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}}.

Nominating

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.
   1. If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
3. 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.
4. 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.

[[Sample article title]]

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

Featured article nominations

Pavlo Celcho

Supports

1. --usscantabrian 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. --TimPendragon 08:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Good 'ol ZC 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Another solid article. Needs a few links clean-ups (which I'll do) but other than that, good. --usscantabrian 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I really liked the presentation of this article and it did its job of providing an excellent background on an interesting character. It is informative and showcases the talent and depth of the writing for Swiftfire. --Good 'ol ZC 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet Marine Corps (New Order)

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. – Sasoriza ^{Adm • Tlk} 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 Star Trek: New Order, 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. – Sasoriza ^{Adm • Tlk} 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)

Seifer

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)

Star Trek: Unity

Supports

1. --usscantabrian 02:05, 26 January 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)