Template:Farc
Articles nominated for removal
=Yesterday's Enterprise
- "Yesterday's Enterprise"
- A shorter article than most of the other featured articles, especially considering it is an episode article. --Defiant | Talk 02:15, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, oppose. I have drastically expanded the Background Information section to detail the rather unique creation of this episode, and added some more images to the article. In addition, I dislike that episode summaries must now contain a blow-by-blow account of every single movement and gesture that is seen on screen. This is by no means a slight on your work, amongst others, Defiant, but such is really antithetical to the point of a summary, which is to distill the information presented, not catalog it verbatim. As such, this summary is concise, detailed, and complete. Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:48, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not a fan of the Act 1/2/3 etc sections of many episode summaries. This summary is succinct and to the point. Tough Little Ship 14:52, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to say oppose as well because, although I do like the five-act system, this article currently has such a wealth of information that I couldn't justify removing it. I also agree about the novelizations (and I mean that word as a compliment, because I think they're very well written) being overboard on episode summaries. --Schrei 20:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, oppose. I have drastically expanded the Background Information section to detail the rather unique creation of this episode, and added some more images to the article. In addition, I dislike that episode summaries must now contain a blow-by-blow account of every single movement and gesture that is seen on screen. This is by no means a slight on your work, amongst others, Defiant, but such is really antithetical to the point of a summary, which is to distill the information presented, not catalog it verbatim. As such, this summary is concise, detailed, and complete. Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:48, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This article is very well written, and contains thouroughly researched background information. Jaz 21:05, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Bolian
- Bolian
- This article may be complete, but I don't think it really qualifies as "one of MA's best written articles", which is, in my opinion, the definition of a "featured article". Most of it reads like a simple list of unrelated facts. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with this, and frankly, feel the same way about the Andorian article. The relatively scant content on the Bolian page, most of it anectdotal, hardly makes it a FA in my opinion. And I think both it and the Andorian article get their nominations not really because of the depth or breadth of the content that I believe make FA's stand out, but because people like these species. The Andorian article even had several things in it that I don't believe were supported by canon and yet it made the FA list. Logan 5 13:46, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)