Tardis:Feature Article nominations/Archive 2

 The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best the Tardis Index File has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, spaceships, or the like.

So just what makes a featured article? any article that meats these criteria below can be featured.

An Article Must

 * 1)  be well-written and detailed.
 * 2)  be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * 3)  be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
 * 4)  not be the object of any ongoing edit wars.
 * 5)  follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide
 * 6)  not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags.
 * 7)  include a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.

Nominating

 * 1)  First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below.
 * 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)  An Article with support from 6 Users and no objections is then selected to be the new featured article.
 * 5) Articles should be placed on the nomination page for no less than 2 weeks for users to have a vote providing it meats the above specifications.

Remember to place the currently nominated Template on the article to alert users to the vote useing.

Voting

 * 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 by placing your user name with ~.
 * 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 looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
 * 5) Remember to vote only once on each nomination.

Support

 * 1) Colleyd 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Woof. (We haven't had a Technology based FA yet)

Object

 * 1) Dark Lord Xander 06:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC) a lot of the sections can be expanded upon also uses a lot of info from wikipedia. should be based on quality of article not whether we have had a technology FA before.

Support

 * 1) Skittles the hog 15:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Quark16 12:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Galifreyisgreater 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to question the voting (but that's what I'm doing), but didn't I read on a summary somewhere that Dorian Grey and Quark16 are the same person? (Actually have a look at the first summary of User:Dorian_Gray's history) --Tangerineduel 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Striked Vote per rule (one person, one vote per article). Dark Lord Xander 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Object

 * 1) Azes13 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Quotes are against the Manual of Style and the whole page could be organised better.
 * 2) Tangerineduel 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The Vengeance section is quite lacking, until the audio is released and further details are available. The Morbius' Brain section doesn't fit with the narrative flow of the rest of the article.
 * Edited Morbius' brain section but will not delete objection till user who entered it deems it worthy.--Skittles the hog 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Morbius's brain section is now perhaps not improved and several other elements of the article not much better off. There are incidents of present tense (is rather than was, all in universe articles need to be past tense). Bullet points used with biographical articles such as this are bad writing as it's basically listing rather than working the information into a sentence. Some of the editing has removed the overly wordy elements, but other have been lost, the in-universe use of the Doctor's chop suey quote, much of the detail regarding mindbending and other info regarding the braincase (was it ever stated in the dialogue that it was plastic?). --Tangerineduel 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No I dont think it was called plastic, oops, sorry I thought I had made it more to your liking, oh well.--Skittles the hog 10:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) The evil dude 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sontar-Ha 23:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (They are a classic adversary and are an imortant part of Doctor Who's DNA)

Object
Dark Lord Xander 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Gallery seems to make article seem very messy suggest move to bottom of page or page of its own.
 * 1) Azes13 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC) The headings of the page are messy and disorganised, quotes are against the Manual of Style, the History section needs to be cleaned up or shortened and the Rank section is out-of-universe.
 * 2) Tangerineduel 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The gallery doesn't really fit, it sits quite badly within the article. It's also lacking in several qualities, Sontaran history (all about why the clones look different), society (different Sontarans and other society things was in a recent Ninth or Tenth Doctor DWM comic). The ranks shouldn't have things like (spin-off) or (novels only) notes in them, the behind the scenes information should be kept to minimum considering how little information there is.
 * Marking the gallery as a gallery is just as bad as having it in the middle of the article. I'd suggest perhaps an incorporation into the history part of the article (and getting rid of 'Unknown commander' from the SJA: Series 2, which is a bit vague). --Tangerineduel 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) MercM 21:31, 30 July 2008 (GMT)
 * 2) Dark Lord Xander 06:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Object

 * Opposed, but could be persuaded in future. I'm quite uncomfortable with a featured article still bearing the Wikipedia template. Yes, the MOS says, for some inexplicable reason, that it's "okay" to copy from Wikipedia, but then it contradicts itself by effectiely saying "but we really don't want you to". So the MOS is not clear enough to be of use.  I therefore am just going on gut instinct here.  It seems wrong to "feature" an article based on Wikipedia's work.  We should have our own voice, and our featured articles should represent what makes us different from the Wikipedia Doctor Who Project.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  12:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While i agree that we should have our own work rather than using Wikipedia's it would mean removing most of the previous feature articles of their feature status (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). Dark Lord Xander 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)