Talk:Daniel Wood/FA Discussion (second nomination): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ===Wood, Daniel=== * '''Support as nominator''': Okay I believe with all the changes to the page, that this is now a sophisticated biography for the character Daniel Wood. This page ha...) |
m (Sky Blake moved page Talk:Wood, Daniel/FA Discussion (second nomination) to Talk:Daniel Wood/FA Discussion (second nomination)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Slight Support''': Some concern about aspects of the actual character (is it me, or is he a superhero?), but here to judge the article, not the character. As an article, it's presentable, quite detailed, we've ironed a lot of the typos out, though it could still do with a proof read by the characters author in parts. Decent article, yes. Featured Article? Maybe. I'm not totally convinced yet though. - [[User:Salak|<font color="maroon">Lt. Salak</font>]][[Image:Nav-PhoenixC.jpg|30px|USS Tiger]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 08:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | *'''Slight Support''': Some concern about aspects of the actual character (is it me, or is he a superhero?), but here to judge the article, not the character. As an article, it's presentable, quite detailed, we've ironed a lot of the typos out, though it could still do with a proof read by the characters author in parts. Decent article, yes. Featured Article? Maybe. I'm not totally convinced yet though. - [[User:Salak|<font color="maroon">Lt. Salak</font>]][[Image:Nav-PhoenixC.jpg|30px|USS Tiger]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 08:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
**'''Slight Oppose''': I've worked hard to set aside my distaste for certain aspects of the character and look solely at the quality of the article itself. After reading recently promoted and nominated articles, I don't think "presentable" is good enough for featured article. I'm glad this article had the makeover it did (ironing out typos, grammatically incorrect passages, etc.) and this really is a decent article, but I don't think that it showcases our group's writing the way a Featured Article should. I think the time and effort that he's put into thinking through the character is laudable, but the writing doesn't engage the reader and keep them interested in a way I would expect a Featured Article to. There is lots of detail, which is usually a good thing, but sometimes this leads to redundant passages with significant repeating from section to section. In short, this is a decent article but decent does not equal Featured. [[User:EJVerde|Karynn Ehlanii]] 11:38, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | **'''Slight Oppose''': I've worked hard to set aside my distaste for certain aspects of the character and look solely at the quality of the article itself. After reading recently promoted and nominated articles, I don't think "presentable" is good enough for featured article. I'm glad this article had the makeover it did (ironing out typos, grammatically incorrect passages, etc.) and this really is a decent article, but I don't think that it showcases our group's writing the way a Featured Article should. I think the time and effort that he's put into thinking through the character is laudable, but the writing doesn't engage the reader and keep them interested in a way I would expect a Featured Article to. There is lots of detail, which is usually a good thing, but sometimes this leads to redundant passages with significant repeating from section to section. In short, this is a decent article but decent does not equal Featured. [[User:EJVerde|Karynn Ehlanii]] 11:38, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
'''Result''': Nomination withdrawn by [[User:Danielwood7|Danielwood7]]. Discussion closed, article not promoted. - [[User:Salak|<font color="maroon">Lt. Salak</font>]][[Image:Nav-PhoenixC.jpg|30px|USS Tiger]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 07:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:06, 15 November 2017
Wood, Daniel
- Support as nominator: Okay I believe with all the changes to the page, that this is now a sophisticated biography for the character Daniel Wood. This page has comprehensive information regarding the history and current roles Daniel has. It also contains the missions Daniel as taken part in and how detail what role Daniel had to play in them.
- Above nomination made by User:Danielwood7, 16:05 UTC, 14 May 2008
Comment: Just looked to find your security clearance to check if mine seem right in comparison, but I can't find them in your article. Given you're a security officer...- Lt. Salak
Talk 02:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
- Comment: I havnt served on any other ships or had any other codes, so therefore theres no need for them to be in "Professional History". If i move to another ship and these codes become extinct then i'll place them in "Professional History". --Danielwood7 12:32, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
- Slight Support: Some concern about aspects of the actual character (is it me, or is he a superhero?), but here to judge the article, not the character. As an article, it's presentable, quite detailed, we've ironed a lot of the typos out, though it could still do with a proof read by the characters author in parts. Decent article, yes. Featured Article? Maybe. I'm not totally convinced yet though. - Lt. Salak
Talk 08:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
- Slight Oppose: I've worked hard to set aside my distaste for certain aspects of the character and look solely at the quality of the article itself. After reading recently promoted and nominated articles, I don't think "presentable" is good enough for featured article. I'm glad this article had the makeover it did (ironing out typos, grammatically incorrect passages, etc.) and this really is a decent article, but I don't think that it showcases our group's writing the way a Featured Article should. I think the time and effort that he's put into thinking through the character is laudable, but the writing doesn't engage the reader and keep them interested in a way I would expect a Featured Article to. There is lots of detail, which is usually a good thing, but sometimes this leads to redundant passages with significant repeating from section to section. In short, this is a decent article but decent does not equal Featured. Karynn Ehlanii 11:38, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Result: Nomination withdrawn by Danielwood7. Discussion closed, article not promoted. - Lt. Salak
Talk 07:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)