Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for May 2007: Difference between revisions
From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
More actions
→[[Battle of New Caprica]]: one more thing |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* {{Support}} - [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 21:43, 10 April 2007 (CDT) | * {{Support}} - [[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 21:43, 10 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
* {{Support}}, super.. some of the images need "upgrading" to HDTV though. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 09:30, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | * {{Support}}, super.. some of the images need "upgrading" to HDTV though. [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] 09:30, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
* {{Oppose}}. Not bad, but could be better. Should be structured like WP Battle-FAs (or [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]): Background (what are they doing on NC, how did they get the launch keys, etc.) - Battle - Aftermath. Also, some unnecessary exaggerations (greatly outnumbered, extremely risky move) and a Notes section (info about the CGI sequences especially) would be nice. [[User:Sloan|Sloan]] 10:24, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | * {{Oppose}}. Not bad, but could be better. Should be structured like WP Battle-FAs (or [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]]): Background (what are they doing on NC, how did they get the launch keys, etc.) - Battle - Aftermath. Also, some unnecessary exaggerations (greatly outnumbered, extremely risky move), Cylon losses shouldn't be "unknown" but "heavy", and a Notes section (info about the CGI sequences especially) would be nice. [[User:Sloan|Sloan]] 10:24, 11 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 11 April 2007
Cylon Centurion
Neutral - I'd prefer this article over Cylons (RDM) ... great related imagery section, detailed analysis, I like it. JubalHarshaw 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)- Neutral - Agree with Jubal. --BklynBruzer 20:25, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Cylons (RDM)
- Neutral - Not that it isn't a good article, it's just that something strikes me wrong about it. It's almost poetry more than an encyclopedia article. Not that that is bad. Just ... non-FA, IMHO. JubalHarshaw 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Oppose I don't know. It feels more like a better disambiguation than an article in its own right --Serenity 15:20, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Comment: Aw, and I thought my recent changes with the dual pictures of Six and a bullethead were just witty. :) Still, from an information perspective, I guess I can understand. It's not like we're sensationalism over substance like CNN or something. :P --Spencerian 15:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Don't get me wrong, Spencerian ... I like it, it's clean, simple, gets the job done. It's a great one sheet intro to the Cylons! I have changed my vote to Neutral. :) JubalHarshaw 18:57, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, it's good for its purpose, but it's not really outstanding either in the grand scheme of things --Serenity 08:40, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
Battle of New Caprica
Support - Hmm, yes. Great images, detail, writing. JubalHarshaw 19:18, 10 April 2007 (CDT)- Support - Knowing my record, right after I record this vote someone will nominate something even better. --BklynBruzer 20:25, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Support - Shane (T - C - E) 21:43, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
- Support, super.. some of the images need "upgrading" to HDTV though. MatthewFenton 09:30, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
- Oppose. Not bad, but could be better. Should be structured like WP Battle-FAs (or Battle of the Resurrection Ship): Background (what are they doing on NC, how did they get the launch keys, etc.) - Battle - Aftermath. Also, some unnecessary exaggerations (greatly outnumbered, extremely risky move), Cylon losses shouldn't be "unknown" but "heavy", and a Notes section (info about the CGI sequences especially) would be nice. Sloan 10:24, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
