UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

Shortcut: FA/C Featured Article Candidates Evaluation for featured article (FA) status takes place here. Any page is eligible to be submitted for evaluation, including group pages and user pages. The only requisite is that the page follows the criteria; it doesn't need to be satisfied absolutely. Ultimately the page should be something the community wants to be placed on the main page, where it's highly visible and assumed to be exemplary; it should fulfill some notion of special. In determining whether or not a page becomes featured, the candidate will be discussed and if there are no major concerns raised at the end of 7 days, the page will achieve featured status. During the 7 days any major concerns can be addressed, either by refuting them or improving the page to fix the problem. If discussion on the candidate goes further than 7 days, participants may continue discussing or altering the page without the submission being automatically closed. Please note this is not a vote. When making a supporting or opposing claim, back up the claim with reasons or evidence. However, there should be at least three users commenting on a submission for the submission process to be considered valid. This is to avoid a page slipping through unnoticed. Be aware that the criteria for different types of candidates—articles, groups, and user pages—changes to reflect different requirements; it does not make sense, for example, to have "neutrality" as a criteria for user pages. Remember these are guidelines only and candidates do not need to follow the criteria to the letter. Articles that achieve featured article status should have the FA star () placed on the page. If at sometime, after a page has achieved featured status, substantial changes are made that seem to degenerate the page past the level at which it was submitted, then the page can be resubmitted here and be re-evaluated. The same criteria and process follows; if a major concern is raised that cannot be addressed, then the page loses its featured status.

Format

• Submit candidates under the appropriate header (Articles, Group pages, User Pages), beneath its respective Candidates header.
• Make a level four header with the linked name of the page you are submitting.
• Make a level five header labelled Comments and put in brackets the name of the page your submitting (so that someone can jump to individual comment sections which otherwise would be identical and dysfunctional). The comment section is a free-for-all discussion, so there's no need for supporting or opposing headers, numbering or bullet-pointing, nor bolding anything.

Example

• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your submission.

==Articles==
===Article Criteria===
[...]
===Article Candidates===
====[[EXAMPLE ARTICLE FA CANDIDATE]]====
TEXT EXPLAINING WHY YOU THINK THE PAGE SHOULD BE FEATURED. ~~~~
=====Comments (EXAMPLE ARTICLE FA CANDIDATE)=====
COMMENTS SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS, WITH REASONS.
----

Articles

These include glossary pages, event pages including historical events, locations, guides and tactics.

Article Criteria

1. NPOV - The article must be from a neutral point of view; articles should avoid taking sides (such as emphasizing zombies over humans, or a particular group or opinion). Exceptions may be made, depending on the article and community decision.
2. Complete - No major facts or details are neglected; it is finished as can be.
3. Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
4. Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.

Article Candidates

Submit candidates here.

Zombie Skills/Feeding Groan

It's brief, but it's to-the-point, lists things that are a) comprehensive, b) useful and c) interesting; and it's all wonderfully illustrated by the singularly most obscure joke I could make on the subject. Bonus points to anyone who can explain it. I have a few of these so this one is really just testing the waters on the subject; as usual feel free to insult it, me and my mother when you're offering opinions. 21:47, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Since this is still being worked on, I'm extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:06, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Zombie Skills/Feeding Groan)

Seems complete and well-written. I'd be in favor. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:22, 4 September 2012 (BST)

A bit too ugly in my opinion. The content is a bit limited, but ok. -- Johnny Twotoes 02:13, 4 September 2012 (BST)

I always liked where you and Trips were going with the zombie skill pages. Hope to see you continue with these. As for the obscure joke, I originally thought you were referring to The Zombeatles, who are a musical group that dress as zombies and cover Beatles songs. However, I see that the image you use is that of Blue Heart, fictional radio jock and narrarator in the film Zombi 3. I assume the obscure connection is that Blue Heart broadcasts music to the zombie population in the film and groaning zombies broadcast survivor locations in Urban Dead. Am I close? Oh and I'm for this as featured. ~ _{03:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)}

Basically, the playlist on his desk is simply a note with "Play Beatles Song" in bright red. As for continuing I'm working on Bellow at the minute but I'm really going to need some fierce-ass research for it. If this one goes through I'll probably put the effort into the full Memories of Life tree; I think I have a solid start on most if not all of them. 03:25, 4 September 2012 (BST)

