Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DNA Resequencer (Stargate)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DNA Resequencer (Stargate)

[edit]

Self nomination As almost the sole contributor to this article, I have to say that it is 100% complete. It is probably the most thurough resoruce about the DNA resequencer in existance. It is well written, 100% factualy acruate, fully refrenced by both primary (episodes) and secondary (articles) sources. There is virtualy nothing more that can be added to this page. It is so good and complete that it can't be imporved any more. Also, it fits every FA requirement exactly. Nominate and Strong Support Tobyk777 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose, its a small article by FA standards, the ONE pic doesnt have fair use rationale for this article, the references arent cited for date, autor, and such. and it only has one pic. but i also cant see this on the main page, its written as though its an actual machine, but its not. Vulcanstar6 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me address these objections one by one:
      • I found the pic on the commons. I didn't upload it. It seems fine to me. Also on Wikipedia:What is a Featured article? it states: "...including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article."
      • I just went through and cited the refs for date.
      • All of the refs are either from alternate wikis, meaning they have no one author; or the websites linked to do not indicate the author.
      • It is written as though it is an acutal machine in the stargate universe. It supposed to be an accurate descirption of the machine in the unviserse it's set in. Also this FA: TARDIS has been featured on the main page. The article TARDIS is about a fictional machine in a fictional universe, just like this one. If people can see TARDIS on the main page, why cant they see the DNA resequencer?
      • This article is long enough to be a FA.
      • I think that provides an explantion for all of the objections. Tobyk777 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • object I agree with Vulcanstar6, there is not enough discussion of the DNA Resequencer as a fictional object. TARDIS has an entire section on the real world development of the concept, as well as sections on merchandising and popular culture. This article needs something similar to be comprehensive (though I'm not familiar enough to know what, if any pop culture impact this device has had). Additionally, I believe that it using Wikipedia itself as a source is frowned upon; I would move ===Episodes=== out from under ==references== and into its own section to avoid confusion. - The Catfish 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything about the device is in the article. There is little impact on pop culture. (There may be some, there is just no information on it) If there were enough information for a whole section, there would be a section. There just isn't. Like I said, any information about the machine that exisits is in the article. The reason the episodes are in the refences section is that the main refrenced used for the article are the epidoes themselves. They are the primary source. Tobyk777 03:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the top of this page it clearly states: "If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed". Nothing can be done to fix every objection on here, except the one already fixed. (The date accessed) There is nothing that can be done to add information that doesn't exisit. Also, the article is on a fictional machine. Saying that it reads to much like an article on a fictional machine is a very silly objection, which also can't be fixed. Tobyk777 03:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object; no inline citations, and again, the quality of references isn't impressive at all. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There arn't any inline citations becuase the text makes it clear which episode the info is from. I am not sure what you mean when you say "quality of the refrences". Literaly every refrence to the DNA resequencer in existance is on there no matter how remote. I didn't filter the refs, I included them all. Tobyk777 05:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see alot of "(Includes Data on the DNA resequencer)" in the references, making it tough to know what is referring to what. As for quality, it scares me to see us citing another wiki. Don't people write books on these things? Or magazines? Or anything on paper that has just a teeny bit of editorial validation? I don't mind some of the web references (tv.com strikes me as half-decent), but a wiki and fansites don't exactly inspire confidence. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this one; I like the fact that the author is making it clear that there is nothing more to be written on the subject. Therefore comprehensiveness isn't a concern. You may want to try to improve the writing a bit; I spotted a typo in a section heading, and the intro is unusually short for an FA (although I don't expect you to include trivial stuff in the intro just to fluff it out; if there's nothing else to say there, leave it alone). Also, I'm a big fan of directly citing info in the text to the refs; this makes verifiability much easier. Everyking 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. Ill try and fix the typo. I have always found it difficult to find sources with inline citations. Therefore, in this article, I found it prudent to have the text indicate which source it was refering to, rather than putting notes. I think that that improves quality and usefulness even more. Ill now lengthen the lead. In a few minutes it will be fixed. Also, Everyking, do you support or oppose? Tobyk777 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; This article shouldn't even exist. It's fancruft of the worst sort. It an obscure piece of hardware from a not very popular show. I say nominate it for merger with the Star Gate main article if its so important.--Mark 2000 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take offense to this comment. Now if Stargate is so obscure, how could it be one of the top 50 shows in America and How could it be shown in more than 100 countries and how could it have more than 10 million viewers a week, and how could it sell more than 30 million DVDs? [1] Here at wikipedia we have A Portal and a Whole project just for Stargate. Lower down on this page another Stargate article is nominated right now. Wikipedia has hundereds of Stargate articles. Also, if it was so obscure how could we have this template:
      • Ask the average person on the street what Stargate is. I doubt you'd find a fan after four hours worth of searching. A tiny fan base that operates as a vocal minority is not a case for widespread popularity. The show Firefly had only 10 episodes aired, yet has its own templates. In fact, the very fact that stargate fans are such an obnoxious presence is even more reason to not give them more power.
