid. :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 15:33, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
::I haven't been able to find any citation for the parallel, and I doubt any exists. While consequently removing it, I've added some more bg info. I'd be interested to find out what others now think of that part of the article. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 18:39, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 
::The lack/delay of comments here isn't very helpful, IMO. Another issue with this page is that I keep wondering if it might be better if the page was actually split into two &ndash; one article for the historical Landru, and another for the AI. Some feedback on this idea and/or the new bg info section would be much appreciated, regardless of whether it's positive or negative feedback. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 02:03, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
I think the point here is, as Archduk3 already stated, that we're "too busy with the backlog to save articles that need this much work" - meaning that some of us don't want to invest that much time for individual details of an article if the ''whole'' article is crap. I don't believe you will manage to bring this article to nowadays FA standards (and get all opposition resolved) within the "allowed" timeframe of 2 to 6 weeks - and the latter amount of time would probably mean that this discussion has been kept artificially alive, anyway. It would be much more fair to all people involved (and the article itself), if all this discussion was eventually moved to the article talk page, and (much later) another attempt at ''making'' the new article an FA was made. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 11:25, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::Well, I personally don't see what's keeping this article from remaining as an FA, apart from apparently baseless and purely subjective opinion (words like "crap", etc.) So, if there's still problems with the page, I think those should be spelled out more clearly. As it stands, I don't see any substantial reason to remove its FA status (besides pleasing the whims of the "community"). --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:26, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
#The article is a huge block of text without any internal structure
 
#the initial sentence is too short, and not followed by a proper definition of "Landru" either.
 
#The prose of the following text is uninspired at best, nothing that really stands out as "good work".
 
I don't really see how that can be considered either "purely subjective opinion" or "not spelled out clearly enough". -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
::Well, I may have just been getting lost in all the text here. IMO, you've admirably clarified the issues still remaining with the article, so thanks for that. :) I'll '''oppose''' the page remaining as an FA, for the time being. --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:48, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
There hasn't been a single "support" vote for this article - all votes, including the one that started this thread, were "oppose" votes. Would it be correct to end this discussion today or tomorrow (14 days after discussion start) - or are votes that basically agree with the initial comment supposed to stall this discussion for longer than that? -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:21, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
:I'd be willing to let this one end at 14 days with no support for the sake of expediency, though maybe we want to add an option to end at seven days with unanimous (at least five) opposition votes for future reconfirmations. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:00, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
Yeah, that would be a good idea - something that mirrors item #2 of "Resolving reconfirmations". -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 22:15, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 
 
 
=== [[M-113 creature]] ===
 
=== [[M-113 creature]] ===
 
This one was originally featured in early 2005, and has seen several edits since then. I just copyedited it again today, some other contributors joined that attempt. While I'm not totally happy with small bits, like the name of the "Enterprise encounter" section or the wording of the remaining bgnote, I still think it's in a better shape than before. FA blurb has been created ([[Template:FA/M-113 creature]]), [http://en.memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=M-113_creature&diff=cur&oldid=78910 this diff] shows the changes since first featuring the article. I'm not voting myself. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 
This one was originally featured in early 2005, and has seen several edits since then. I just copyedited it again today, some other contributors joined that attempt. While I'm not totally happy with small bits, like the name of the "Enterprise encounter" section or the wording of the remaining bgnote, I still think it's in a better shape than before. FA blurb has been created ([[Template:FA/M-113 creature]]), [http://en.memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=M-113_creature&diff=cur&oldid=78910 this diff] shows the changes since first featuring the article. I'm not voting myself. -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 13:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:55, December 20, 2011

Template:FARecons

Reconfirmations without objections

Telek R'Mor

Another good article to start with would be Telek R'Mor, which was made an FA in Feb 2005 and whose FA removal discussion in Feb 2011 eventually lead to this page. Removal was suggested because the article was based on only one episode, there is no size or episode requirement, and that it had changed in the intervening 6 years. It survived removal with 3 opposed to the two supporting, and I think it still remains one of the best articles we have. - Archduk3 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, as indicated above. - Archduk3 01:40, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reconfirmation. Under Background information, I added a couple of quotes from the actor about the role, courtesy of "Eye of the Needle". I think that rounds the article out a bit.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support.--31dot 02:30, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Just passing through and saw this... thought I'd still support it as I was pretty instrumental in transforming it into something out of nothing. --Alan 03:05, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support.--Sennim 05:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Tom 17:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Please provide a link to the current main page summary (if it exists) - according to new FA policy, that one should be written during the nomination period, so it should exist for a renomination. Conditional oppose if that summary does not exist, or doesn't match the current article. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

