U.S.S. Zhukov, NCC-26136

[Lt Cmdr Matt]

EVERYTHING REMOVED FOR HEAVY MODIFICATION

[Ineti]

Not too bad, Matt. I think it's a decent history.

You might want to fix the spelling errors, though.

[Lt Cmdr Matt]

Can someone point out the spelling errors as neither I nor the spell checker on Word can find any?

[Ineti]

Sure thing, Matt.

Second line: Change "It's" to "Its". "It's" is a contraction for "it is," and "its" is a possessive, like "his" "her" and "their".

Second line: Change "as" to "was."

Fifth line: Change "it's" to "its". "It's" is a contraction for "it is," and "its" is a possessive, like "his" "her" and "their".

And as a personal preference, I would lower-case every instance of "frontier" and "first contact."

Hope that helps!

[Lt Cmdr Matt]

I think I fixed them all and that is why I posted here. Thanks Ineti!

[Ineti]

Welcome.

[Owen E Oulton]

How nit-picky do you want us to get? From a graphics standpoint, a couple of notes: LCARSCOM.NET isn't Starfleet nomenclature - it's a website. It should just say LCARS (Computer Access is redundant - that's what the "C" and "A" in LCARS stand for). The Movie title font isn't what they used on the show - try Swiss 911 Ultracompressed. Also, while the image is very polished looking, it's also completely inaccurate. If you can find an actual still from the series, it would probably be more suitable.

(The following observations are based on my work as a garage-kit model manufacturer - at one point we were looking at doing an accurising kit for the AMT/Ertl model, and after extensive analysis determined tht it was not possible without replacing everything but the saucer. It did, however, give an insight to the "history" of the Class. If you're allergic to overly-anal analyses, skip ahead...)

The history is fine, but not for the Zhukov. The Zhukov is a late-model Ambassador Class starship. There were actually two versions of the Ambassador Class - the Enterprise-C was the early variant, and all the ships shown in the "present" on TNG were considerably different. The shooting model was actually modified, quite heavily. The saucer and nacelles were moved aft, maintaining the same relationship to each other but not to the secondary hull. The hangar doors were changed. The base of the pylons was moved up and the vertical portion of the pylons shortened (again maintaining the same relative position). Visible transporter emitters were installed, new shrouded Bussard collectors installed and the main deflector modified. Now, in order to maintain your writeup for the Zhukov, you could toss in a refit some time between 2345 (the time of the Enterprise-C) and 2367 (when the Zhukov appeared in TNG). This could possibly take place during the repairs you postulate in 2360 - this would bring the late-model appearance in line with the early-build history.

Stylistcally, I have problems with poetic phrases being used in what is a technical document - "Its main mission was to explore the final frontier" rings false. It would probably be better to go with "Its main mission was deep space exploration..." Personally, I'd specify the Ambassador Class as a Heavy Cruiser (established onscreen in Conspiracy). The "of" in every instance of "year of 23XX" should be removed so the text reads "in the year 23XX." The first contact reference should not be capitalised, and should read "In 2335, the Zhukov made its most famous first contact, with the Cardassian Union." I would put the reference to the Cardassian War after the Tholian conflict (which you place in 2353) as the Cardassian War was still going on until 2366, and the earliest date I can find for Cardassian/Federation hostilities is 2355. The next-to-last line should read, "Despite fighting in several major battles, the Zhukov took only minor damage..." or "...did not sustain major damage." In the last line, Deep Space should not be capitalised, and I'd replace "assigned" with "reassigned."

[Cptn. Taggart]

Stylistic differences, love 'em. Personally I like the poetic license. Not saying anything is wrong with the technical approach Owen, but I think that a narrator should be encouraged to be as literary as they can to evoke the feel that they want from a text. If you want to promote the romanticism of a vessels lineage then sometimes you gotta be a little more, as you say, poetic.