Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asgard (Stargate)/archive1

Asgard (Stargate)[edit]

Self Nomination Being well versed in Stargate, after finding this article I was able to add detail in the places it lacked. It has good tables, diagrams, and pictures. It is fully wikified and seems to cover everything about the Asgard. Tobyk777 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Has zero references. Only has one small image, certainly needs more, and that image needs a Fair Use Rationale. Numerous stub sections; should be expanded or merged together, using paragraphal prose style rather than making every few sentences a new section. Very short article, much of its size contributed by three big infoboxes and the excess sectioning (and resultantly large TOC). Should mention if this race has had any influence or impact outside of the series (for example, they seem almost identical to a Marvel Comics alien race from the series Paradise X). Could use some better organization, like putting the events into a "history" section. Seems to lack a "biology" or "physical description" section, which one would expect to be noteworthy for a fictional alien race just as much as "technology". Remove the "see also" section from the bottom of this article, and from every article that uses "see also" in that way that you or anyone else ever sees: templates linking to other articles can (and should) be included at the bottom of pages even without being in any section. Article should have been put through peer review before being nominated here, or checked more carefully against the Featured Article Criteria. -Silence 06:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article is missing references. All of the sections are too short, and the subsections should be merged together. The lead is very short. The templates shouldn't be in a see also section. There is no external links section. The image that is included needs a fair use rationale. I agree with everything Silence has said above. Refer to WP:Peer review for more specific suggestions and comments. — Wackymacs 11:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object: One is not supposed to mention topic issues, but this is a topic that simply won't generate comprehensive discussion. Inasmuch as this is a deus ex machina from a particular TV show, there isn't that much to say, unless one were to go ransacking fan fiction and novelizations and the like, and, were one to do that, one would need to establish that these are all sufficiently competent to be counted at the same level as the TV show. However, for a specific, content-only, objection, the sections are extremely brief in number of words and scope of coverage. Geogre 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Object: There's only one (?!?!) image in the entire article, and IMHO not a terribly good one. The organisation is sub-par, and it is not in any way compelling. I watched 8 seasons of the show and think it was great, but seriously there's nothing very interesting or exciting in this article. People who watch the show probably know all of this, and people who do not probably do not care, so the article needs to succeed on more abstract merits. I'm not sure really what references are possible for this (maybe episod references to the DVDs?) but there's certainly no way an article in this shape could possibly be featured. If there was about 3-4x as much information, written and organized better, and more images (this could be a copyright problem), maybe. - JustinWick 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object I have to agree with Geogre; the topic itself is too slight. Also, it is a good rule of thumb not to nominate articles for FA that have a word misspeled in the first line. Eusebeus 10:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to disagree strongly with both of you, then. Any topic that is noteworthy enough to have its own article is noteworthy enough to become a Featured Article. Topical bias is unsupportable by the Featured Article requirements; if you believe that a clause should be added stating that an article's topic must be noteworthy enough, then you should bring that up on the FA talk pages, not on a specific FA nomination. "This article's topic isn't broad enough to have a high-quality article written about it" is not an actionable complaint. -Silence 11:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geogre's point, if I understand him correctly, is that the topic itself inherently redounds to the quality of the article, so it's not just some qualitative declarative: "this topic is unworthy". I may be misinterpreting his objection though. Eusebeus 12:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, indeed. I was not saying, "Trivial stuff!" I was saying, "The topic is limited by nature to being so much a part of another topic that it cannot be comprehensive." It was not an elitist sneer, but a comment about how the topic is too integrated with another to be discussed comprehensively, and I think this is relatively uniquely limited in a way that a "History of..." or "Economy of..." is not. The Asgard are too small a part of the show to be discussed without the show itself. I don't think this is an AfD topic, but I think it would be nearly impossible to generate an FA from it. Geogre 18:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Like most articles about fictional subjects, it forgets that the subject only exists in fiction after the introductory paragraph, so that the article itself becomes fiction. "Citing sources" in this context means tying the fictional "facts" about the subject to the works of fiction in which they are expressed, with emphasis upon the perspective that this subject is merely a concept used by different writers in different works. Postdlf 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]