Star Trek

Article is no longer a featured article.

I believe that the standards for Featured article are now much higher than when this article was initially nominated and that as the article stands, it does not match or coorespond to current FA standards. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Which standards doesn't it comply to? Peb1991 21:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Comprehensive: Does the main article of Star Trek cover all topics? No. It has a list for more topics, I'll give it that. But it really should attempt to include the list into the article. There is no attempt to include topics like Star Trek inconsistancies, brief information about Gene Roddenberry, brief information about certain highly involved crew members (writers, etc). Does that seem suitable for an FA? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Well-written: Is this article well-written? To me, no. It seems to have changed from its original FA standing to something else. Can I be bold and fix it? Certainly. But this will require a lot of work and time. I firmly believe that having it go through the FA process again would improve the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. Does it really exemplify as Wikipedia's very best work? I mean, take a look at Venus (planet), then tell me if the article really does. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. Include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic. Does it? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Include images: Several sections seem to be missing images, and were removed due to copyright violations. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. Include references. Although this has a Further Reading section, I am certain there are plenty of book references or other references. People cited complaints when I attempted to nominate Mars as a FA and told me about the missing references. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Addressing concerns: -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Article size limitations: "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article". There is nothing said in What is a featured article regarding a maximum length. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I must ask the voters whether if they believe that there is an anti-Star Trek movement in the Wikipedia. Am I nominating this article because I am part of such a movement? Or am I nominating because I don't feel that this meets FA standards? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Remove Everyking 09:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Rossrs 11:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I disagree adamantly with the reasons given for removing this article from the list. In order for this article to retain everything, it would need to violate the 32K guideline set out by Wikipedia policy. 23skidoo 14:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a fine article, addressing a vast realm of fiction and cultural relevance with just the right balance of brevity and detail. It's an article about Star Trek, and it does a fine job of telling an uninitiated reader what Star Trek is. - Brian Kendig 22:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. There's even an empty section. Fredrik | talk 22:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove, for the following reasons (which I hope will answer Peb1991's question):
  • No references: with the vast array of reference works available, it should be possible to list the ones that support the information in the article.
  • Not comprehensive. As the "main" article of everything Star Trek in Wikipedia, this article should provide a broad overview of the subject, and give pointers to more detailed articles for the benefit of the interested reader. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. The current article does an adequate job of describing the series and the movies, but many of the other main categories of Trek info are missing or underdeveloped—which include, but are not limited to:
    • Star Trek's creators and main contributors
    • Star Trek main characters
    • The Star Trek universe
    • Star Trek technology
    • Franchising/merchandising: books, novels, games, toys, etc.
    • Trek fandom (cultural impact, Trekkies, conventions, etc.)
  • A disproportionate amount of space is taken up by the "An uncertain future for the franchise" section. It discusses—in a somewhat rambling fashion—the possible future of the franchise which is, by definition, speculation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball nor a current-events news site. Most of this section could be deleted, condensed or relegated to secondary articles (i.e. the bit about the "Enterprise" series renewal could be moved into the Enterprise article). This would make room for the missing topics I mentioned above.
  • The "Motion pictures" section also largely contains speculation and rumours (all of it unreferenced at that). Concentrate on factual information about the past, not on speculation about the future.
  • Sections with just a link or one line of text are a no-no ("Society and Star Trek" and "Other storylines"). See WP:MOS and related articles.
  • There is a notable dichotomy between the internal links provided by the article and the ones in Category:Star Trek. "See also" should link to the most important articles on Star Trek. Instead, we get "Ranks and Insignias" and "TOS Trekmuse"?

--Plek 22:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Is there a date available for when the Star Trek article was named a feature article? I'm curious to compare histories to see what has changed that has made it allegedly unsuitable. This might assist in finding out where improvements can be made and whether the 32K limit should simply be ignored in this case. Incidentally in a minor way this article does deal with an "ongoing event" since the future of the franchise is a matter of hot debate at the moment and such discussion isn't likely to settle down (allowing consolidation of outdated information, among other things) until an official announcement of Trek XI is made, or if a final outcome is determined regarding current efforts to save Enterprise. 23skidoo 21:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  The talk page indicates in March of 2004. Specifically, 02:14, 15 Mar 2004. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Diff from March 19, 2004 to now. -- Sufficient to say, it looks like FA standards were lower a year ago than the standards now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that when all of the "Brilliant prose" articles got converted to "Featured articles" (that is, when the concept of "Featured articles" was created)? Many of them would not pass the test today - see the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove --Spinboy 06:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. To many lists, to many tiny descriptions of subarticles, short lead, no references (mixed with external links?)...and it doesn't even mention the term 'trekkie'. Fix it or kill it, cause it is not going anywhere good for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- Dunro 10:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - Taxman 14:25, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. If the WP were really "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built", this article would be a whole lot better, don't ya think? Anville 20:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)