Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Breakdowns

Back to page

38,318pages on
this wiki

FA status Edit

Nomination (02 Apr - 23 Apr 2015, Success) Edit

  • One of the most complete "book" pages I've seen, including "Ghosts". - Archduk3 23:15, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: For the reasons stated in my comments below. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm always wary of novel articles as Featured Articles since a lot of the content is simply copied material from the book jacket or lists of characters. They very rarely bring anything new to the table that I personally would consider "the best example of Memory Alpha's work". That said, if all the information on the novel is there then I suppose it is as complete as it's ever going to get. I'm going to think on this for a little while and will return to post my vote in due course. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:33, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As we only give the SCE omnibuses their own pages and the individual ebooks redirect over to them, each sub-book should contain the "back cover blurb" at the start of its section. -- sulfur (talk) 14:55, April 3, 2015 (UTC)
Done! :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:23, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Oh yeah, I'm not disputing that the cover blurb should be there. I'm just in two minds about whether an article comprised mostly of them should be considered an FA when we have a lot of other articles that comprise a lot more detailed write-ups. --| TrekFan Open a channel 17:04, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

TrekFan, I'm not sure why you're under the impression that this page is comprised mostly of blurbs, since the thing that most interested me was that it wasn't. All of the descriptions are pretty detailed as far as I can tell, which is enough to be several times longer than the blurb, and I think they convey at least enough of the story to follow it while still leaving me wanting to read these books. I can't say that I've wanted, or felt I needed to, watch something after some of our more "extremely" detailed episode/film summaries. Also, simply having a "complete" reference list puts this miles ahead of most of the "print" articles, which I think makes this an example of MA's best work. - Archduk3 07:08, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying I dislike the article, just that I was in two minds about it. Yes, the summary is quite a good write up and having thought on this a bit since my last comment, I think I'm going to support this nomination. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:14, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Maybe some "illustrations" (images from the novel collection) could enhance the article but that is only my personal opinion. Tom (talk) 17:23, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Been doing a lot on novel writers, so yes, I'd go for this. Second Thomas HL's suggestion-RayBell (talk) 16:37, April 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While I'm admittedly more at ease with BG reference works I subscribe to Duke's original assessment, reinforced by the blurb adds by TrekFan--Sennim (talk) 21:42, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

Well, I'm hoping for this to be the first novel to be Featured - and the material is there, I just think it could use some re-phrasing and editing; I'd also like to hear what others think it could use. I'd like to see the last two summaries shortened a little (to remove what isn't as important) and to clear up the wording. (ie: I tend to use more commas then nessesary, and it makes some sentences sound weird even to me.) - AJ Halliwell 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems no one is interested. --Alan del Beccio 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki