UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates
| 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 ( 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
- 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.
- Complete - No major facts or details are neglected; it is finished as can be.
- Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
- 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)
Questions - I totes get how the use of the {{TRPText}} template allows it to appear on all the pages. But can some noinclude text be added which tells people how to edit that text if they want? Also, can we move the various subpages to actual subpages of the main Tactical Resource Point article? (I'm thinking TRPGun becomes Tactical Resource Point/TRPGun etc.) Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 04:30, 26 October 2012 (BST)
- I don't see how noinclude text would help, since if someone has already made it to {{TRPText}} where they would see that noinclude text then they can certainly figure out how to edit it pretty easily, I should think. Besides which, there are edit links on the TRP page that make it easy to edit any of the sections in TRPText besides the topmost one. That said, I do support moving the pages. I'll do so in a moment since it does make more sense that way. —Aichon— 05:22, 26 October 2012 (BST)
Love it. Heartily in favor. —Aichon— 05:22, 26 October 2012 (BST)
Gentlemen. This is one of the best page rewrites I've ever seen. Well done. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 10:52, 26 October 2012 (BST)
Maybe add a See Also section with other linked resources like Category:Building Danger Levels or Category:Building Information Center. ~
19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Made a Related Links section template that is linked to all the pages. -MHSstaff 20:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I support this nomination. The page is well written and structured. It's practical use is high, especially for newer players who are unfamiliar with Malton. It's a no-brainer to me. Boneshred The Hungry 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have the Secondary Resource Point table looking like this,
| Fire Stations | Fire Stations are a Spawn Point with many diverse items including Radios, Fire Axes, and Flare Guns. In years previous both Generators and Wirecutters were also searchable in Fire Stations but both have been removed. |
| Junkyards | Junkyards are a veritable potpourri of valuable items but are not easily defensible resource points. Once upon a time the fences were sealed and Wirecutters were required to get inside a Junkyard, all the gates have long since been cut and Wirecutters are no longer searchable. While they can, rarely, serve as Spawn Points and are impossible to ruin Junkyards are known for low search rates and seemingly random items making them unreliable for gathering needed items. |
...although it's not vitally important. Alternatively, bullets can do,
- Fire Stations
- Fire Stations are a Spawn Point with many diverse items including Radios, Fire Axes, and Flare Guns. In years previous both Generators and Wirecutters were also searchable in Fire Stations but both have been removed.
- Junkyards
- Junkyards are a veritable potpourri of valuable items but are not easily defensible resource points. Once upon a time the fences were sealed and Wirecutters were required to get inside a Junkyard, all the gates have long since been cut and Wirecutters are no longer searchable. While they can, rarely, serve as Spawn Points and are impossible to ruin Junkyards are known for low search rates and seemingly random items making them unreliable for gathering needed items.
...minus the italics is fine as well. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- That looks really sweet. I chose a slightly different color and matched the other box to the same color. That said, gainsboro looked pretty nice too. -MHSstaff 21:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, this isn't intended to sound as harsh as it doubtless will, but when I saw that color, I kid you not, the first thought that came to mind for the name of that color was "vomit peach". That's never a good sign. :P It's too colorful to be pale but not colorful enough to make a statement. That said, I'm also not a fan of gainsborough, for a wide variety of reasons. Just spit-ballin', but maybe #eee, #eef or #ffe? They're a bit lighter, and the latter two have some color to them. —Aichon— 22:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- HAHA! For the record, I'm okay with the vomit peach colour ;) Also like the grey one though. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, this isn't intended to sound as harsh as it doubtless will, but when I saw that color, I kid you not, the first thought that came to mind for the name of that color was "vomit peach". That's never a good sign. :P It's too colorful to be pale but not colorful enough to make a statement. That said, I'm also not a fan of gainsborough, for a wide variety of reasons. Just spit-ballin', but maybe #eee, #eef or #ffe? They're a bit lighter, and the latter two have some color to them. —Aichon— 22:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Group Pages
Any group page or group subpage, whether active, inactive, or historical, can be submitted.
Group Page Criteria
- 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.
- 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.
- Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
- Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.
Group Page Candidates
Submit candidates here.
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
- 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.
- Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
- 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.
The Fall of Monroeville Mall
Originally reviewed as successful on 11 May 2009. I'm putting this up for review because it lacks an introductory section, or any clear context at all. If someone writes a clear, comprehensive introduction to the article, I'll support its retention. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 02:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments (The Fall of Monroeville Mall)
Looks like it's right up Ross' alley. If anyone can write an awesome into for the Fall of Monroeville Mall it'll be Ross. ~ 03:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Survivor-Zombie Imbalance
Originally reviewed as successful on 20 August 2009. My concern stems from the fact that its information has not been updated for over a year in terms of the graphs, more than two for the text. Is someone actively updating it? If not, we may not want to feature such an out-of-date page on the Main Page. In addition, it has numerous headers with minimal content under each which could definitely be consolidated. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 02:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments (Survivor-Zombie Imbalance)
Decay
Originally reviewed as successful on 20 July 2009. It lacks a proper description of what decay actually is. Also, the vast majority of the article is quotes of the in-game descriptions; there's not much other content at all. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 02:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments (Decay)
Yeah that's a pain to look at. Kill it. Fire optional. ~ 03:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
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.