Another very well written and informative article. My personal favorite is the in-joke that the picture represents. Not everyone will get it, but that's the point of an in-joke. If someone googles it or has seen the film, they'll get how it ties into feeding groan and the article itself. -- Goribus 04:19, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Mis still needs to sort out the format. Once they are done, we can vote again, can still be improved. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 08:14, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Sort out the format? What sorting out are you aiming for? 08:16, 15 September 2012 (BST)

A certain uniformity across the pages, some less ugly Icons next to the skill tree, stuff like that. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 08:49, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Uniformity is a matter for future pages; the standard set by this nom as the first among them is what they others should aspire to, surely. As for the icons, blame Kevan, I used the same ones present on the in-game skill trees. 14:28, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Kevans, I hate those guys. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 14:30, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Obviously it's a minor change but I felt mirroring the game was both NPOV and added a sense of this actually belonging to the game. Suggestions for what could replace them would range from any Unicode symbol through to small icon images (something zombie-ish though cause they're zombie skills). 14:33, 15 September 2012 (BST)

I'll have a look. That or maybe, make it look exactly like the skill tree page. maybe. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 14:35, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Could do it all in {{Udspan}} I guess. Not keen on that though. Alternate suggestion is big-wiki-style navbox at the bottom in in-game colours. 14:38, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Like this. Could go top or bottom. 14:59, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Have a look at it now. For what it's worth all the Memories skills have been similarly updated. 16:42, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Nav might look better at top? Looks out of place down there for some reason. ~ _{17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)}

You think? I'm used to seeing them at the bottom but I'm open to moving it. 17:17, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Could just be me used to seeing group page navs at the top. Its a good addition and its position isn't all that important to feature status. Move it or leave it as you see fit. ~ _{18:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)}

Uniformity on skills pages in the past has meant bonded to a div so with a soft offset color in the background so that the green doesn't look so horrific and the icon's don't look so ugly. It is certainly possible through creative style manipulation to have this take over the whole article section, like Zombie Skills with a negative margin on all sides and then padded so that the article content doesn't move much from it's current position. That may be the best option, something that is effectively a template for "Zombie Skills" and "Class x Skills" that can generically be styled onto the appropriate pages. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:19, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I genuinely don't know what you mean. If you're referring to keeping the skill trees uniform across all the skill pages, they've since been replaced with a cleaner nav template instead. 20:54, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I'm talking about something like Items or Zombie Skills where the article is encased in a div that applies style and look for the whole thing. Particularly in making each class have a specific color and design and applying that uniformly and balancing the colors so they make the UDStyle template look less horrible and out of place. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:12, 16 September 2012 (BST)

In that case I'm not keen. It's a lot of extra code and effort for little net gain (I can be bothered to do it; just not on something as basic as this). I don't think it's a bad idea to let important aspects like skill pages just be displayed in a pretty standard wiki format rather than jazzed up; aside from showing new editors that they don't need to be daunted by everything here it also helps the punchier pages actually stand out when they make use of such elements. 22:16, 16 September 2012 (BST)

---

Weather

Was unanimously approved as a Good Article in January 2011, but never received Featured Article status. Also, is fantastic. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I'm officially extending the candidacy discussion. Please comment below. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:04, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Weather)

Meh I prefer Snow and Fog myself. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:24, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I like it, but I want more of it before I'd say yes for it as an FA. More or less, have it get fleshed out first. More flavor text, in particular. It feels lacking for an FA on that topic. —Aichon— 00:20, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Such as? I removed the flavor text because of POV. What sort of things would you like to see expanded?-MHSstaff 02:21, 24 August 2012 (BST)

To be honest, I'm not sure. Maybe some historical notes on weather patterns? Make some humorous references to the effects of global warming in Malton? I dunno. It feels like it could use another paragraph or two at the end, to me, and maybe making the stuff at the end be formatted a bit differently? As I said, I like it, but I just want more of it. —Aichon— 17:30, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Gameplay. Should be grandfathered in. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

As Vapor. -- Johnny Twotoes 17:30, 5 September 2012 (BST)

It looks a little wanting. I like it though. What more content could you add (or that was removed)? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:11, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Depends on which direction people are interested in going. Adding more flavor is easy; alternatively some of the in game stuff could be merged.-MHSstaff 05:13, 7 September 2012 (BST)

