Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Memory Alpha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Memory Alpha

This is a comprehensive article about an excellent reference source (check any Star Trek-related page and you'll get a link to it). It's been worked on by many people, and I suppose it's a partial self-nom since I've put some work into it. It had a peer review; the only suggestion not acted upon was that of a "criticisms" or "controversy" section, because there haven't really been any significant issues for the website. There is coverage of the fact that people don't always agree about FAs and what to include, however. It's also up-to-date with current developments on the website without sounding fannish. Jibbajabba 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose:

    • "Because this license does not allow commercial reuse, it is incompatible with the GFDL, and material from the site cannot be copied into projects that use the GFDL. [...] Also, because Wikicities (the Wikia project which hosts Memory Alpha) is based on the GFDL license, Memory Alpha is officially considered a "sister project." This appears to be self-contradictory.
    • "While the integrity of articles on Memory Alpha is generally high..." POV statement.
    • Picture of Avery Brooks needs a fair use rationale. One might even argue that it does not significantly add to the article and can be removed.
    • "However, please do not spam or solicit Mr. Sussman. He is a part of Memory Alpha because of his love for Star Trek, so his presence should be considered unofficial." This sort of language does not belong in a Wikipedia article.
    • Andrew Levine 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I took out the integrity statement and Sussman language, but I'm not sure about the other things you brought up. When I read the bit about Wikicities, it makes sense: CC and GFDL are incompatible, and therefore it's a sister project. The picture's fair use rationale is that it adds to the article(?) and is only one picture so is used for review purposes. Sorry, I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia practices in this matter, but I guess it can be removed if need be. Jibbajabba 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I clarified that sentence by changing a few words around. Andrew Levine 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Pending any possible questions about the Sisko image, it's great. Narco 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment - various language and phrasing concerns:
    • however, the project moved forward undaunted - sounds like a fan review rather than an encyclopaedia article.
    • has gained considerable notoriety - the example given here is very far from showing how the site could be considered notorious.
    • The following month, it was the "Featured Wiki" on the Wikicities site - is that really notable enough to be included?
    • The launch schedule of Memory Alpha's international versions is as follows - list should be converted to prose.
    • Several aspects of Memory Alpha set it apart from other wikis, one of which is its method of citing sources - seems an odd way of putting it as most wikis have no method of citing sources at all. This paragraph seems like a very lengthy way of saying what could be said in just a couple of sentences.
    • In place of a "Today's Featured Article" section, the site has an "Article of the Week", as there are a limited number of topics on which to write. - this sentence seems superfluous. Why should whether it's weekly, hourly, monthly or whatever be worth remarking on?
    • A peer review process was the most significant - the internal processes do not seem that significant to me.
    • In this way, Memory Alpha remains all-inclusive while clearly distinguishing canon from apocrypha - looks POV, and contradicts earlier statements about grey areas.
    • First paragraph of current issues seems like a very inconcise description of limited interest to people who aren't users of the site. I think it should be shortened drastically.
    • Are there any mentions of this site in printed media? Without referring to them the article doesn't really establish the notability of the site. I don't think that entirely citing the article from articles on a single wiki is up to the standards required by WP:V.
    • For comprehensiveness, some sort of indication of how widely used the site is, how reviewers have compared it to previous reference works, whether it's seen as authoritative etc is needed, as at the moment all the article is is a detailed description of the site itself. Worldtraveller 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for your feedback, as I too am relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia compared to the people who regularly vote here. I wish we'd had that kind of feedback for the peer review, but c'est la vie. FACs understandably receive more attention and scrutiny. I will try to work on it within the next few hours. For the record, it cites multiple sources (the SciFi Channel newsletter and Ex Astris Scientia links are provided in the Notes section), but more such things would be nice I suppose. Narco 02:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I did some tweaking, which addressed some of the concerns raised. Not sure if I trimmed the FA criteria paragraph in the "current issues" section too much though. --Vedek Dukat Talk 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now. I added Alexa information, the other stuff looks like its fixed cuz I don't se it. Darkildor 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Darkildor. --Jelligraze 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it has everything it needs now. --Vedek Dukat Talk 22:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --MatthewFenton 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Majorthomme 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job guys, I didn't think there was that much to write about MA. --Schrei 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is really very good. Carioca 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a very good summary of a site I often frequent and administrate. Of course this support is heavily-POV.--Tim Thomason 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor objections - good article, but I get the impression that the lead seems to focus on Wikipedia, something that is reinforced by the note in the refs section. (Of course all web pages can change, but we don't put a note like that on every website ref we have.) In addition, the infobox and the lead says that it is an encyclopedia, with no citation provided. Can a cite be provided for that? (A site saying that it is an encyclopedia doesn't make it so.) Otherwise, I'd be happy to support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I took out the reference to Wikipedia in both the lead and note, but I must disagree with the comment about normal websites. Wikis are unique in that one can hypothetically put anything one wants to, so if it happens that a page has been vandalized when the user views it, that reflects poorly on Wikipedia unless we warn them. As for the encyclopedia claim, i think any citation I add would be based on MA's claim that it's an encyclopedia, so to match the language used in the article, I changed encyclopedia to reference. Hopefully that takes care of everything. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I'd like to see some more images in the article, but that is a minor observation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue given the earlier objection about image copyright status. The site is devoted to Star Trek, a copyrighted franchise, so I don't think there's much we can do. The same goes for the below observation about the length of the article: Can I think of anything to add? Sure. Would any of you care to read it (someone mentioned minutiae of the site's inner workings not being significant to the average reader)? Probably not. --Schrei 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Online references should list 'last accessed on'. More inline references would be nice, and the article seems kind of short - but those are not objections, just comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)