FA status Edit
FA nomination (03 Oct - 22 Oct 2004, Failed) Edit
- Still needs some pictures and further references. Opposed for now. --BlueMars 18:49, Oct 3, 2004 (CEST)
FA removal (13 July - 11 Aug 2005, Success) Edit
Since the criteria for featured status have become more stringent, I do not feel that this article is any longer worthy of featured status for the following reasons:
- Numerous spelling and grammatical errors
- Absent background information
- Poorly formatted references
- Questionable use of pictures
Personally, I think that there are better written articles that are not featured (and probably do not deserve the status as of yet).--Scimitar 13:29, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Second. Because of spelling and grammatic errors and poor formatting. Lack of background information and "questionable" image use are, in my opinion, no reason to object featured status. Ottens 11:43, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Abstention. The article has been edited, see its talk page. Mornsbar 16:08, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- This page needs to be re-evaluated since the above changes were made. --Alan del Beccio 06:22, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I've re-evaluated it since and I'm still not satisfied with it. There are still grammatical errors and instead of correctly formatting the references, they have simply been truncated, almost like amputating a limb to avoid healing a scratch. The odd pointless references are made too such as "heading".--Scimitar 22:42, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Third The article also does not follow the usual Act 1, 2 , 3 etc. format. I thought featured episodes must be in that format, rather than have chapter names. Also, there isn't enough info in any section but the summary. Tobyk777 22:45, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Archived --Alan del Beccio 00:30, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I may have gone a little overboard on this one. I just started out summarizing the first few paragaphs, and then descided to see it through. -- Redge 17:22, 25 Jul 2004 (CEST)
- Overboard perhaps, but if nothing else, this article serves as an example of what a more or less verbatim retelling of an episode looks like. Anyway, in an attempt to keep it from losing its "featured article" status, I have edited the article slightly. If this does not work out, a more radical rewrite could be the next step, or a short summary be added.
- Apart from its length, which is reflected in the fact that the standard category is tentatively called "The Story" rather than "Summary" and contains non-standard subheadings, there are a few more problems which remain for somebody else to fix: The Reference section is a mess, I am not sure how to properly attribute the source in the Background Information section, and there are not enough images for a text of this length. Mornsbar 16:06, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that the summary doesn't follow the standard summary formatt of Act 1 Act 2 etc. If this article were to become featured, that would have to be changed. Tobyk777 03:28, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Added a PNA to this - summary definitely needs putting into a standard act format. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
On the holodeck, Worf, Troi and Data are drinking champagne with the other characters. Then the program ends.It seems reasonable to assume that they are drinking holographic champagne out of holographic champagne glasses. But when the simulation disappears from around them, the glasses and the champagne remain. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- It has been suggested that the holodeck sometimes replicates food/drink.– Cleanse 02:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nitpick, and 4+7=86 Edit
- There's a continuity error when Data, Worf and Troi visit Keystone City on the holodeck: When Data attempts to depolarize the power grid while holding the "attacking" cab by its front bumper, the left hand of the actor can briefly be seen entering the frame on the left though this hand should still be holding the vehicle as the sound of the screeching tires can still be heard. The very same scene is reused just seconds later when Data reverses his previous actions; again the actor's left hand briefly enters the frame on the left near the end of the shot.
- The number 47 appears several times. Geordi indicates that "Warp power has dropped 47 percent". Also, when a brick wall collapses on the holodeck it reveals a building numbered 1136 (11+36=47).
Removed. --TribbleFurSuit 02:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed citation Edit
Not sure if this is worth noting, but I removed the following citation regarding the special effects for this episode, as I found an English-language citation. The same information could be found in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion. I thought I'd leave it here though, for any German-speakers who might be interested:
- (Michael Spohn. "Liste aller Listen" (German), June 2003, )
Frank Hollander in Emergence Edit
In the article as it appeared at this time (1/6/2013), the main section of the article mentioned the gunslinger might be Frank Hollander from "Fistful of Datas". While I like the idea of finally seeing the real Frank Hollander as intended to appear in the program, there was no clear evidence that the gunslinger actually is Hollander. He never addressed himself as such, and nor did anyone else. There was no ID for him (no worn name tag, no LCARS graphic identifying him appearing in any of the programs running in the holodeck at the time, nothing). I don't neccessarily want it completely removed, but it doesn't belong in the main article because it is a speculation without evidence. I may go in an remove it myself and place it in the talk section just to keep it in existence for the time being.--Vern4760 (talk) 13:19, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Segment in question:
Then, an old western desperado enters the compartment from the opposite side.
Again, this is done to remove speculative remarks from the article. If at some point one of the writers were to reveal that it was their intent to identify the desperado as Frank Hollander, but was unable to for some reason, that information could be added to the background section of the article. But at this time I am unaware that this is the case.--Vern4760 (talk) 13:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC)