Memory Alpha
Register
Advertisement
Memory Alpha
Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Talk page help

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.


FA status[]

Nomination (25 Apr - 16 May 2004, Success)[]

I'd like to suggest the Dominion War article. It has been worked on extensively, and now is a very well informed article. -- Redge 01:47, 25 Apr 2004 (CEST)

Seconded. -- Dan Carlson 18:40, 10 May 2004 (CEST)
Archiving: Originally tagged as "Featured" by User:MinutiaeMan at 11:02, May 16, 2004. --Alan del Beccio 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation (19 Feb - 21 Mar 2012, Success)[]

Featured Article #1, all the way back in 2004. I think this one has aged pretty well overall, though there is room for more bg info, so long as we aren't just gong to duplicate stuff directly from the episode articles. I'll have some time to further investigation that matter and do a once over on the text for a few minor things in the next few days, so I'm only tentatively supporting this for now. The text of the blurb should also most likely be replaced with a section of the article itself, instead of summarizing the whole thing. - Archduk3 07:17, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Updated the text of the blurb to be the opening of the article and did a once over on the text of that as well. I think the final paragraph in the "End of the war" section needs some more work, and I'll be getting to that shortly unless someone beats me to it. - Archduk3 21:32, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

  • Support reconfirmation-I like the readability of a larger event in the Star Trek history...Sure enough, as a non-native English speaker some once-over concerning grammar, syntax and such might be in order, but I consider that minor. The one thing I might suggest is, is it possible to integrate the logos into the belligerents side-bar? (I'd like one side-bar instead of two) Mind you, this is not to be interpreted as "hold", "oppose" or otherwise, just a suggestion, even if not followed upon my support stands...Sennim 22:52, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support reconfirmation- The article still holds up. Also there has been little additional information added to the canon, so it should continue to age well. It's possible that more detail may need to be added to evoke the feel of a Wikipedia article of similar subject matter. But conciseness has it's place and it is also possible, that it's just as well to leave it as it is. As of the date of this remark I see no problems with it. Rayfire 23:31, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support reconfirmation. Still seems like an excellent article.--31dot 00:02, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll move my support up from tentative to full. - Archduk3 09:44, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Review (13 Feb - 1 Mar 2016, Removed)[]

While the overall size of the article has been recently expanded, the "quality", for lack of a better word, has gone down. There's no reason to read beyond the new, overly long summary, and no in-universe section should ever be named "background". I'm also not sure if a Federation/Romulan Cold War was mentioned directly or just implied, and if the latter, how that's different from the status quo for a reoccurring antagonist. I think some of the section quotes were also removed when information was moved around.

That said, I have no reason to assume the recent rewrite was done in anything other than good faith, and some of the changes seem fine to me, but this article needs work to live up to the overall quality of past versions and the featured article criteria. - Archduk3 01:45, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Support removal, based Archdu3's comments and the fact that there is a lot more interesting background information that could be added to this article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:13, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

2016 rewrite[]

This article has recently been completely revamped, although it is a Featured Article. This is ofc no barrier to tweaks and improvements, but for example the opening paragraph is now already a pretty detailed timeline of the war as opposed to before. I personally do not like this, as reading the article itself is now quite repetitive, but I'd like other editors opinion on this. Kennelly (talk) 15:32, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the opening paragraph is overly detailed. A much more concise summary of the war can be achieved. Parts of the rewrite are also overly speculative and need fixing. -- UncertainError (talk) 06:53, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
Advertisement