|
|
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| |
|
|
|
| |
==Articles nominated for removal== |
|
==Articles nominated for removal== |
| − |
===USS ''Equinox''=== |
|
| − |
The {{USS|Equinox}} article was self-nominated in [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=USS_Equinox&oldid=11318 June 2004] and did not meet today's criteria of nominating a featured article. According to the [[Talk:USS Equinox|talk page]], it was nominated, seconded, and received one additional vote only after [[Talk:USS_Equinox#FA_nomination|having the criteria clarified by MA founder Dan Carlson]]. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| − |
To confuse things further, in [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=USS_Equinox&oldid=459008 November 2006], it was [[Talk:USS_Equinox#This_entry_.2Areally.2A_about_the_Equinox.3F|labeled PNA]] while still being labeled featured! [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=USS_Equinox&oldid=555842 Three months] later, [[Talk:USS_Equinox#Removal_of_featured_status|Alan questioned the legitimacy of the FA voting]] and removed the featured tag out of hand, but left the PNA. This is the way it was for nearly a year when records of the voting finally turned up. Alan archived the vote on the talk page and the FA tag was reinstated in [http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=USS_Equinox&oldid=744633 February 2008]. It still retained the PNA tag, though, until [[Talk:USS_Equinox#PNA.2FFA_for_over_a_year.3F|Cleanse removed the PNA]] two months later. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| − |
While I understand that this was a good article when it was written, it has had some major changes and issues with it in the four years since it was declared a featured article. Does it live up to the high standards we hold featured articles to today? – [[User:Topher208|Topher]] 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
| − |
:'''Oppose'''. I think this article is still deserving of FA status. In my opinion, the article itself is detailed enough and there are a decent amount of images to compliment it. [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
::I agree with the removal suggestion. The very shaky "FA history" of this article makes it a bad example to present as "our best work". At least, it should have another FA nomination discussion, and this suggestion would be the first step for that... (For the record, I personally don't think that this is still "the best" we have to offer, in any case.) -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
:::'''Support''' - I agree with Cid that the weak justification for remaining an FA would call for another nomination. I agree the article is not our best work today.– [[User:Cleanse|Cleanse]] 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
::::'''Support''' removal. I agree with Cid and Cleanse's words.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
===Borg-Species 8472 War=== |
|
===Borg-Species 8472 War=== |
| |
|
|
|
NoticeThe status of this article as a "featured article" is currently being discussed. Please participate in that discussion here.
Articles nominated for removal
Borg-Species 8472 War
I would like to suggest the removal of the article Borg-Species 8472 War from FA status because of the formatting error. How can this article be an FA when there is a sign at the bottom that says it needs attention? TrekFan 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support unless changes are made to it to satisfy the pna. It seems to be more incomplete than unformatted, though.--31dot 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with 31dot about the PNA. Plus, with the self-nomination and single supporting vote back from 2004, how can we call this a featured article? — Topher 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
