Archive - Between June 3, 2006 and June 8, 2006

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

General Comments

None of these articles are currently in good enough shape to be featured by tomorrow. A featured article should, in my opinion, be as perfect as we can make it before we confer that status. --April Arcus 01:24, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

No aritcle is "perfect". Even previous FA's on other sites are worked on and updated after they have been FAs. Wikipieda is a good example. --Shane ;sup>(T - C - E) 08:40, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

If the standard is "perfect", is it realistic to perfect an article per month to stay ahead of being featured? Should we perhaps "lower the bar" to "best articles that we have right now" if we don't have any perfect articles? Also... maybe we should pick out articles for future "featured" status ahead of time, that there might be time to perfect them ahead of their featured status? It would allow us to collaborate to clean up and perfect the Wiki one article at a time. --Steelviper 08:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

What I said was "as perfect as we can make it" - of course perfect is impossible, but we should strive for the best quality we can possibly achieve. --April Arcus 10:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

My suggestions on time were out of my head. If there is some other time frame we should pick, that is fine. But I still suggest the last week we narrow it down. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:11, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Logically, if we have one featured article per month, that gives us a month each to work on the next one, which should be adequate. The vetting process for featured articles on Wikipedia results in some very high quality work, and I'd like to see that carry over to here. --April Arcus 10:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

I have reverted Shane's archival of this debate, as I do not consider it over. The June 7th deadline was declared by fiat, and has not, in my opinion, been adequately defended. Please reply to the points I have raised above before formally declaring "Galactica (RDM)" a featured article. --April Arcus 22:34, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

We have. The only thing you asked was the standards. They been sitting on the main page for over a month and you didn't vent them now. I suggest you re-revert your latest revert, and countinue this debate for the next month and just close this as it is. You want to list your points now because I just re-read this and I can not find any. If you stop a process just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you shut the site down, you move on to the next time it happens. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:41, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

I want "Galactica (RDM)" to be of a quality worthy of a featured article before it is labeled as such. It still needs improvements, which I have noted below, and I do not see any pressing need to rush the process before that is done. --April Arcus 22:49, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

We should not debate this just so your article is selected pet. It is not perfect. It contains no images. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

This has nothing to do with any preference on my part for the language article, and I resent that implication. I have no objection to "Galactica (RDM)" being featured this month, I just want it to be in worthy shape beforehand. --April Arcus 22:50, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

IF this were the case, it would have {{cleanup}} tag on it. All articles would have one. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:05, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

{{cleanup}} is for articles in dire need of attention. All work on the wiki is a work in progress. --April Arcus 23:07, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

You just proved our point. All work is a work in progress which means it is not perfect nor will it ever be. {{cleanup for FA}} - do you want your majesty? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Just because an article is not in dire need of cleanup does not mean that it should be featured after a scant four days of discussion, when there are clearly still aspects of it which stand to be improved, and easily could be. --April Arcus 23:25, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Shane: the Galactica article was good enough to be a featured article as it stands. Of course it's not "perfect", not a single article ever will be: like the constitution they're a "living document" type thing, but we still say "these are the articles we're really proud of". No, I think the running tallies section of "Galatcica" is one of the good parts about it. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:13, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Proposal

We could spend a little time polishing on Galactica (RDM) (maybe Peter could post a quick Todo list on its talk page?) and then when we've got it nice and shiny (I doubt it'd take very long at all) Peter could revert the Main Page/FA article to the Galactica version that Shane has prepared? --Steelviper 08:37, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

That was what I had in mind. --April Arcus 10:37, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Spence has signed off on it, and it seems to have undergone the changes outlined in its talk page. If there's no objection I propose that we go ahead and revert/modify the pages needed to make it the next FA. (And start figuring out which article will be after this one, so we can get started on cleaning.) --Steelviper 10:36, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

BW:QA :o --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 10:37, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Well alright if you can think of anything that needs polishing (I can't, but you never know). --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 17:14, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Candidates

Galactica (RDM)

Oppose A good article succsessfully rescued from the abyss by group effort several month ago. Could currently use some minor reformatting - the "running tallies" probably belong in their own article, rather than in the footnotes, and the "fleet details" section seems a little precious. --April Arcus 15:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
- Well jeez I thought the running tallies are what made it so good.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:43, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
- Support This one has my final vote. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 09:20, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Support This article has had to fight for its own identity as well as getting the information just so. In combination with the ship data templates and some recent additions, I'd say this is a worthy article. --Spencerian 12:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
Support Voting for this. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:40, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
Support vote for this. --gougef 15:52, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Computers

Support Very detailed about the information given about the computer systems. A+ article. Oppose Changed vote to Galactica (RDM). --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:58, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
- Neutral I'm not sure if people would be very interested in this. Compared to like "Number Six" "Adama" or "Galactica"--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:44, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
- Neutral A+++!!!!!1!1!!!!!11!!!11onethree WOULD ATICKLE AGN11!! *wink* --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 23:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
Neutral I can see where Merv is coming from on this. It's a very tech-centric piece, for a show that's not supposed to be as much about the tech. The article is definitely sharp (I like the new table layout of the pics with the text), and appeals to me as a computer scientist, but I realize that not everbody is interested in computers. That being said, I can't think of any "character" articles off the top of my head that stand out. --Steelviper 09:12, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Resurrection Ship

Anastasia Dualla

Oppose Probably not for a few months, there are more exciting articles. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:43, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Language in the Twelve Colonies

Support This was originally one of mine from last August, when I was more active on the content side. I've always been proud of it for being both comprehensive and concise, and have defended both aspects of the article vigorously. The article currently needs a link to a credible online source of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and would also be a good place to discuss ship names in the colonial fleet, as I recently proposed on the Quorum. --April Arcus 15:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
Neutral This is an artful piece, although it lacks something I can't put my finger on. I won't give it my vote for this month, but I may another time. --Spencerian 12:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)