FA status Edit
Nomination (04 Feb - 13 Feb 2005, Success) Edit
- Oppose. Pictures need watermarks removing before being suitable. Not too sure about the "Act" section headings... apart from that, it is good. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:11, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)
I like the "Act" section headings and used them in my summary of "You Are Cordially Invited"
- The large "CityTV" logo in the corner of every one of the pictures. And, Star Trek series have always had five acts (and a teaser), not three. I suggest you recheck the episode, and see where the fade-outs come in - these mark the end of an act. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:55, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)
Not true, "Emissary" had eight! lol! Ok, how would I go about removing the "CityTV" logos?
- "Emissary" is a feature-length episode, and thus is different. The standard script layout is five acts. Cropping down the screencaps, or getting them from a watermark-less source would be the way to go about it. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20:27, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)
- The act divisions are sort of OK in a highly-extended summary like Defiant's, but yours is too short for it to work well, it breaks the summary up too much. I would never use such divisions in my summaries, because I think they distract from the summary itself, and break the flow of the storyline. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:55, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)
"Babel One". A large summary with pictures and section headings. Opposed previously, due to pictures that needed watermarks removing, although this has now been done. -- Defiant
- Support It is hard to believe that an article could come so far so fast. Also, Defiant deserves an award. -- Ŭalabio 02:46, 2005 Feb 6 (CET)
- We give out awards these days? ;-) Anyway, the article is a most detailed description of the episode, with enough pictures, well-done background information. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured. Keep on writing, Defiant! Ottens 11:08, 6 Feb 2005 (CET)
- Supported - A very nice summary, excellent work. -- Balok 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (CET)
Did this article actually pass? By the looks of it (a few edits either way need to be viewed), the original discussion was deleted with an oppose in place that was never withdraw. The questionable renomination policy and the practice of replacing comments instead of striking them out makes following this a bit problematic, but I've added the original discussion to the section above, striking out comments that were replaced and adding the replacements where they would be in the discussion before the whole thing was deleted. - Archduk3 00:20, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Reconfirmation (17 Jan - 03 Feb 2012, Failed) Edit
One of the "problematic" featured articles that was nominated, withdrawn, and renominated all within a week in February 2005. The nomination can be seen here. I don't currently have any opinion on the article as it is now, since I haven't had time to completely read it. - Archduk3 16:25, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I just looked through the background info, and had to remove half of it as speculation or irrelevant commentary. What's left is severely lacking in content, and has citation deficiencies.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 03:50, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – a very old FA, it badly needs updated (either to current FA standards or even just generally). --Defiant 04:23, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I tend to agree having now read the article. I find the summary to be fine overall, but the rest is sorely lacking. - Archduk3 15:40, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - As above, the writing could do with an overhaul and there are quite a few "micro-paragraphs" that could be integrated with a little bit more imaginative writing..--Sennim 13:29, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
Defiant, do you have a copy of the episode to check the when the 5 acts begin/end?-188.8.131.52 20:13, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)
Summary Length Edit
Hi. I saw that the summaries for "In a Mirror, Darkly" and "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" have been discussed as being too long and, believe it or not, I agree! Do others think the summary for this episode is still of an acceptable length for a Featured Article (which is what it is)? --Defiant 12:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed comments Edit
- The plot of the Romulan arc is similar to that of the game Star Trek: Starfleet Command III, in which the Romulans use holographic masking technology to provoke conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.
"Is similar to" is an opinion without a citation.
- This episode has a unique visual style accentuated by handheld cameras. This is especially noticeable during the shoot out between Archer and the Andorians. Additionally, there is a visually dynamic boom shot in engineering panning from a shot below Trip to a view of the warp core.
- The Romulans being able to duplicate alien weaponry but being forced to power them using their own energy leaving a Romulan power signature will again be a source of annoyance for them in the 24th century when the Romulans duplicated Federation phaser rifles powered with Romulan energy and provided them to Krios in support of Kriosian independence in "The Mind's Eye".
- In the mess hall, Archer says "When in Rome" (the full phrase ending, "... do as the Romans do"). T'Pol replies that she doesn't understand the phrase. This also occurred in "Justice", where, while jogging with the Edo, Riker said the phrase and Worf also had no clue what it meant.
Both a bit of a reach to assume this was a reference to prior episodes. Probably just a coincidence, unless there is a citation of course.
- Jeffrey Combs (Shran) and Brian Thompson (Valdore) previously appeared in "To the Death" together. They played Weyoun and Toman'torax, respectively.
- Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) and Brian Thompson previously appeared together in the TV movie Jason and the Argonauts. They played Medea and Hercules, respectively.