Featured article nominations

This is the discussion and voting page for featured article nominations. After an article has entered discussion, nominated should be placed on the article. Once an article is approved, change the template to featured.

How to nominate:


 * 1) First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above.
 * 2) Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
 * 3) Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
 * 4) The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
 * 5) Also, if, at least two weeks after the article's nomination, that article has 5 supports and no objections, it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".

How to vote:


 * 1) Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
 * 2) Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
 * 3) If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
 * 4) As stated above, any objections will be reviewed by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to satisfy the objectors.
 * 5) Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has 5 supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article".

Also remember to add nominated at the top of the article you are nominating.

Each month the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the main page as featured, and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the featured article template. Nominees that are inactive for two months will be eliminated from the nominations list.

Supports

 * 1) User:JoeRedShirt
 * 2) User:TrekFan1
 * 3) User:TNGFan

Objections

 * I think there are too many red links. --User:Cling-On
 * Formatting should be fixed. --User:Romu-lean

Comments

 * Lots of great text and pics, worthy of the title. --User:JoeRedShirt
 * Very well thought out article. --User:TrekFan1
 * Formatting has been fixed and looks spot on! --UserTNGFan
 * Okay cool - that was my only objection. --User:Romu-lean

Supports

 * 1) -- 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --The NCC Factor 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Logan MacLeod 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Very well-written article. Definitely deserves FA status. -- 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just want to say I am humbled and honoured to have an article nominated! And excited! :) Thanks! :) --usscantabrian 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't object, but I will point out that there are quite a few red-links, still. (More on this below.) SAS undefined 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Supports

 * 1) -- The NCC Factor Talk 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Hawku 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) SAS undefined 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
An extremely well written and in-depth article worthy of FA status. -- The NCC Factor Talk 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm honored by the nomination and glad to hear that the article is appreciated. --Logan MacLeod 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I tend to stay impartial on voting for FAs (don't know why), but... here I am. Let's see if I can't break it.
 * For me it's a toss-up between Prometheus and Noel Turner; both seem worthy of the nomination. The clincher, however, in my view, is the number of red links. A FA should have as few red links as possible (or none). Noel Turner still has several. Prometheus: Only a few. So the latter gets my vote, this round. SAS undefined 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Supports

 * 1) -- 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections

 * 1) --Logan MacLeod 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I am aware that most of the text comes from MA, but I believe the fact that the image tables make up the majority of the page negates that. The page itself explains the concept as completely as possible and is two rank sets away from being complete. If this gets approved as an FA, than hold off on adding it until those two sets are added. -- 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While I feel this article is a benifit to our "community" here at STEU I feel this article is in essence a heavily illustrated "copy & paste" of a MA article. Sorry but that's how I feel, that said however If someone can present a convincing "argument" as to why this should be a FA I would reconsider my position.
 * Also I feel the Remington rank insignia should be marked as being specific to one continutity as having them in the main table and the page not marked as specific to any one continuity seems to be an  unintentional  attempt to have people believe they are canon. Also the 2390's insignia should be marked, somehow, as being from an alternate canon timeline. --Logan MacLeod 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've implemented both of your suggestions. -- 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also another problem; there are too many red linked images that need to be fixed before the article can be featured.-- The NCC Factor Talk 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus why I said that the page "is two rank sets away from being complete. If this gets approved as an FA, than hold off on adding it until those two sets are added."
 * Oh sorry, in that case once those are added I think it's definatly worthy. -- The NCC Factor Talk 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)