See Template:FA/Telek R'Mor. - Archduk3 22:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose: There seems to have been an error in copyediting. In the paragraph starting with "R'Mor communicated with the Romulan Senate," a possible "temporal implication" is mentioned although the fact that both ships are 20 years apart is mentioned only several paragraphs later - basically, the whole first half of that paragraph seems to be out of place. On the other hand, if the "temporal implication" refers to something else, that aspect needs to be clarified. Also, on a more general note, big parts of the "history" section are not, in fact, about the character, but are about events somehow involving the character. I admit that it is hard to make out an exact boundary between "acceptable" and "too much", but I think this article crosses that boundary. Another copyedit attempt should be made to trim the article content to be a little more focussed - and at the same time lose the micro-paragraphs of only 1-2 sentences. -- Cid Highwind 13:03, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the point about removing the miniscule paragraphs. Some more clarification should be made. The bg info section currently states, "Dr. R'Mor was the first contact Voyager had with the Alpha Quadrant since becoming stranded in the Delta Quadrant." Is this established on-screen, in which case it can be moved to the in-universe portion of the article, or is it just the first time in the series run that we see contact being made between Voyager and the Alpha Quadrant? If the latter, I think some clarification should be made, regarding this. --Defiant 13:34, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Cid's points 1 (I totally overlooked the discrepancy-Janeway's nixing the proposal comes IIRC after the discovery of the time difference in act 4 of the episode) and 3 (micro-paragraphs). As for the overdoing the history bit, I do not see it that way, but this might be a matter of personal taste. For now I let my "support" stand pursuant the handling points 1 and 3--Sennim 13:52, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I've made changes to solve some of the problems mentioned, though I'm unsure how the article could be trimmed, since I had to include information to solve the other problems. - Archduk3 15:11, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: And you did them well, so as far as I am concerned my "support" stands--Sennim 15:32, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Kudos for sorting out the "micro-paragraphs" issue, though I personally still think the article could use some more clarification – this time, pertaining to which episode(s) the info comes from. Is R'Mor even mentioned at all in the later cited episodes, or does he just appear in "Eye of the Needle"? I suspect most of the info in the article as a whole pertains to that single aforementioned episode, though a newbie might have little idea or no clue at all. IMO, some more clarification could easily be made with the use of citations, which I tried to do earlier, though it was reverted. --Defiant 17:08, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

In paragraph citations have been on the decline for awhile now, with them being moved to the end of the paragraph in most cases. If you want, you can re-add the citation where the info from "Eye of the Needle" only ends, as I don't really have a personal preference either way, though some others might. I do think that over using proper nouns where a pronoun works just fine is making the article "sound" cumbersome and repetitive though. - Archduk3 17:19, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Is that last sentence in reference to the citations issue, or concerning a different matter? --Defiant 18:36, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit changed several pronouns to R'Mor, which I think was already borderline overused in the article. This was an episode where he didn't give his name until the very end, but we seem to be stating who he is formally more than I think is necessary. If we do need to use a proper noun in every instance, we should use his first name a few times to avoid constantly repeating ourselves. - Archduk3 18:46, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I accept you may have a point there, Archduk; I wasn't really conscious of it. I recall that I changed the first "he" to R'Mor because it seemed quite an abrupt transition to go from talking about the Talvath to "he". I don't think we want people asking, "Who's 'he'?" in the middle of a paragraph, where it's used so jarringly. There may have been other cases like that - I can't really remember, right now. I'll have another look soon and I agree that possibly using "Telek" seems like a good idea, if needed. --Defiant 18:55, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
I've now tried to sort out those issues. Just out of curiosity, is there any possibility of a quote at the top of the page? --Defiant 19:26, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. As for a quote, I guess the question would be what do you have in mind? - Archduk3 19:44, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

  • I've double-checked the episode but there doesn't seem to be anything immediately noteworthy. I'd support this article. --Defiant 01:49, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Having gone over this again, I don't see what Cid is suggesting can be removed. All of it is either about the character or is needed for context. I think the last round of edits focused the article better by adding more info, not less, and I'm not sure what could be removed and have this still be complete. - Archduk3 17:58, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to point to some specific paragraph and state "that one needs to go away", because it's more an excessive level of detail scattered across the whole article than a single paragraph that is off-topic. For example, it's not necessary for context to know that "four separate scans of the probe, each one on a progressively narrower band" have been made - nor does it tell us much about the character Telek R'Mor. It's not necessary to know that the initial transmission was "comprised of a series of sub-harmonic pulses", or that someone thought about "reconfiguring the protocols of his signal amplifier [...] to penetrate the radiation stream", either. Basically, the whole technobabble aspect of the episode is not important as characterization other than, perhaps, in a very condensed form to let the reader know that R'Mor knew what he was doing. Everything else should be placed on one or another technology article, and perhaps the episode summarization in addition to that. -- Cid Highwind 20:24, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you make the changes you think need to be made, and we'll see how that that works out. :) - Archduk3 23:48, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

