|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| |
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
|
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
| |
==Reconfirmations without objections== |
|
==Reconfirmations without objections== |
| − |
=== [[Battle of Cardassia]] === |
|
| − |
{{blurb|Battle of Cardassia}} |
|
| − |
Nominated en mass in 2004 with the rest of the other five Dominion War battles at the time. This article would require a blurb if reconfirmed, and I have no opinion either as of yet on if it should. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 18:02, April 7, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. I've done a once over on this and I think it's still FA material. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 16:49, April 9, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. Still an excellent article. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 10:03, April 10, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. I removed a red link ("civilian") because I don't think we need this link. My only concern is about the huge portion of free space after the first paragraph ("Prelude"). The image on the right looks lost, IMO. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 19:16, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
:'''Comments''' - I have a few concerns which prevent me from supporting this article. |
|
| − |
:# Neither "The Battle" nor the "Aftermath" sections have any [[MA:CYS|citations]]. |
|
| − |
:# The second and third paragraphs of "Aftermath" seem speculative and opinionated - was this alternative scenario ever mentioned in canon? |
|
| − |
:# I think some of the language needs to be toned down, as it is too emotive for an encyclopedia article. Examples such as "despite having already lost an astounding 33% of their forces during the battle" and "As it was, the battle was nothing short of a disaster for Cardassia" could probably be written in a more neutral tone. |
|
| − |
:–[[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] <small><sup>( [[User talk:Cleanse|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Cleanse|contribs]] )</sup></small> 09:38, April 17, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
I've done the cites, assuming everything in those sections are from the last episode, but I'll need to rewatch this to do the rest, since I do seem to remember the Female Changeling boasting about the amount of casualties an invasion would lead to. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 10:02, April 17, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
I've attempted to address the concerns, though I would say a few bits of "more colorful language" shouldn't be too much of an issue, as the result of the war can certainly be considered a disaster for Cardassia. That said, if anything else needs to be adjusted, I don't have an issue with it being toned down further. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 00:04, April 20, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
=== [[First Battle of Chin'toka]] === |
|
| − |
{{blurb|First Battle of Chin'toka}} |
|
| − |
A FA from back in 2004. I haven't had the time to take a look at it yet. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 18:02, April 7, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support''', though I don't recall where resistance from Cardie and Dominion soldiers in the ground assault was mentioned. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 10:09, April 10, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. I removed the resistance sentence, since I wasn't able to find any mention of it in {{e|Tears of the Prophets}} or {{e|The Siege of AR-558}}. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 16:57, April 10, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. My only concern is again the huge portion of free space following the prelude. Is there any way to fix this? [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 19:16, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
I'm not seeing this free space, assuming I understand what you're talking about. Could it be a browser or skin based issue? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:28, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
:I am talking about the portion between "Prelude" and "The Battle" caused by the sidebar. It is possible that this is skin based. The same for me as mentioned above in [[Battle of Cardassia]]. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 19:34, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
That's your skin, in the standard oasis skin there isn't any problem. You could remove the <nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki> template at the end of that section if you want, that should solve the issue. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 10:02, April 17, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
=== [[Patricia Tallman]] === |
|
| − |
{{blurb|Patricia Tallman}} |
|
| − |
A FA from 2005. It still seems well written and comprehensive to me, and I think its status should continue. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 10:24, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 17:25, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*'''Support'''. As a main contributor to this article I would be delighted about a reconfirmation as featured article. I am updating the article frequently. [[User:ThomasHL|Tom]] 19:16, April 11, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
==Reconfirmations with objections== |
|
==Reconfirmations with objections== |
| − |
=== [[Second Battle of Chin'toka]] === |
|
| − |
{{blurb|Second Battle of Chin'toka}} |
|
| − |
Nominated en mass in 2004 with the other Dominion War battles at the time. This article would require a blurb if reconfirmed, and I have no opinion either as of yet on if it should. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 06:18, April 15, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*I've done a once over on this, and while I've attempted to address most of the problems I found, the battle and aftermath parts of the article still come off as predominantly hyperbole IMO. I can't find references to some of the assertions that were made before I removed them, such as the existence of a Allied reserve force, so I'm forced to '''oppose''' the reconfirmation. Considering that the problem is most of the article, a full five supports would seem to be called for. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 07:57, April 16, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| − |
*I'll also '''oppose''' reconfirmation, give the lack of citations for some references.[[User:31dot|31dot]] 09:43, April 17, 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
== Early reconfirmations == |
|
== Early reconfirmations == |
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 "~~~~".
Reconfirmations without objections
Reconfirmations with objections
Early reconfirmations
About → Policies and guidelines → FA policies → FA criteria → Nominations for FAs → Featured articles → Reconfirmation of featured articles