About → Policies and guidelines → FA policies → FA criteria → Nominations for FAs → Featured articles → Reconfirmation of featured articles

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

Weyoun

Weyoun was a Vorta diplomat and leader in the service of the Dominion during the late 24th century. Like all Vorta, he was a clone; at least eight copies (five of which were encountered by the Federation) were known to exist. Weyoun became a well-known Vorta in the Alpha Quadrant during the Dominion War, serving as the Dominion representative to the Cardassian Union. In this capacity, he personally oversaw most aspects of the war, although his presence was largely to ensure the loyalty of Cardassian leaders such as Gul Dukat, Legate Damar, and Legate Broca.

Not sure if this should be reconfirmed yet, but since it's from 2004 it's next up on the list. - Archduk3 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

• Having done a once over, mainly making changes to the Weyoun 6 related content, and creating a blurb, I now support the reconfirmation of this article. - Archduk3 20:48, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
• Support with the changes made. 31dot 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tom 08:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't read the page, yet, but the main image could be replaced, for starters; it looks awfully grainy! --Defiant 10:06, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the latter episodes in DS9 look grainy, for whatever reason, and the current image actually looks pretty good when compared to other shots. That said, if you have, or find, a better one of the last Weyoun, by all means upload it. - Archduk3 10:34, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the view (angle, etc.); it's just that the image quality is pretty poor. I reckon a re-upload of the same view (taken from DVD, of course) would sort this out. --Defiant 10:46, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I pulled this version off of Trekcore, but it still looks as grainy as the last one to me. - Archduk3 10:57, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair point. I'll just accept that, for some odd reason, a lot of DS9's latter episodes look grainy anyway. I'll also try to have a read of the article and support/oppose, despite being fairly busy. --Defiant 11:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Having now done a once-over of the article, my verdict is that it's more-or-less up to FA standards, though could do with some more citations for the bg info. For instance, it cites the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion but doesn't give a page number. --Defiant 12:29, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is... do we really need such an in-depth apocrypha section, currently larger than any other section on the page, when there's already an entry for Weyoun at Memory Beta (as well as the appropriate link to it at the bottom of this page)? --Defiant 13:37, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Excepting the last paragraph, which seems to be mostly drawing connections without citations, all of that is relevant and helpful. While we do currently seem to have more info on Weyoun in Millennium than MB does, that's their problem, not ours. The guy did manage to destroy the entire universe, which isn't too shabby for a clone, and he was the crux of the entire story, so I think going into detail in this case is warranted. - Archduk3 14:13, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

It's easy enough to say "that's their problem, not ours," but I've been under the impression that the two sites are closely affiliated (both sites being hosted by wikia, having similar names, and with external links to that site appearing all over the place, here). Therefore, shouldn't we be acting accordingly? I think it would only benefit both sites if they did act with respect to one another. --Defiant 14:28, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Er... I was kinda forgetting that they also have both canon and non-canon info, just as we do, and that some content of both sites will therefore necessarily crossover. Anyways, how about making the Millennium info here a subsection of apocrypha (maybe titled something like "Appearance in Millennium")? --Defiant 14:33, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

MB is CC-BY-SA and we're CC-BY-NC, so we don't mix well when it comes to sharing info. I also personally don't do extensive work on SA wikis hosted by wikia as a rule, and even if I did I don't have the time to rewrite our info enough for it to not be an issue. The only close affiliation between us that I know about is the overlap in admins/active users. MB and MA actually don't agree on a lot of things, the least of which is basic formatting and templates. That's not to say that someone shouldn't fix the lack of info over there, just that I won't be, because I have more than enough to do on this side of the fence, and wikia makes enough money off my not for profit content as is. - Archduk3 14:40, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm pretty much in the same boat, having only a minimal interest in the expanded universe. But this course of discussion doesn't seem very relevant to this particular article, so let me return the topic to this page; is the option of including a subsection heading of the apocrypha section here a viable one? --Defiant 14:48, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Since we're only dealing with five books, I think it would look weird to section off three of them. Removing the last paragraph to the talk page and streamlining what we do have for all the books (not by removing info, just by presenting it better) might make any subsection(s) unnecessary. That said, I'm not really opposed to the idea, as most of the Millennium stuff did happen in an alternate timeline. - Archduk3 14:58, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with the stories, I find it makes for easier reading. I'm not quite sure where the info about Weyoun's visit to Vorta should go, chronologically, but I thought it may be worth saving; delete and/or move at your convenience, basically. --Defiant 15:12, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

• Support; I'm now happy with the entire article. I do find the suggestion that I read the books (given in the edit summary box, no less) somewhat laughable, though, considering that I state my dislike of DS9 on my user talk page and have mentioned here that I'm not only fairly busy but also have only a minimal interest in the expanded universe in general. But good work on this article. It makes for an insightful read. :) --Defiant 13:59, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday's Enterprise (episode)

Easily one of the best TNG episodes, and a FA since 2004. Haven't read it yet, so not sure either way just yet. - Archduk3 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to still be one of the best articles we have. - Archduk3 08:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Support, still seems good. 31dot 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and very detailed. Tom 08:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Support, in agreement with the other users' assesment--Sennim 15:04, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Reconfirmations with objections

Early reconfirmations