Brickipedia:Featured Article Nominations/Alpha Team

Articles for Rating → Featured article nominations → Alpha Team

• Nominated by: {{SUBST:User:Soupperson1/Sig}} (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Soupperson1 ^{Friends are Forever! <3}
• Nomination comments:I based this of Super Heroes when it became FA. The page itself would be very timely as next months FA because our first FA is the FA for the 10 year anniversary. At the time of posting this the list of sets isn't added, it will be added ASAP. I just wanted this up as soon as possible.

Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK

Support

1. Support

ToaMeiko (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Make Class 1 instead (this counts as an oppose to FA, but a support for C1)

Object

Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)

* Sections are wrong (an actual theme MoS has been created since Super Heroes became an FA) * Most notes seem irrelevant for theme (eg, trivia about just Ogel belongs on Ogel page) * Marked with a WIP template :P : NovaHawk 10:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• The only big thing I still see missing from the MoS is a History section. Alpha Team actually does have a bit of developmental history with something called "LEGO Logic", which the page does mention, but I know there is more info out there than that. Additionally, BIONICLE would probably be a better model for Featured Articles than Super Heroes, though that too is a bit out of date, since it was done before the theme MoS was created. I would be happy to help rewrite this article to be more like that, but it honestly wouldn't be done very timely. (Oh, and some of those notes still need to be removed. :P ) Berrybrick (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Now that a history section has been added, it is kind of incomplete. I think that it should at least mention the hiatus in 2003, the 2004 revamp, and the 2005 cliffhanger. Additionally, the grammar and spelling in that section is kind of messy, and the stuff about LEGO Logic should probably be cited. Berrybrick (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• It does seem to fit the criteria for Class 1, but as complete as it seems, it does lack the citations for LEGO Logic, and has a lot of extra information that should belong on Ogel's article, and needs more images. Class 3 article in my eyes. That given, not voting since that's not an option. It's missing too much to be a C2 from what I've seen.LCF ^(talk!) 16:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)