UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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 (Featured Article) 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)

Totally. -MHSstaff 02:45, 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)
Thanks Aichon! Definitely in favor. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 06:06, 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. ~Vsig.png 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,

...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)
I also like "vomit peach" (and it makes me wish that's how crayola colors were named) but I'm always partial to pale blues and greens as an alternative; I' think they look crisper. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
How about Vomit Peach Lite? -MHSstaff 22:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the name "Vomit Apricot" XD Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 23:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys work out the style side of it. Content-wise, it's awesome. For --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 22:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Twotoes-Whipplebotum Malton Danger Center

This is The Danger Center's first submission. Johnny Twotoes and I have compiled ALL of Malton's Danger Reports into one 100x100 color-coded grid displaying each Building's Status and Suburb Name. We've further constructed 4 Quadrant-sized (25x25) maps to provide the Building's Name and Status on mouse-hover. Lastly we added a Suburb-sized map to the Suburb Template to display an entire suburb's individual building name and status on hover. These maps only require wiki users to update a building's DangerReport to keep the map up to date, that's right, just keep the DangerReports up to date and the maps will update automatically. Unfortunately I could not find a code that worked on Chrome to make the suburb tables clickable, it worked with Firefox but wouldn't display properly on Chrome. -Charles Whipplebotum 20:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Benefits of this Map.
This is the first map to display the entire city's color-coded building status at the building level.
It will encourage UDWiki users to update building DangerReports by producing an up to date visual representation of their neighborhood for anyone to reference, making the game a little more user friendly.
It will encourage groups to work together as it is a common tool available for live strategic planning.
This map is ultimately neutral and can be beneficial to all groups.
Some have already been encouraged by this map to explore Unknown areas of the map that haven't been touched since as early as 2009.
I enjoy the feeling of posting all my building updates and then refreshing the map to watch all the status' change.
-Charles Whipplebotum 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments (The Twotoes-Whipplebotum Malton Danger Center)

So the page is making my entire browser hang when I try to edit it to add {{FANom}} to it to indicate its candidacy. (Sorry for the inconvenience, anyone who was hanged (hung?) by me.) Can someone else put it up or is this a serious issue? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 20:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Apart from a few seconds loading time when loading the pages themselves (which is normal when you consider it calls on thousands and thousands of templates), I haven't noticed any inconveniences. I know Charles and me have worked on this project for a very long time, and it really feels good to see it blossom :) Nice lay-out, extremely useful and automatic updates, what more do you want? PB&J 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I love it. I think it's one of the best new things to come to the wiki since I joined at the start of the year (at least). You two will forever be in my hall of fame of awesome. I just want us to work out the lagging issue before I can give a 100% in-favor. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 20:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I've found that the Map is so big that it can't list all the templates being used if you select preview while editing. I've resorted to using User:Peralta/Map_Project as my 'preview' page before making changes on User:DangerReport/DangerCenter. Unless there's a trick to not display templates in use during the preview page I really don't see a way around the hang-time issue. I'd be in favor of protecting the big map from changes since it's the only one that has the hang-time trouble. All the pages that tweak this one can still be adjusted if need be. -Charles Whipplebotum 21:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's going to be an FA, it needs to be more than it is now. It's a really great map as it is, but if there's been one thing we've been seeing with these nominations, it's that maps, tables of data, and pages containing raw facts are not what FA is apparently about. You need some explanation, analysis, usage information, or other details to make it a great article. This map needs to become more than it is now before it would be FA-ready (and the lag issues need to be fully explored too, since we don't want this thing getting too much attention if it really is lagging the wiki for everyone). That doesn't mean changing what it is. It means making what it is more evident to others. —Aichon— 21:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the map is rather awesome and a congrats to the two creators. It lacks some of the utility that the TRP maps have. I consider it more an accomplishment of "look this is possible." Don't let my against vote take away from your work. I'm just here to complain not be useful. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 22:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the map stands on its own. Sure, it could be used as a subsection in a different article, maybe one on the concept of the Dangermap system, its uses and limitations, and perhaps history, but that to me is a completely different article with a completely different focus. This article addresses a very specific topic --- the danger level of buildings in Malton --- and it addresses that topic quite well. Yeah, the page lags a little but that is because it is off the chain. -MHSstaff 01:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree: that would be a different article entirely. That's why I explicitly stated that they should not do that. What I suggested was that they make it clearer what it already is. As it is, the title at the top provides no context, there's no text explaining what it is or how it's read/used, DangerReports aren't mentioned at all, and if someone was linked to it out of the blue, it's reasonable to believe that they not only would fail to realize that it was live-updating, they would also fail to understand where the data was coming from and that they would be able to contribute to the data themselves.
It needs to be a truer expression of what it already is. For instance, the MOB Locator is a map that stays true to itself while being more than just a map. I'm not suggesting we should turn this into the MOB Locator (that would be a horrible idea), but I am pointing out that you don't have to do full write-ups of histories, systems, concepts, and limitations in order to have something that's worth being featured. You just need something more than what's there now. Give it a nice intro, provide some instructions explaining how to read it, and then point people to the DangerReports so that they understand how to update the map themselves. That would all be inline with the spirit of this map, and it'd add the context that it's so-desparately missing right now. —Aichon— 04:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Gotcha. Yeah that makes a lot more sense. I think I read your first comment as this massive revamp / retooling where the map would play a small role (probably the word analysis). Adding a intro / functional description / how-to on usage are great ideas. -MHSstaff 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No.For one reasons. The lack of building statuses updates in a timely fashion. Sure, TRPs are updated here and there, but what about the lesser noteworthy buildings like junkyards? Until building statuses receive more updates, a full suburb map that maps building statuses is quite pointless in my opinion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If the timeliness of updates is the main concern, is it really any less reliable than the current map system? It seems to me that if updating buildings would change the status of the map on a high profile resource, more people would update buildings rather than having edit wars over suburb danger level. I am just saying that I feel this solves more problems than it causes. --Albert Schwan Albert Schwan  Friday, 2 November 2012
Can I ask what you mean by edit wars? I'm one of the (few) people who updates them regularly, and I haven't seen any such wars as long as I've been doing it (since the start of the summer). I update based on EMRPs, and always go with whatever the people "on the ground" have done as far as I can. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 22:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This used to happen a lot in places like Whittenside. Someone says it is green, someone else says yellow, both revert the other's edits, someone gets tired of it flashing and changes it to a ghost town out of spite. That sort of thing. It is not as big of an issue as it used to be but I understand it still happens. The current system is a bit subjective in that respect.--Albert Schwan Albert Schwan  Saturday, 3 November 2012

