|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==[[Cylon Centurion]]==
| |
|
| |
|
| * {{Neutral}} - I'd prefer this article over [[Cylons (RDM)]] ... great related imagery section, detailed analysis, I like it. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 15:14, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| * {{Neutral}} - Agree with Jubal. --[[User:BklynBruzer|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. [[User:JubalHarshaw|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 --[[User:Serenity|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 --[[User:Spencerian|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. :) [[User:JubalHarshaw|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 --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 08:40, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ==[[Battle of New Caprica]]==
| |
|
| |
| * {{Support}} - Hmm, yes. Great images, detail, writing. [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 19:18, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| * {{Support}} - Knowing my record, right after I record this vote someone will nominate something even better. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 20:25, 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)
| |
| * {{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)
| |