With the changes made, are you still opposing this Cid? - Archduk3 23:56, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, just wanted to see how my changes are received, first. I'm no longer opposing the article - although, just as a comment, I see two things that might need to be checked. First, some sentences seem to be overly long - I was sometimes lost in constructions with too many commas and hyphens. ;) Second, do we accept "littlereview.com" as a proper source in the background section? Haven't checked that in detail, but the pages look a little "cheap" to me. -- Cid Highwind 10:14, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the "littlereview.com" note – I'm wondering if it's actually notable. Wouldn't getting measurements be standard procedure for most people playing aliens on Star Trek? And isn't that process more relevant to Vaughn Armstrong than to Telek R'Mor? –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:25, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that should be standard procedure and really isn't that notable. We should probably move or remove it, unless something of interest happened while taking those measurements. There's a second reference to "littlereview" at the end of the section, though, where the actor talks about the character. That bit is on-topic if the source is considered valid. -- Cid Highwind 10:30, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the second "littlereview" note. I think that bit should stay. There really hasn't been any established criteria/policy here for what is and isn't a valid source. I'd be happy to discuss a policy having criteria for deciding which sources are and aren't acceptable if you want to start a forum (I do have a few ideas for some general guidelines).
Here, I think its okay. Many articles use similar webpages. According to the parent page, "Many of these interviews originally appeared at AnotherUniverse.com and Fandom.com; the remainder are housed at The Trek Nation". This suggests its just an archive of other sources. [1] While there may be some inaccuracies in the transcription, I think its unlikely the interview was entirely made up.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:56, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I doubt having one's head measured would be common practice for minimal makeup (such as Bajoran or Skagaran), so I think it should stay. However, I'd opt for it being on the Romulan page than this one. It means that the usual TNG-ENT makeup was so extensive that it required measurement. Also, in my experience, littlereview.com was first on the Martha Hackett article as an external link, I then used parts of that interview for the articles about VOY: "Basics, Part I" and "Basics, Part II". That was quite a while ago, and the info hasn't been removed in the interim. I support Cleanse's opinion that littlereview.com should be counted as a valid source. --Defiant 11:45, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this info is more relevant to the species' makeup than just this character, and it should be moved there if we're keeping it. - Archduk3 12:09, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Defiant 20:00, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

The Way of the Warrior (episode)

I think this is a good one to start with. The article was originally made a FA in April 2005. In March/April 2011, there was an attempt to remove this article, but there was no consensus (2 for, 2 against). The comments of TrekFan and Defiant in that latter discussion suggest that there may be some spelling, grammar and format issues remaining. If these objections remain, they should be resolved if we want to reconfirm this article. (Other objections raised at the removal attempt, such as background citations and page numbers, were resolved)

