Wikia

Memory Alpha

Changes: Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews

View source

Back to page

(opposed "Yesterday's Enterprise")
m (rm Weyoun, success)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 
{{FARecons}}[[Category:Memory Alpha maintenance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 
==Reconfirmations without objections==
 
==Reconfirmations without objections==
=== [[Weyoun]] ===
 
{{blurb|Weyoun}}
 
Not sure if this should be reconfirmed yet, but since it's from 2004 it's next up on the list. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 20:48, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 
*'''Support''' with the changes made. [[User:31dot|31dot]] 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 
*'''Support'''. [[User:ThomasHL|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! --[[User:Defiant|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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. --[[User:Defiant|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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. --[[User:Defiant|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. --[[User:Defiant|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)? --[[User:Defiant|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 ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Millennium|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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. --[[User:Defiant|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''")? --[[User:Defiant|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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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? --[[User:Defiant|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. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 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. --[[User:Defiant|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. :) --[[User:Defiant|Defiant]] 13:59, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
 
 
*'''Support'''-Looks fine to me; took the liberty to enlarge the bg-section with commentary of Combs on his role of the character--[[User:Sennim|Sennim]] 09:05, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 
   
 
==Reconfirmations with objections==
 
==Reconfirmations with objections==

Revision as of 20:51, June 8, 2012

Template:FARecons

Reconfirmations without objections

Reconfirmations with objections

Yesterday's Enterprise (episode)

Template:FA/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)
  • Comment: I've always thought this article is a bit too over-hyped, as there are lots of missing citations in the bg info. --Defiant 09:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Where? - Archduk3 09:33, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Basically everywhere! There's lots of uncited observations, the likes of which have been removed elsewhere on this site (such as the comparison between Landru and the Borg, during the Landru page's own reconfirmation). This page's first section should probably be cited more than it is, as I don't remember any quotations in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (but possibly I'm misremembering). Also, as far as I can see, all the publications cited don't have any page numbers, so the article could still be improved in that respect. --Defiant 10:01, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if you actually mark what parts you have a problem with instead of just saying everywhere and eluding to an issue without using the text itself. You don't have to prove why there is a problem before saying what it is. I only see a couple of paragraphs cited to the same book, which I don't own and therefor can't check, and self evident observations. Some of that may need to be reworded or cut, but I can't make the case for you. As for the page numbers, if someone with the book has the time do add them, that would be a big help. I would like to think this page hasn't been sitting here for nearly two weeks for nothing. - Archduk3 11:20, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've added the page numbers for the books I have. I have checked, and the quotes Defiant mentions are indeed in the Next Generation Companion on pp. 116-117. The first section does seem to reflect the Companion.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's good. I'm quite busy today, and won't have computer access for the next few hours. There's bg info on the Surak page about this episode; it requires a citation, which when I looked at this page was not available from it, unfortunately. There's also some info in an issue of Star Trek Magazine which I'll try to add later in the day. I don't see the FA reconfirmation of this page being opposed even with these changes that could be made, though. --Defiant 11:42, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
I've added a supporting citation to the first section so it isn't so reliant on one source. I also added a couple more RDM quotes (TM). I think that's all the info I've got.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:47, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've just looked at the summary section and found it could definitely use some improvement too, so oppose. The summary is one of those that reads more like a novel, IMHO, with big blocks of text that are unappealing to read and difficult to get through. Also, I really think the bg info could use some more help than just chucking citations at it. All in all, the page needs a lot of work. --Defiant 09:53, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Early reconfirmations

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki