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.

---

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. -- _{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  _{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  _{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  _{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. ~ _{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)

I think it looks amazing now. -MHSstaff 22:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been some time now, several people have given it attention and it caused more frequent status report updates ever since it went live. How can you not love it? :) PB&J 19:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The hanging issue seems to have been fixed (as far as I can tell). The new text is great. But I think two objections still stand: the lack of frequent enough updates (brought up by Axe Hack) and the non-NPOV name (brought up by Vapor). Personally, I don't really agree with the first one (since the reports are updated surprisingly frequently, in no small part thanks to Charles, JT and their allies), but I do see the second as a sticking point. Is there a more neutral name that would work for you guys before this gets processed (more than likely as successful)? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We already mentioned a while ago that changing it to Danger Center would be perfectly fine :) Concerning frequent updates: the city is filled with undead, I think a lack of updates in certain areas is just part of the entire theme. PB&J 19:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, adjusted the title and opening sentence slightly. That look ok? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

*wipes away a tear* Yeah, yeah... I'm fine, just, you know, just give me a minute... PB&J 00:31, 24 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.

User:Rosslessness/Random_Rambling/Sandbox404

Don't know why I suddenly thought of this one. What can I say, there have been literally hundreds of survivor groups trying to reclaim places, but I've never seen one written up since Candyland. There's an interesting tactic buried in here, and it also contains some praise for the DEM. A better title would be nice. I think it's awesome, I think it's NPOV, (because it treats zombies as players and not "baddies") and MHS wrote the intro, so thats well written at least. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 22:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness/Random_Rambling/Sandbox404

COMMENTS SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS, WITH REASONS.

For ross has a nice way with words and the article is informative (plus it seems survivors could use some help with thinking). -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really do it for me. Dunno why, I think the formatting is a bit of a mess. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably is. You people and your differing resolutions --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 00:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too quick to blame resolution, even though that would help a bit. I don't enjoy going down and having to navigate through the various centered and right-aligned templates of varying sizes and shapes. A bit offputting. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Anyone have formatting suggestions? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 16:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks beautiful and is very informative for the average (uneducated) survivor. For. PB&J 07:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe give the feral mentality note a box? -MHSstaff 19:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you dropped an "and" when you copied the intro from my space. You also seem to have couple of mistakes as well. For example, every quote from the article is from April but the mass CR attack is from June? Is that right? -MHSstaff 18:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll revisit that. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 18:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I like this article a lot. There are small minor grammar things like: spell out numbers under ten, especially when you are starting a sentence with a number, minor comma things, etc. I tried to fix some of them here. That said, it reads well, and assuming Rosslessness makes sure the timeline and dates are right, I would support this. -MHSstaff 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates and numbers modified. MHS, if you want to sort out the commas, that would be great. I'm away for a few days, but I'll look at the box for the feral mentality thing when I get back. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 00:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this still being worked on, and if not, how do I process it? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs me to regrammar check, then post it through the MHS double check. DDR wants formatting changes, but hasn't said how. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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.