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

Stargate (device)
(Partially a self-nomination). I think this article is very well written, certainly complete, informative, and detailed where it needs to be. It has appropriate pictures to illustrate its points. It carefully explains what a Stargate is in an interesting way, and how they work, and provides background and context as well.

Being about the Stargate itself, the article acts as a kind of lead-in, or introduction, for people who don't know much about the Stargate series. Stargate is one of the biggest science fiction series in popular culture, and this device is the core of it. --  Alfakim  --  talk   02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Temporary account 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just skimmed thru it quickly, and it seems to be comprehensive about its uses. However, there are some problems:
 * For any fictional articles, we'd like to see more about development, art direction, and basically the "making of" of that fictional object. The earlier uses of Stargate section reads very unprofessional, and there's no implication that the "gate" in Stargate was inspired or based on these "gates." The other uses of Stargate section also reads amateurish, and there is also no developmental connection between the Stargate and these gates. It's like writing an article about tigers, and then mention every incidences of tigers in anything you can think of. Thus these sections are extraneous and should be deleted.
 * There are no in-line citation or any references, and bars have risen and currently these are part of a good FA.
 * Reads comprehensive at first about its functions...etc. But then these are just tons and tons of baloney (sp) without citations.

References are present. Formal ones are given for quotations, and references to the episode the information came from is given where appropriate all throughout the article.--  Alfakim  --  talk   03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Making of" sections could be added, yes.