So what does it look like the verdict is on this one? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:07, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Dunno but I'm against it. It's purely RP, the statistical information is misleading in that it's about the town Malton, Ontario not actually about the game. A Hub article with content that summarizes Malton's weather, it's effect on the outbreak, and the implementation of actual in-game weather should actually be what's in this particular article space. Maybe lampshade or directly reference the RP RRF weather forcast but, as a game resource in regards to something actually in the game this article needs some work. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:19, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I agree with this, but the article has never really been a game resource; the first version was a manually updated RP forecast that stopped being updated after about two weeks. We can move it in a more game resource friendly direction, but beyond snow and frog, I am not sure what else would be included. -MHSstaff 23:19, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Weather has frequently been a mechanic used to justify updates actually. I'm sure there's quite a bit that can be mentioned as far as in game mechanics. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:56, 17 September 2012 (BST)

You could probably include the fake/RP weather and the glossary/ingame weather stuff all into the same page. So have pieces of Fog and Snow in Weather (leaving the bigger chunks of both to their respective pages)... and what Karek mentioned, and then the made-up weather. I don't see why information on game mechanics should exclude fiction automatically. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:28, 17 September 2012 (BST)

---

RNG

A clear explanation of the concept, as well as how it features in Urban Dead. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (RNG)

Against Just, plain, dull. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:26, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I'm for it. While it is dry, I think it's still well-written and is something that could use more public awareness. —Aichon— 00:22, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I prefer the Old Testimate version. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Yes it's great. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:54, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Against Merge with groove theory and we'll talk.-MHSstaff 02:58, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Yes, I up to reading two and this one was by far more entertaining. It would be nice to throw a paragraph at the end about Groove Theory. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 02:13, 25 August 2012 (BST)

I'm going to work on this article soon. ~ _{19:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

While you work on it, would you rather we leave discussion open or close this as unsuccessful and resubmit later? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:09, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Leave it open. I'll make suggestion changes from the comments. ~ _{22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

Still trying to find the nest way to merge groove theory info. Its mentioned at the bottoom of the article already. Just trying to figure oit if it needs its own section. There's some contention that some groove theory-like patterns still exist with current RNG coding. So far all I've done is link to the new disambig page I created. ~ _{18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)}

So is the candidacy over or should I extend discussion? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:09, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I can't make that call. I don't think its complete I'm just struggling figuring out how to get it there. Everyone is free to disagree with me or make their own attempts at completing it. There's enough support I think to go ahead and leave it up. If you're just tired of seeing it here, we can bring it back when its more ready. ~ _{03:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)}

Groove Theory is part of RNG issues so it should probably be a separate header on the page but still on the page. We could always make a main header called "Common RNG Problems Evidenced in Urban Dead" or Historic RNG Problems with a subheader for Groove Theory and a note about how the balancing mechanisms actually throw the statistical average abilities and searches run off of the stated averages and how this has an effect on the stats vs the observed real stats. You can even throw common RNG misconceptions up on there and pull some stuff from wikipedia, etc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

---

Guides:Feral Death-Cultist Guide

Solid Good Guide. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Guides:Feral Death-Cultist Guide)

Remove mention of Feral Undead and feral zombies at top and work on more comprehensive intro to the concept. Tactics in this article are not specific to the FU or to feral zombies in general and the concept of Death Culting is not self explanatory. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

I really like the parachuting box idea. But as Schwan. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:33, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I wouldn't remove the feral bits, since it is focussed on feral zombies who operate either completely on their own, or in such a losely-knit "group" like FU. While a lot of it can also be applied to coordinated groups, they have very different means. The FU references aren't that crucial, though, and could go if necessary.
As for death-culting in general, what else needs to explained? "fun things to do as a die-hard zombie when you get revived and want to use the assets of the breathers against them" is IMHO summing up everything neatly in a single sentence, but I might be biased. -- Spiderzed█ 16:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

It needs a better introduction, prettying up, and a touch of refinement before it'll be ready, I think. —Aichon— 15:49, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm the original creator, and I'm downright amazed to see that popping up more than 2 years after the fact. If there are any suggestions, I'm listening. -- Spiderzed█ 16:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Besides getting revives, what other key differences do you see between a feral DC and a group DC? Touching on / emphasizing that a little more would help distinguish this as a feral guide. Otherwise, as Aichon. It's not quite there yet but easily could be.-MHSstaff 17:34, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Internal revives is one thing. The other is the scope of actions accomplished. A coordinated group of DCs can easily hope to squash a tightly packed TRP like an NT or a hospital and get away with pinataing it. A single feral DC will need to be more picky to get the most bang for the buck, or to live with the consequences of not going the full mile. Some other tactics, like groaning from a barricaded building, are also more worthwhile for ferals than they are for parts of coordinated zombie groups. - But what mostly keeps me back is that I have little experience within coordinated death-cults. I'm most experienced with rhe feral death-cultist, so that is what I'm most comfortable writing about. Telling the Gore Corps how to go about Gore Corps'ing feels silly to me given the angle I take in actual play. -- Spiderzed█ 21:15, 24 August 2012 (BST)

On second look, I retract what I said about removing ferals entirely. The first section has some things about revives specifically for them. Somewhere in an intro it might help to make the difference that is hinted at in this section more explicit. I still argue that the FU reference is out of place other than maybe as context in a reworked introduction. Personally, I would remove it as the FU and their policy on feral members is beside the point and not addressed as I see it in the guide proper. As for the intro, I think my problem with it boils down to the fact that it is written in a "this is a cat. It is going to do cat things" sort of style. In an intro, I would think that one should introduce the cat and hint at why the cat is worth talking about. In this case, the cat is the guide rather than the death-cultist. Forgive the opaque metaphor but that is the best way I can describe it. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Leave the Feral Undead alone. They wrote this guide and removing them from it erases a piece of UD history. --WanYao

Against: Could benefit from some adjustments. Biassed left and right (the DEM doesn't maintain the RG and the mentioning of the Feral Undead in the intro, for example) and could use some general editing when it comes to lay-out and article length. -- Johnny Twotoes 00:59, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Where does it say DEM maintains the RG? The only mention of DEM I saw was that they invented it, which is an accurate statement, since they did. I agree with removing the FU reference, however, since that statement seems to be saying that FU has an exclusive claim on all non-independent feral zombies, which isn't necessarily true (e.g. Big Bashes are largely feral, and I think all of the hordes acknowledge their feral members, such as MOB with its Zealots). FU is definitely the purest of the feral groups, and they're certainly the most well known for catering specifically to ferals, so I wouldn't object to a mention regarding that elsewhere in the article, but we shouldn't be featuring an article with a sweeping generalization that's not entirely accurate right at the top. —Aichon— 07:21, 3 September 2012 (BST)

As Aichon said, DEM were the inventors and long-time hosters of the RG. As for bias, there is no need for NPOV in guides. FA has NPOV as a criteria, but as a quite malleable one. -- Spiderzed█ 18:46, 3 September 2012 (BST)

To summarize:

1. better intro that tells what is awesome about death-cultists
2. prettier look (images?)
3. broaden the aim or get more specific about ferals
4. remove mention of FU
5. less wordiness
6. turn the bias down

1-4 look like things I could do. I'd just need time for that.
For 5, as Mark Twain has put it, "I am sorry to write such a long letter. I didn't have time to write a short one." I am not a native speaker, and my original proof-reader has gone idle since. I might tackle that, but not over night.
6 is not gonna happen. In a guide written by a death-cultist aimed at death-cultists, I reserve the right to mock the loopholes of the RG, typical trenchie shortcomings and as a side-dish the DEM as much as I like (which is a lot). -- Spiderzed█ 18:46, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Quick note; DEM didn't invent the RG. The inventors may have been a part of DEM but they acted on their own. It was never in the DEM toolbox. I beleive the kept their own PKer list. ~ _{19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)}

You probably should correct every single mention of the RG on the wiki then, since they almost all repeat the line saying that the DEM invented the RG and supplied its initial moderators before withdrawing from it. —Aichon— 20:19, 3 September 2012 (BST)

If you reserve the right to mock the DEM in the article, then this article simply isn't FA-worthy thanks to bias. I understand some of the controversy surrounding the DEM (and I agree on the point surrounding DEMON, which I refuse to use), but any bias makes it invalid for FA in my opinion, be it DEM-related or otherwise. -- Johnny Twotoes 02:11, 4 September 2012 (BST)

Am I correct in judging this as unsuccessful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

---

Guides:Kill Probability

Extremely useful and well-done tables. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Consensus seems to be positive, but I'd like to hear a couple more voices. Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:18, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Guides:Kill Probability)

Meh. Sure I've seen this somewhere else, done in a better way. Perhaps one of the guides? --Ross^WHO????ness 10:34, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Perhaps you mean Guides:Damage Per Action? I find G:DPA more comprehensive and grokkable, while the advantage of G:KP is rather detail and exhaustiveness. Not sure if either is FA material. -- Spiderzed█ 16:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Easily my favorite data-heavy presentation anywhere on the wiki. Beautifully presented in a clear manner. Definitely deserving of FA status. It needs to be seen by more people. —Aichon— 16:14, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Aichon. The charts alone rock.-MHSstaff 17:28, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Clear, comprehensible and it looks good :) I'm all for! -- Johnny Twotoes 01:01, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Last chance for objections or I'm closing this as successful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I will because there's no article content. It's mostly numbers with no guide on how to interpret or understand them. G:DPA is better at this but also needs improvement. Information for information's sake isn't informative, it needs context and purpose. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:10, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Strongly disagree. The article is about "kill probability." The opening sentence tells the reader everything they need to know about what follows in the article, and how to interpret the charts: "The following charts show the probability that a target will be killed after a certain number of attacks." The article tells the reader everything they need to know about "kill probability," in a format that is easy to understand and digest. -MHSstaff 23:14, 16 September 2012 (BST)

---

Malton

Now that there's a mini-timeline, let's see if this gets featured. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Malton)

Yes. Maybe change the last paragraph so that its not so present tense. ~ _{02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

As Vapor. Also, it's missing BB3 in 2010, which, together with RRF and MOB, helped to swing the game's ratio much more towards the zombie side than it had been in quite awhile. —Aichon— 16:43, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Changes made. Further comments? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:27, 2 September 2012 (BST)

I was for it already. I just thought it would be better with those changes (which it is, now that they've been made :P). More opinions would be welcome though, since otherwise it's just us having commented on it. —Aichon— 06:59, 3 September 2012 (BST)

yup a nice balance of text, formatting, images. A fairly slick, well-done page. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:08, 6 September 2012 (BST)

The templates in the Population (and underneath) are not so nice. The colours are too heavy, and it doesn't really make sense to have those boxes in the {{maltonbox}} for that matter. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:45, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Is someone going to deal with {{maltonbox}} or can I archive this as successful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:16, 16 September 2012 (BST)

You could go ahead and Okay this submission before the changes, since it's only a minor issue (and one only of mine). I'd have to fiddle with the {{Malton Population}} template so the stats get transcluded in that template and in the {{maltonbox}}. (I don't feel like doing that right at this moment.)--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:25, 17 September 2012 (BST)

---

Salt The Land Policy

And a major policy on the Zombie side. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion - please comment further on this one. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:34, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Salt The Land Policy)

Yep --Ross^WHO????ness 21:20, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Abstain - The policy itself is relevant, but the taint of Extinction's grubby zergling fingers is hard to wash off. -- Spiderzed█ 16:50, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I really feel we're beyond that now. Extinction are, and for some of us, always have been joke. Many more serious groups play this way. Just delete any mention of the zerging fuckers. --Ross^WHO????ness 16:53, 24 August 2012 (BST)

The idea behind this policy has always been Zerg to achieve it Ross. The two go hand in hand. It's also why it's never really caught on beyond SA and Extinction, it was actually originally a policy from shacklinks but it never saw real attempts at use before Extinction started using alts to enforce it against the NAFZ in their conflict. There are certainly more communally reflective articles we can find on the subject of zombie strategy, particularly in regards to revive management or mall sieges, that would be both better quality and more well received than this article. Particularly because the information in this article is almost all wrong and the strategy is un-achievable for reasons I used to bring up in 404 in discussions I think you were a part of. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:31, 16 September 2012 (BST)

If we don't get any more comments, I'm gonna archive this as unsuccessful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:18, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Nien it stinks of cheating.--User:Sexualharrison19:37, 16 September 2012

---

Tactical Resource Point

Explains an important Urban Dead concept well. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Tactical Resource Point)

I think this could be fleshed out more. -MHSstaff 03:55, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Cross link with Spawning, flesh it out a bit, explain how it works ingame. --Ross^WHO????ness 11:22, 24 August 2012 (BST)

You just want Spawning linked. :P But yes, it does need a lot more fleshing out. Perhaps some discussion regarding their importance in different situations. —Aichon— 17:00, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Also something about good trp clusters may be a good addition. The classic NT,Factory,Hospital set up is always a winner. --Ross^WHO????ness 17:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Exactly. That'd be a great addition. —Aichon— 17:35, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I might work on making these changes, so I'm leaving this one in discussion for a little bit. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:36, 2 September 2012 (BST)

The map needs a bit of work and fleshing out but that can be done in a busy weekend. I've already done some work on it as far as ease of use. More will probably be on the way if I have the time. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:14, 16 September 2012 (BST)

The map is simply impossible to read, text is very limited and I'm not a big fan of some of the lay-out (a list element in the introduction, above the TOC?). TRP-related tactics, some more fleshing out of the present content etc. would be nice as well. PB&J 06:03, 16 September 2012 (BST)

The map is still in need of follow up work but now the page has seen a massive stylistic and content overhaul. Hopefully it's closer to the Featured Articles standard of goodness and YAY. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:08, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Fix the map and you maybe have my vote. Fix the lay-out and minor errors (there's something odd going on around Fire Departments and Junkyards, not sure what the lay-out idea there is?) and you probably have my vote. Fix it all and you definitely have my vote ;) PB&J 16:07, 17 September 2012 (BST)

---

Group Pages

Any group page or group subpage, whether active, inactive, or historical, can be submitted.

Group Page Criteria

1. NPOV - There should be an NPOV lead or introduction, which explains who the group is (e.g. group type, structure, size, creation). Since it's expected that the article is created from the group's perspective, the rest of the page need not be neutral. The NPOV lead only applies to the main group page.
2. Presentation - An interesting and original page design, brought about by the code and any images, is a possible way to satisfy this criterion. Writing style and content can also satisfy the criteria.
3. Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
4. Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.

Group Page Candidates

Cobra (group)/Guide

Now here's both a group and a guide page I have always been proud of. While the main design of the Cobra pages has received more praise (and is better liked by myself), this one is a more legible design, as necessary for such a long text. As for the content, it is most likely the most thorough PKer guide on the wiki. -- Spiderzed█ 19:29, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Cobra (group)/Guide)

Excellently written, comprehensive, and as a (relatively) unbiased guide, I'm in favor despite the group being active. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:11, 18 September 2012 (BST)

---

Militant Order of Barhah/Locator

I like maps and timelines, and this is one of the more detailed ones for a group.-MHSstaff 18:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion. Please comment. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:29, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Re-extending in case someone wants to make the fixes described below. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:26, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (MOB Locator)

Yep, good meta information. --Ross^WHO????ness 18:30, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Yes. Thanks for submitting these group pages, MHSstaff! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm in favor, but I'm extremely biased, so I'd love to hear other's opinions. —Aichon— 20:47, 3 September 2012 (BST)

What's stopping me liking this one is how the map of the current suburb isn't keyed, and it's generally hard to read where the MOB-based changes to it have been added. I know it'd be a pain in the hoop to do but a stripped down version just with names (linked) and the explicitly-given statuses (lit, ruined, etc) coloured would be a whole lot easier to grok. 21:10, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Good meta-info, but map of the suburb itself seems only to be partially in use and is kind of hard to read (with all the colors already present on the map etc). Bottom sources also include the Omnimap, and I do believe that one is broken? Couple of small fixes and you've got my vote ;) -- Johnny Twotoes 15:14, 9 September 2012 (BST)

---

User Pages

Any user page or content can be submitted. For example, journals, works of fiction or stories related to zombies or Urban Dead. Note that user pages being submitted should have their own, dedicated page (a subpage).

User Page Criteria

1. Presentation - An interesting and original page design, brought about by the code and any images, is a possible way to satisfy this criterion. Writing style and content can also satisfy the criteria. User pages that have content consistent with guides or wiki rantings still need to be accurate and complete, similar to the Article Criteria.
2. Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
3. Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.

Reviewing Featured Articles

This section is for current Featured Articles for which serious objections or concerns have been raised, and are thus under review as to whether they should retain their FA status.

Older Submissions

Older submissions can be found in the archive. The archive of Featured Article reviews is located here. For even older submissions, when the good article process was used, see that archive.