Taking everyone's suggestions into consideration, we've added some information to the page. -Charles Whipplebotum 22:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To be a bit more precise: Added a description, indepth explanation of the different statuses and how to update, as well as some lay-out adjustments. PB&J 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a start. I'd probably expand the Description section and would eliminate its header, that way it simply served as an intro, would remove the section at the end with the various danger levels, and would work the instructions into the actual description at the top, maybe as a quick bullet list, rather than having them afterwards in a small box. The instructions could also use some rewording, since I feel as if they're a bit vague at the moment. Overall, however, I think it's a step in the right direction. —Aichon— 22:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The instructions are short and a bit vague, I know, but I can't really imagine people screwing it up all the time, since the actual instructions on how to update is on each and every status report page on the wiki ;) I think the expanded version of the statuses is useful: give a clear reference for the color charts. PB&J 22:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I made some pretty big changes to the text and the style for the key. If you don't like the changes, feel free to revert them, but they're the sort of thing I was talking about. —Aichon— 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I love this resource. I am for it being a featured article only because I feel more people should know of it. Ideally though, I would rather see it as a prominent link linked in a visible way to the main map. I could even see it eventually getting sectioned by suburb and replacing the current map. The mosaic effect would have much the same functionality if the suburb separations were visible and the results would be less debatable. The mini maps on the suburb pages are a step in the right direction. Its strength is in its use as a diagnostic utility, but if featured article is the only current way to increase its profile, so be it. --Albert Schwan Albert Schwan  Friday, 2 November 2012

Dumb question: Are the relative links required to make it work with the template limits? It would nice to have the option to transclude/whatever you call it the map in other pages. -MHSstaff 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In truth, they could make them absolute links on the main map page. It's only within the templates themselves that relative links need to be used to conserve bytes. —Aichon— 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This will probably sound like I'm needling and I've tried to think of a gentle way of saying it, but I'm not a fan of the name its been give. I understand that the two of you put a lot of work into it and you deserve recognition, but I think there are subtler ways to accomplish that. I think the lead in paragraph says enough (and perhaps even that should be more neutral) about the concept and creation and I'd remove the custom title and just leave it at Malton Danger Center. No hard feelings, I hope. ~Vsig.png 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

NO! IT'S A MANZIER! Honestly though, we've got credits listed on the map's talk page. I'm happy with that, personally. -Charles Whipplebotum 07:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The main reason for me insisting on the name earlier in the project was that I saw big projects like these taken over by other people on similar wiki's, which left the original creators with nothing but the really bad feeling that they didn't do crap and that the few people who "finished" it did all the work. Charles and me got to finish what we started and it's time to let go of our little baby :) PB&J 00:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
We're all too lazy for that. :P —Aichon— 03:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Should have guessed :P And to counter the "lack of updates" argument: this is a zombie survival game, perfect coverage is something you can never reach, black-outs in certain areas are only to be expected. PB&J 14:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My view 100% mirrors A Schwan's above statement. A ZOMBIE ANT 09:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  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.

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. ~Vsig.png 03:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What a fine and sexy page. Sure, I'll give it a rewrite. I'm sure others can add to it. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 13:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kinda meh but that should change after it has been rossified. -MHSstaff 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a mess, so no, for now. PB&J 14:44, 4 November 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)

I'm gonna be honest. I'm not even gonna read that mess. ~Vsig.png 03:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of the more interesting articles on the wiki and should be featured. Keeping it current will always be a problem though. -MHSstaff 23:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just needs an update and a proper introduction, maybe a change in formatting, if it looks too intimidating to read. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the content through all the headers. I prefer FA not include anything that looks like it was updated via twitter. If someone wants to style-it-up maybe, but as it currently is, against --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

kill it--User:Sexualharrison14:40, 4 November 2012

As Kirsty. PB&J 14:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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. ~Vsig.png 03:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep, as long as we introduce it properly. (I'll do this) --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 13:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The page needs a summary at the very least which should help with the lack of focus. It could also use some more content beyond the in-game descriptions. -MHSstaff 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ross and MHS. --Open the Box Org XIII Alts 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs more than just a re-write, it's actually really hard to even look at. PB&J 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the better kept secrets on the wiki. I have been using it for a long time, and, as a life-cultist, this is really useful stuff. Sad to say though, I have to agree with the others who say that it is not featured article material as it stands. Mostly game quotes means that it is only marginally an article to begin with and its usefulness is limited to only a couple play stiles. I would say that linking it to any relevant tactics pages might just cover it, and I would probably leave this to the authors of those pages or other motivated parties.--Albert Schwan Albert Schwan  Monday, 5 November 2012

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.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Featured_Articles/Candidates&oldid=2037663"