 * Oppose I'm a member of the Stargate WP, but this is still very short. Two references do not a featured article make. The lead needs shortening/tweaking also. Staxringold 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. The tone of the article is not quite right. The level of information is very good, but it must be presented differently. In my opinion, the article is written too much like the Stargate is a real-world object. The information must be presented in a way that makes it more evident that a Stargate is a fictional concept. I know that it's obvious that Stagates aren't real, but it is important to make sure that articles detailing fictional and real objects are written in different styles. In addition, there are formatting issues, such as the lack of inline citations. As ridiculous as I think they are, they are now a standard FA criteria. RyanG e rbil10 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the additional debate that has taken place, I feel I should clarify my objections. I don't have any problem with citing the episodes as sources, because the nominator has a point: it is difficult to find sources for recent, pop-culture items. I wouldn't even have a problem with citing the same episode over and over, as long as the footnotes are done correctly, showing how many times a particular episode is referenced. Now, I don't know anything about this topic, so I would have to defer to someone else when it comes to comprehensiveness, but if the references and footnotes are taken care of (which sounds like the case), and someone knowledgable about the topic says it is suitably comprehensive, I would support. RyanG e rbil10 04:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * comment Are you implying then there's nothing much to say about the gate, or that this subject is so barren that nothing important has been written on it? If there's nothing, I don't see how this can be FA at all. Compare to Donkey Kong (arcade), it's fictional, but see how much source it has. Temporary account 04:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Stargate mythos is hugely rich. But ultimately to cite anything other than the actual episodes is wrong. It's like if I said "Alice goes into the woods" and then cited a commentary on Alice as proof of this, rather than the book itself.--  Alfakim  --  talk   04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. You could cite to supplementary materials on DVDs (commentaries, making ofs) if there are any that cover the subject, or magazine (or web) articles with interviews with the special effects people, writers, producers, etc. Шизомби 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, the actual prop's construction definetly needs some refs, which is not something referenced from episodes. Two other fictional examples, see The West Wing or Cheers, which have numerous references, even for their fictional aspects. Staxringold 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Alfakim but i'm goning to have to Oppose too. Although I wrote a portion of this article, and came up with the idea of nominating it as an FA, I didn't think it was ready.  I was watching this one closely to see when it was ready.  (My intention was to nominate it when it was.)  There are still 4 major problems with this article.  One, it only refrences two episodes even though it refers to dozens.  Two, There is a chart of all Milky way gate symbols but none of the peagasus.  Three, there is a place on the Table of contents where there is only one subsection to a section.  I think this looks bad.  If there are goning to be subsections there should be 2 or more.  Four, there is no See Also section.  this is vital.  I'm goning to add it soon.  Tobyk777 04:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I accept your reasoning. If these problems are sorted fairly soon we can keep this all to one nomination.--  Alfakim  --  talk   04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Only two references, too many fair use images.--Bcrowell 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose nowhere near Featured quality. -AKMask 06:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Way too many lists that need to be converted to prose. The "Making of" section appears to be appended as an afterthought and should instead be the focus of the article. It is important to remember that the Stargate is a fictional item in our own universe and to approach the subject from that angle. — BrianSmithson 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there aren't references for the material it's original research and we shouldn't be covering it; also per WP:V. If that means shrinking the article drastically that's fine, there are many things that Wikipedia is not for, and there are many places fiction fandom is more suited to. The shows are only suitable references for limited facts. - Taxman Talk 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No real references, no secondary sources -- this is original research.  Perhaps impressive OR, but OR nonethless.  Also, it is too long - it isn't an encyclopedia article, it is a tome, way out of proportion to the notability of the topic.  Corrections would be a vast shrinking of the article and the provision of appropriate secondary sources. -- Gnetwerker 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This comment makes no sense. this isn't original research at all.  This was taken from a TV show.  The only thing a vast shhrinking would do would be to delete information.  And I have to say that I don't have a clue what you mean by the phrase: " Perhaps impressive OR, but OR nonethless. "  This vote shouldn't be counted due to it's invalidity.  Tobyk777 00:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "OR" == "Original Research". In any case, I stand by my comment.  The page editors created it from scratch (i.e. from studying the series and discerning these fictional "facts" about the device), therefore it is original research. Perhaps we shouldn't count Tobyk777's vote because he doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's". :-) -- Gnetwerker 01:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The ediotors didn't study anything, they watched TV. The editors didn't research much, they simply watched TV.  Last time I checked, if you don't research then you arnt doing original research.  How could this possibly original research?  It's not like we are making the cure for cancer here, we are documenting a TV show which is a source.  I'm saying that votes which state incorrect facts shouldn't be counted due to their invalidity.  If I vote that the sky is red it wouldn't be counted.  And who gives a damn about the apostraphe in it's?  Tobyk777 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no fictional discerning going on. In the show it simply says "THE STARGATE IS ....X..." and so then in the article we say it's X. Really, no Original Research. Check out the Italian featured Stargate article which is even longer. This is all pertinent, backed up information about the Stargate. i dont think we need to shrink it, but i do agree we need more sources.--  Alfakim  --  talk   15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in. You can't have any more sources except from the episodes themselves.  It's like trying give sources on a Family Guy episode.  Where else are you going to pull from?  We know what we know from watching TV.  It isn't something you can look up.  The Italian version doesn't have any referances either.  The only thing you can cite besides the episodes is DVD commentaries but unfortunatly, they reveal absolutly nothing about the actual device that is the Stargate.  You could most definantly use them for the main Stargate SG1 article but I believe that you will find it quite difficult to cite anything but the episodes.  However, I still feel that this article needs work before it is FA.  American Patriot 1776 01:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, one can find secondary sources for TV shows like "M*A*S*H", "All in the Family", and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you can't find secondary sources for this, it shouldn't be a Wikipedia article, much less a featured one.  Bottom line, it hasn't existed in popular culture long enough, or isn't significant enough culturally, do be anything other than fandom unless you can find appropriate sources. -- Gnetwerker 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is about a device in the show, not about the actual show itself. The Italians got it to featured with no referances but the episode, why can't we?  And just a usless FYI, Stargate is the longest running American sci-fi show ever when it passes X-files next season.  So to call it non signifigant would not be correct.  American Patriot 1776 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is because the different language Wikipedias all have different policies, guidelines and procedures. Either the Italian wiki doesn't care as much about references, or it's Featured Article standards are significantly lower. Knowing what I know, I'd imagine the latter, as any Encyclopedia effort would want solid refs. Also, length of the show alone does not always factor into notability. Ask a random Joe on the street to summarize the central themes of the X-Files and the Stargate TV show. I'd guess more would be able to tell you the X-Files general ideas. -AKMask 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well put, well put. American Patriot 1776 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, I think this is a really good article. The only thing wrong with it, in my humble opinion, is some of the pictures;
 * Most are too small on the page, and too dark, although this may just be my PC (likely). Nothing good Photoshop skills can't sort out.
 * The images with the 'Sci-fi' logo look a little silly. Anyone who has the DVDs and a screen capture facility could replace these, alternatively there may be a few fansites who may be willing to lend a few shots. I'm assuming the source of those pictures will not take too kindly to us airbrushing out their logo.
 * Some pictures from the original film wouldn't go amiss, either. Apart from that, and the odd spelling/grammar error, I can't see anything wrong with it. I think that the shows themselves should suffice as sources, although having a look at the official site would help, also this site looks promising too. CaptainVindaloo 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)