FA status Edit

The work on this page, by Sennim, before and after it was spun off from the Constitution class page, is impressive to say the least. I don't know of another article on this site that has the depth and detail of this page. It's high time we do what we said when discussing the previously mentioned spin off, and give this FA status. - Archduk3 15:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I'm extremely grateful for the more than kind words of Archduke3, and indeed, I do believe it is the most comprehensive article available on the good "Lady E" anywhere at least where its depiction as production asset is concerned. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention people like William S. McCullars, David Shaw and Curt McAloney, whose work I expanded upon. As the saying goes, I stood on the shoulders of giants...--Sennim 18:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
• Support--quite detailed, and meticulously cited as well. The only thing that might make it seem "not FA material" is the number of red links, though much of that can't really be helped as they're mostly people or effects companies that played very small parts in the grand scheme of things, and thus hadn't yet been high enough on the priority list to be given articles of their own here yet. Surely that's more an issue with those as-yet-nonexistent articles than this one, and in fact now that they're linked somewhere they'll be on "Wanted Pages" and someone can come along and create them. -Mdettweiler 16:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth, as a matter of fact, some hidden extra work was involved while writing the article; I started the articles on Richard C. Datin, Jr., Magicam and WonderWorks Inc., they were too important for the article not to be tackled at once as well as on the magazines American Cinematographer, Cinefex and Cinefantastique which I consider prime sources for background information.--Sennim 08:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Support, really, really detailed. --Nero210 23:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as I said in the Peer Review, it's really great to have so much information compiled and properly cited. – Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the once-over in that stage.--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - simply cool! --Jörg 10:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, especially from a stickler for detail as yourself, many thanks for finetuning the refit-AMT section.--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Now that this article has been split off, I'd would like to have some feedback from the other members if the article in itself is worthy for nomination for featured article. Normally I'm loathe to selfpromotion of this kind, but since the text is about 95% mine, six months in the making, and since I believe it is now the most comprehensive information on the models of the good ship Enterprise anywhere it is worthy as such. Your thoughts would be appreciated--Sennim 12:04, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had a quick look. There's a few minor things (template use, capitalisation, wording) that I fixed, but it needs a once over for formatting etc. by a better proofreader than me. Also, models and starships aren't really my thing. ;-)

I'm highly impressed with the number and varied nature of the citations; a lot of research is evident and I think this article can safely be considered comprehensive of the subject. There was one uncited statement that jumped out though (the last sentence of "Three-foot model"); it just says "reportedly"; it should state which source reports this.

So overall, some minor quibbles, but I think for content this is definitely one of the best FA candidates I've seen.– Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 08:42, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, citation has been fixed--Sennim 18:10, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Title Edit

Shouldn't it be "Constitution class models", since there were more than one? - Connor Cabal 22:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

We generally use the singular for article names. - Archduk3 02:17, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Except for articles like this one, which are plurals, like Studio models (TOS), Studio models (films), Studio models (TNG), Studio models (DS9), Studio models (VOY), and Studio models (ENT). --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:45, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Those are list articles. This is an actual article like studio model. - Archduk3 03:17, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

List articles tend to have "list" in the name. The reason why "studio model" is not plural is because it is discussing the concept of the studio model. This article is more like the others, it discusses the many models used for the many Constitution class ships. It is as much a list as the others. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:23, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most lists only have the "s", but that's neither here or there. I would say the difference between this and a list is that you don't need to go to another page for information on a model. The model lists actually say to go to another article for information on the model, while this one is the article it's telling you to go to. In that respect, I would say this isn't listing the models, it's about the different models that were used as the Constitution class model. - Archduk3 03:54, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

There is no "the" Constitution class model. There are many models. They don't even look remotely alike. This article discusses those many models. It seems to me you are grasping for uniformity with other article titles when the subject is genuinely different. We should be using common sense here, not just grasping for uniformity. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:33, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that I should have listened to it and not put in that last sentence. :) The point was that, generally, only list articles have an "s", and this isn't a list article. I do see your point, but I would rather stick with the naming conventions MA has been using. Of course, if no one else joins the discussion in the next day or so, I'll just have to live with the s. :) - Archduk3 04:52, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm blaming Cid. - Archduk3 04:58, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Archduk3- this is not an article about a list of different models, it is about the concept of a particular kind of model and how it has developed, i.e. the different models used to represent the Consitution model, as Archduk said.--31dot 07:37, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I count ten models on this page on a cursory glance. Not one. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 08:09, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here who has said otherwise. This is not an article about specific models, but about the concept and how it has evolved. --31dot 08:18, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Even you yourself said "The reason why "studio model" is not plural is because it is discussing the concept of the studio model." , and that article discusses different types of studio models (kitbash, study model, etc.) So why does that not apply here?--31dot 08:21, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

It is an article about specific models. It is very much an article about specific models. How isn't it? "Studio model" intentionally is not about any specific models, but this article intentionally IS about specific models. Many of them. "Constitution class" isn't a concept. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 08:43, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm to blame anyway (as always), let me at least join the fun. :) Archduk3 is correct. We've been using plural titles for list articles (the "List of" prefix has been deprecated for years now), and singular titles for everything else. For example, the article about the whole Klingon species (which consists of more than one individual, obviously) is located at Klingon, not at Klingons.

This has been done to make linking easier - it's easier to type [[Klingon]]s than it is to type [[Klingons|Klingon]]. The same reasoning applies here. -- Cid Highwind 09:57, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an article about specific models. It is a general article about the history of the design and its use in models. If you want articles about the specific models, we certainly could do that, but that's not what this is. It is about the evolution of the design and its use in building models. If it isn't a concept, then what is it?

I also think that people are more likely to find this by searching for "model" than "models" as they may not know there was more than one.--31dot 18:09, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

It is an article about specific models. What you are suggesting is splitting each of those models out into their own articles, but while they are here it is about the multiple models. I'll line them up in a gallery if you like. If it isn't a concept, it is exactly what it is, physical models, objects that physically exist. I find the search term argument to be incredibly weak, that is why redirects were included in the software. Cid, "Klingons" is about multiple people (as this is about multiple models), while "Klingon" is about the species. The species is a singular. This is about multiple models, so it lines up with the "Klingons" example, which is about multiple people. There is no single "Constitution class model," there isn't even a single "right" one. The design didn't just "evolve," so much as they picked different actual models. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:31, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that I was suggesting a split, merely that it was possible. Anyway, so should Weyoun be changed to Weyouns? That article is about more than one person. That is about the entirety of the existence of the being Weyoun- just like this article is about the entirety of the existence of this series of models. A gallery is quite unneccesary, as no one disputes how many models there is.--31dot 19:01, April 13, 2010 (UTC)