Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for March 2007

Tom Zarek

Support I nominated an actual serious article for once! --BklynBruzer 21:26, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Support --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Support Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:22, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral Maybe we should wait until the end of season 3 before we get this one as an FA, since I think it will change for the better with Baltar's trial coming up. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:04, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral Agrre with Joe, I think the rest of the series is going to be very important --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:13, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Neutral per Joe, but I would Support. JubalHarshaw 09:20, 20 February 2007 (CST)

List of pilots

Support A very good "list" on the pilots. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 09:03, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose My very first article, so I would be flattered, but I think it's a little dull content-wise. --Peter Farago 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose It's alright, but just a list --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose Really just a list, not a meaty article. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:33, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose Good as a list, but not especially FA-worthy --BklynBruzer 22:27, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose Its a good list, but a list none the less and thus not FA worthy. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:14, 20 February 2007 (CST)

The Battlestar Galactica Drinking Game

Oppose. Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status. --Peter Farago 15:02, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Oppose For the above reason --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Comment Care to supply some reasoning? Also, there has been debate on this topic. See the talk page of BW:FA for more. --BklynBruzer 17:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose While I consider myself a defender of the awesome silly pages, these silly articles aren't fully representative of the Wiki, and comprise less than 1% of it (as Spencerian noted on the FA talk page). Looking from an outsider's perspective, which is better to show as an example: a "drinking game" article (which every show has a variant of anyway) or an article on a pivotal character, event, or episode? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:30, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Comment Thank you, Joe, for supplying a better reason than "Silly pages should not be eligable for Featured Article status." --BklynBruzer 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Ahem. --Steelviper 08:10, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral --BklynBruzer 22:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Neutral, but I would Support. It's a pretty well-fleshed article that serves multiple purposes besides just humor. (It's also a list of overused cliches, stock footage, etc.) That being said, I definitely support Joe's reasoning for opposition. I suppose I'm indifferent; a good article is a good article, silly or not. JubalHarshaw 09:17, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Audrey Landers

Support Too overloaded with cites for my taste, but if one considers that to be important, this one is very good. Also tons of content otherwise --Serenity 15:13, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Comment Overloaded with cites? Blasphemy! --Peter Farago 15:37, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Support Even with the cite-overload, I personally hold it as a very fine example of what a cast/crew biographical article should look like. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:32, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Support I dont see why lots of citations is a bad thing. Supp --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:15, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Support This is a very worthy article and as perfectly cited as the Landers sisters were perfectly curved. --Spencerian 07:39, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral --BklynBruzer 07:45, 20 February 2007 (CST)