Of course, any other comments or suggestions regarding the article are welcome. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:01, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support reconfirmation. - Archduk3 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reconfirmation. I fixed up the only grammar issues I could find.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. --31dot 02:30, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support.--Sennim 05:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Supprt. Tom 17:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Please provide a link to the current main page summary (if it exists) - according to new FA policy, that one should be written during the nomination period, so it should exist for a renomination. Conditional oppose if that summary does not exist, or doesn't match the current article. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
See Template:FA/The Way of the Warrior (episode). - Archduk3 22:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
I think the last paragraph in the blurb should be shortened to just "Realizing something must be done before the situation escalates out of control, Sisko notifies Starfleet Command and Lieutenant Commander Worf is dispatched to the station. Sisko gives Worf an assignment – find out what the Klingons are up to." since the blurb is a bit on the long side. - Archduk3 01:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
Implemented that suggested change - the blurb is still a little too long for my taste (perhaps a sentence or two could be trimmed), but at least it shouldn't get longer than what it is now. -- Cid Highwind 13:23, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, after having read through the article again. For one, there's a huge discrepancy between the "Memorable Quotes" section of this article and MA:QUOTE: The guideline states that six would be a good upper limit - this episode is important and feature length but still, 20 quotes seems excessive. Some of them aren't memorable at all (quoting whole scenes or needing context to be understood), or should probably be placed somewhere else (Worf's Enterprise quote, for example, has nothing to do with the content of this episode), and the whole list apparently isn't sorted chronologically, either (the last-but-one quote is the final dialogue of the episode - not sure about the rest). Then, i think that parts of the background section would be more appropriate for the DS9 Season 4 article. Changes to the opening sequence, for example, weren't done for this episode specifically, but were a part of general "season 4 changes". The same is true for several of the "personnel changes" - which either belong on the season or even on the actor/character articles instead. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I shortened it down to 10 quotes, and sorted them chronologically. Since its a feature length episode, I hope this is acceptable. As for the latter: How about we move that kind of stuff to Season 4, and have a note along the lines of "Season 4 introduced several changes to the show. These included a new title sequence, new credits, and promotions for several characters. For more information, please see DS9 Season 4." ?–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:48, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: That doesn't really say anything about this specific episode, though. I'd opt for the first suggested sentence to be something more along the lines of, "Some aspects of this episode were changes introduced to the show in its fourth season." --Defiant 03:20, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the phrase Cleanse suggested. The other suggestion is an awkward construction just to bring "this episode" instead of "season 4" into the active position of the sentence. This would be OK if this were a huge section of text, but unnecessary if it is basically a pointer to a different article. -- Cid Highwind 11:31, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did say "something along the lines of," aware that the particular sentence I suggested is an awkward one. I just think we should make what is written more relevant than Cleanse's version, while also being less clunky than my own. However, achieving those two goals may be too idealistic. Anyway, since my last post here, I've come to the opinion that much of the info should (if I'm not mistaken) actually be on the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine page rather than the Season 4 one, for the same reason as it's being moved from this article; the changes, IIRC, remained in the rest of the show, while only being introduced here. --Defiant 13:04, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
I checked the quotes section again, and while not all of them seem to be that memorable to me, the changes are sufficient for me. I'm no longer objecting in that regard. -- Cid Highwind 20:39, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the information to DS9 Season 4, as Cid suggested, as I think that's the best place. Season 4 is the subject of the notes, so it makes the most sense there. I wouldn't object to some of them also being in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article, if Defiant wants to do so. But any further discussion about placement should be brought up elsewhere, since the notes are no longer in the article, and thus not relevant to whether this article should be a FA.

Anyway, I hope these changes to "The Way of the Warrior" are sufficient to resolve the outstanding objections. Any further suggestions or refinements are welcome. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:43, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think the remaining section that was renamed to "Introduction of Worf" needs to be checked, too. It is only superficially related to this episode, more to the Worf character in general, and I suggest that only the first two sentences of bullet point #2 remain on this article, while the rest of #2, as well as #1 and #3 completely gets moved to Worf. -- Cid Highwind 10:21, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

I moved the first two sentences of what was bullet #2 to "Continuity". The remainder of #2 fits in nicely on Worf. #1 and #3 I just deleted because to be honest I don't think they add anything to what's already on the character article.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:38, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Cid, has this overcome your last objection? :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:51, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oops, missed that one - sorry. I no longer oppose this. There has been an addition of a not-really-memorable quote (which I removed again), so this article should be checked after this reconfirmation went through. -- Cid Highwind 21:17, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Reconfirmations with objections

M-113 creature

This one was originally featured in early 2005, and has seen several edits since then. I just copyedited it again today, some other contributors joined that attempt. While I'm not totally happy with small bits, like the name of the "Enterprise encounter" section or the wording of the remaining bgnote, I still think it's in a better shape than before. FA blurb has been created (Template:FA/M-113 creature), this diff shows the changes since first featuring the article. I'm not voting myself. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm going to oppose for now, since as Cid mentioned it still needs some more work, that bgnote needs something done to it, and based on the amount of changes in the last few days we might want to go "full nomination" on this one. - Archduk3 14:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Changing to a tentative support after I removed the bgnote. It does look like another pair of eyes on this wouldn't be remiss though. - Archduk3 21:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, looks up to specs to my (untrained) in-universe eye--Sennim 13:21, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – I think the recent edits have been a good community effort, and I think the article is now up to modern FA standards.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:23, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I personally think the in-universe info about the M-113 carcass in Trelane's mansion should be carefully moved from the bg info section to the "history" one. --Defiant 01:01, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, after extensively analyzing this article, I've come to the opinion that it's basically deeply flawed. The page, as it currently stands, seems unsure whether it's an article about the last individual specimen of a species or the entire species. It's also quite wordy, with too many repetitions of some points, and the individual sections are not separated enough for my liking (such as historical info appearing in the lead-in, rather than in the "historical" section, etc.) I'd also opt for the info in the historical section being arranged in a more historical/chronological order than it currently is. --Defiant 02:27, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
If you want to try and save it Defiant, make changes as you see fit, though the article is about both the individual creature and the species. - Archduk3 22:02, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Early reconfirmations

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki