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.

Tactical Resource Point

Let's try this one again. I made some changes to the text to make it a little more readable and fixed up the map so hopefully this article is now like somewhat useful. The map should totally show the distribution of all TRPs within Malton, as well as like the distribution for individual resources. At some point in the future, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to add danger status information on like, the hover-over, but that sounds like a lot of work and stuff, so I figured let's see what people thought of this version first. The maps are pretty easy to modify; you can pick like totally different colors and totally awesome sizes; I just went with something that I thought sorta works. Like, totally, right? -MHSstaff 23:06, 25 October 2012 (BST)

Comments (Tactical Resource Point)

COMMENTS SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS, WITH REASONS.

Hottest article ever! -MHSstaff 23:13, 25 October 2012 (BST)

Made one small change for clarity. Also can we change the tab to say "Fuel" instead of "Gas"? It's the in game term, and frankly a much better word. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 01:13, 26 October 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)

Okay, we really need more commenters than just me. Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:24, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Per request of commenters, extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:48, 12 October 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)

I am not the biggest fan of the color scheme, but the guide is absolutely rock-solid and a good example of a group page that should be featured. -MHSstaff 16:40, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Oh, and it might be worth renaming it to Cobra PK Guide or something more descriptive. -MHSstaff 16:51, 26 September 2012 (BST)

It was originally Cobra/Guide, but that way lies A/A... As for the colour scheme, the monotype green-on-black of the main page design was hard too hard on the eye for long texts, so I looked around for something easier to read using blue and red (the standard Cobra colours). Red on blue and blue on red look ugly, as does black on light red. So black on light blue (with red page borders) it became. Mind you, if you have concrete suggestions for different fitting colors, I am all ears. -- Spiderzed█ 18:07, 26 September 2012 (BST)

I think you just have too many colors going at once. IMHO. -MHSstaff 21:26, 12 October 2012 (BST)

Its a nice group page and good PK guide. I don't agree with everything in it but almost every PKer has their own opinion on these things. There are a bit too many Cobra specific things in this guide, like using "Hail Cobra!" as a backup taunt, for me to refer newbie pkers to use it. It also breaks some specific rules my group does not condone like abusing the RG. So overall while I like the guide and wouldn't ask for it to be changed, its hard for me to support it as a featured article. ~ _{00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)}

Since it's expected that the article is created from the group's perspective, the rest of the page need not be neutral. There's reason that it is in group space. -- Spiderzed█ 06:45, 27 September 2012 (BST)

Oh, I know it meets NPOV criteria. I guess you could say my only complaint is the content. Since I don't reccomend newbie PKers to use this guide, I'd prefer not see it it featured on the main page. If it were just a matter of "Hey, check out this sweet group page" it'd be different but this page has the unique position of being both a guide and a group page. ~ _{15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)}

I don't know; I kinda saw it more as a sweet group page than as the ultimate PK guide. -MHSstaff 17:43, 27 September 2012 (BST)

The page is the result of me wanting all at the same time a.) finally a good PKer guide on the wiki in general, b.) a good PKer guide for our newbie killers in particular and c.) having yet another venue to attract recruits. Obviously, it can't be everything to everyone, especially in such a diversified niche as PKing. While the general gameplay is the same, Philosophe Knights, Playing God, Profile Police, Big Coffin Hunters and Flowers of Decay follow very different policies and ground rules (just to pick a few wildly different examples). In the end, I settled for a group page, as that gave me the power to be POV and group-specific. Hence also why this is submitted to FA as a group page, rather than as a general article. -- Spiderzed█ 19:31, 27 September 2012 (BST)

And it does those things fantastically. Doesn't mean I think it belongs on the main page. Whether its nominated as a group page, an article or as a user page, the end result is always the same. At some point this would be on the front page. And I disagree with just enough of it that I'm not throwing in my support. ~ _{01:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)}

Oh so long ago, I suggested this idea based on the lack of good PKer guides. I don't agree with everything in it, but it's a well-written "article" and already a featured guide. For -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:40, 27 September 2012 (BST)

For, but then again I'm biased :P ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 10:35, 28 September 2012 (BST)

My god is that page ugly. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:07, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Am I correct in judging this as successful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:23, 8 October 2012 (BST)

I'd say so, but I am hugely biased. -- Spiderzed█ 22:49, 8 October 2012 (BST)

I'll probably try to counter-meatpuppet it. Go ahead and leave it open for another week. ~ _{00:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}

Meatpuppet number one coming right up, Vapor. No, but seriously, page is ugly, MOB deserves the attention way more, and while the guide is good, it's definitely not Featured Page material. Also, Sally will not bang me, and the guide doesn't help fix that, which means this whole page is shite. Against. --RadicalWhig 02:40, 9 October 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.

User Page Candidates

Submit candidates here.

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.