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/vote
See here.

Supports

 * 1) – Cpthunt 07:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Objections

 * 1) usscantabrian 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --TimPendragon 08:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Revanche 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Not trying to be rude, but I don't believe this article is at the standard at present to have it considered as a featured article. I'd reconsider with further in-depth information and adequate sourcing of that material. Just my opinion. --usscantabrian 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean exactly by "adequate sourcing", but it does have a source article (Star Trek: New Order, linked at the top of the page) with the appropriate external links on that base article. Plus, it may not be super in-depth, but it's not bad, as is. I'm considering voting for it. We'll see what happens when the end of the month draws near. SAS undefined 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I didn't really make myself clear... I mean, what actual episode or comic or film of New Order does this information come from? Doesn't most of it just repeat normal history?  Isn't there anything quirky or interesting that could be added in it to make it unique?  I just didn't feel that there was anything in this article that made it stand out.  Again, not trying to be rude... I just feel there should be more interesting things, like "Joe Smith was in command of the 3rd regiment from 2368 to 2374.  During this time, the regiment blah blah blah."  Maybe the words are "too general".  It needs more specifics. --usscantabrian 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually had the same thought, earlier, when I was looking at the article. It skips from the formation of the UFP right to a brief comment about the Dominion War. That's over 200 years of history in a single comma. Give us something, please. --TimPendragon 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say this one is "almost" there. One thing I'd like to see is better formatting for the "Hymn." --TimPendragon 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this information was from an article I had written separately, for an aborted readers' guide to, but all this information is pertinent to the series as a whole and is used as reference material when I write them. As for the other stuff, any new material would be speculation, because this is all I have written on the subject, in the original article, which I have added to the sources.– Cpthunt 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think it should be a Featured Article until such time as there is further information (i.e. new material that isn't speculation) added. If you're not sure, look at some of the other previous Featured Articles for the standard needed to gain that status. --usscantabrian 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just not before Nov./Dec. 2006.
 * any new material would be speculation, because this is all I have written – Good point. SAS undefined 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I might as well give you a hint now, an up coming episode will be a heavy Marine episode so I'll have more to write after that.– Cpthunt 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't see any supporting reason why this one should be a FA. The article is chockful of capitalization misses, a large part of it is rehash of a different unit's history (that of the USMC) and as stated previously, the formatting of the adapted USMC hymn is non-existant. Also, I don't mean to be cruel, but I think its candidacy is way before its time. If articles were humans, this one would be an adolescent. The idea of a FA is that, with the exception of future material, the article is complete and as good as it can be expected to ever get. This one has a ways to go. --Revanche 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all, you tell me how to format the hymn, secondly, I believe that for there to be a Starfleet Marine Corps, it would have to have roots in the USMC. And there are a lot more articles on this sight, some of which have been featured, which have worse grammar.  Like I said, I will be refinign this article, and adding more material in the near future– Cpthunt 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Supports

 * 1) --usscantabrian 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * A solid article. Just needs some red links cleaned up (which isn't a problem, I am sure). --usscantabrian 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite an array of redlinks. (Those suckers just leap out at me.) Looks like Pavlo Celcho is going to get it this time around; maybe by next time this one will have less. SAS undefined 08:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Supports

 * 1) --usscantabrian 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) SAS undefined 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Objections

 * 1) --[[Image:2395 Combadge.jpg|15px]] Good 'ol ZC (talk - contribs) 19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * A comprehensive article on this fan film series (which I feel guilty about as I haven't started watching it yet... but hey, limited bandwidth in NZ... its backward in that way!!!) --usscantabrian 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Awwww... don't worry. lol. I'm honoured to have my article nominated, and its not finsihed yet. :P --Luke80 20:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit! I meant to nominate this one back when I gave it an editorial overhaul, but it slipped my mind (what happens when you get old). Cantabrian beat me to it. Oh well. Definite support. (Now see, Luke? Imagine if all your articles had that much breadth, depth & scope.) SAS undefined 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I'm a very busy person, but when the series finishes (which it will early this year) then I will "upgrade" my other articles. :D --Luke80 11:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While I'm certain this article has a lot of information on the series, I think it could be tightened up by organizing the article into sub-pages for readability. In its current state, I don't necessarily agree with the notion that this is one the 'best articles' of STEU.  Quantity does not equal quality.  --[[Image:2395 Combadge.jpg|15px]] Good 'ol ZC (talk - contribs) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)