        • The show firefly had [episodes]. I look things up before I blindly state things. Stargate's SG-1 and Atlantis combined have more than 200 episodes. Stargate SG-1 is longer lasting than any Star Trek show. And Stargate fans are not obnoxious; they're loyal, entuhsiastic, and optimistic. And there are way more than you think. There are 38 member of the Stargate project. I personaly know more than 60 people who are avid fans of the show. And, as a matter of a fact, I have done your expirment. I went down the isle of a train asking every person. About 1 in 15 knew what it was. It is way bigger than you think. Here are it's stats: [2] Tobyk777 05:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said "aired episodes". You do your research. Your statistics page barely impresses me at all. 10 million viewers in 100 countries? That's nothing. 10 Million people watch Leno every night in the US only. Lokk, no one is bashing you for liking your show, and popularity doesnt always mean good. I happen to like Firefly a lot, but I wouldn't even write an article on the planet "Miranda", let alone nominate it. Don't make mountains out of molehills.--Mark 2000 06:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not fancruft at all!!! Everything in this was taken from the show itself! There is no fancruft! In the show itself it is not an obscure device; in fact it is vital to many key plot points and is one of the key items associated with the shows central theme: Ascension. This is one of the most offensive things I have seen here in a long time. Tobyk777 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could have told you right from the outset that you'd get at least one of these deletionist votes. Nothing kills enthusiasm like a deletionist. But you don't need to worry, because they're not actionable objections. Everyking 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I compeletly agree. I especialy hate it when the deletionist has totaly invalid reasons like this one. This vote was probably a from a guy who has some sort of bias agaisn't the show. Tobyk777 05:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object The article clearly fails FAC criteria #1: It exemplifies our very best work. If you can find no references relating to the origin of the "device", some kind of written statement about the fictional thingamabob from the writers of the show, then it is certainly not worthy of featured article status. Why should we think it is important if it is not important enough to the producers to discuss it in the press? Also, in-line citations are very important. I don't care if you list episodes of the show at the end. Without in-line citations how do I know which episode refers to which fact? When you respond, please do not whine and nash your teeth. It will not help you get this named as a featured article. And it can be one if you actually try. Look at spoo] for tips. --Jayzel 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the above you said: "Without in-line citations how do I know which episode refers to which fact? " I have already answered this sevral times. The text tells the reader which episode it is refering to. The reason why there is nothing about it in real life is because the prop was computer generated. They had someone standing on a pepdestal then put a computer image over it. It's as simple as that. This device is massively important to sevral key plotlines in Stargate. In the real world however it has not caused much controversey, thats why the article is about the fictional world.
    • You say the devise is computer generated. How do you know? That's what this article needs. It needs background information about the DNA Resequencer. Where did the writers and producers get the idea for the thing? The article just needs to be fleshed out more. If you can't find anything more about it, if there are absolutely no references to it in the media somewhere, then it has no business being a featured article. Many people here spend months, not hours, doing research and re-writing their articles only to fail FAC. It would be insulting to them if a brief article with no historical or modern pop culture significance with only other Wikipedia articles as references was named a FA. --Jayzel 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at the article spoo sevral times. The only advantage it has over this article is humor. Do you want me to insert jokes into this article?
  • What you called whineing is me educaating a misinformed, misguided, and clearly wrong user. He has no idea what he is talking about. He has posted offensive comments in sevral places. His one piece of constuctive critisicm is probabaly the most ilogical thing ever posted on WP. If there is a whole project of people working on a subject, its notable enough not to be deleted. Tobyk777 07:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you are whining. Your nomination is going down in flames. You're getting a lot of suggestions and you are rationalizing them all away. If you have to answer a question multiple times it may not be answered reasonably. The difference between your article and "spoo" is that spoo has HUGE amounts of behind the scene information. Spoo, also like this article, comforms to WP:FICT in that its creator has made it a cross show phenominon not just a b5 thing. Thats why i would support it as an article (if not featured) and would rather yours didn't exist.--Mark 2000 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. please rewrite as per User:BrianSmithson/Writing_about_fiction. Zzzzz 09:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/DNA_Resequencer_(Stargate)&oldid=1049877838"