Wikipedia:Featured article review/Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

Talk messages left at User talk:Jibbajabba and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. Sandy 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand it must be tough to write an up to date, well referenced article on something as changing as a Wiki, this article has devolved (and wasn't completely FA quality to begin with) IMO. The article has very few references, I saw an inline link with a quick overview, and an entire unsourced section with an OR tag on it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very wary of any article that uses almost no sources other than those offered by the subject of the article itself. Every reference here is from the Memory Alpha website itself, or from its founder. The only other references are brief mentions in two small local newspapers. This lack of critical sources (not "critical" in the sense of "presenting a negative/opposing view", but "critical" in the sense of examining and reacting to the subject) troubles me. Has Memory Alpha ever been subject to such examination in major mainstream press outlets, or in major science-fiction-fandom publications? Andrew Levine 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the OR tag back in April, and the section still hasn't been fixed. This article is really not up to FA level, nor is there much work actively occuring to improve it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? One inconsequential edit since nominated, no one is working on this article, severely lacking in citations, and still has OR tag. Move to FARC. Sandy 09:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficent references and possible original research (1c). Marskell 08:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, per my comments in the review and the extant original research. Andrew Levine 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per my original statement as basically nothing has changed. Few refs, plenty of OR. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Insufficient inline citations, and also the article uses what seems to be original research. LuciferMorgan 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]