UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles: Difference between revisions
(→No) |
|||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
#'''Yes''' - This is great. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 05:18, 5 August 2009 (BST) | #'''Yes''' - This is great. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 05:18, 5 August 2009 (BST) | ||
#'''Yes''' - Very well compiled.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 17:08, 29 August 2009 (BST) | #'''Yes''' - Very well compiled.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 17:08, 29 August 2009 (BST) | ||
#'''Yes''' - The formatting could use some work, but otherwise a good guide. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
====No==== | ====No==== |
Revision as of 07:44, 27 November 2009
Good Article Voting Here, we determine which articles are deemed to be "Good" Articles. These are seen as some of the best the wiki has to offer and can include virtually any page on the wiki. Articles which have been given good article status, become eligible to become Featured Articles with a new Good Article being voted to receive that honour every week. Criteria
Any main namespace article (also including user pages and journal pages if they are thought to fulfil the above criteria) can be nominated for good article status. The nomination will be discussed and if there are no major issues raised at the end of 7 days, the article is promoted to Good status and will be added to the Featured Article Pool for the coming week. Articles that are deemed "good" will be placed in the Good Article Category for easy findage. The page will also have the {{GA}} template placed onto it. |
Example
Good Article candidate
Good Article candidate has recently undergone a lot of improvement from various editors. It's NPOV, it's concise and informative. I also believe it to be generally awesome, just take a look at the talk page discussion, people love it! --GA Suggester 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
Yes
- Yes - I see only a few minor issues, but those seem to be fixed readily. Otherwise it's good. --OptimistBob 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Love it! --Few Words Joe 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Yes - Maintains good article balance, strong intro, accurate information, good grammar and spelling. Well wikified. --Overly Technical Jim 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Yes - Much better than all the other candidates. --BetterMuch Ralph 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Yes - I like this part here. --Specific Jen 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
Please add {{GoodArticleNom}} to any page that has been nominated.
New Nominations
Place new Nominations under this header.
Guide:Siege PKer Guide
As above. Linkthewindow Talk 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
Yes
- Yes - An excellent read. I always liked rule six for being particularly cunning. -- RoosterDragon 05:11, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- Yes - This is great. Cyberbob Talk 05:18, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- Yes - Very well compiled.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:08, 29 August 2009 (BST)
- Yes - The formatting could use some work, but otherwise a good guide. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No
- There is nothing that compels me to read this from start to finish, not even to halfway. It is long, the formatting is lacking in flair and there are no pretty images to zest up the amount of content on it. --ϑϑℜ 13:54, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- I will add however that I admit the content is brilliant. --ϑϑℜ 13:55, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- Too. Many. Words. --xoxo 07:18, 30 August 2009 (BST)
Recent Nominations
Nomination discussion that have concluded in the past 7 days should be placed here. For older nominations, see the Archive.
Survivor-Zombie Imbalance
This is intended to be a reasonably NPOV account of the survivor/zombie ratio since the game's inception. It was a reasonable article at the start of the year but hadn't been updated in a while and since then I've reworked most of it. I've filled in the history from what I've researched on the wiki. If nothing else the new graphs add substantially to the article. Scrutiny welcome. -- RoosterDragon 05:39, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Yes
- Yes - I like it.--Nallan (Talk) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- Yes - so historically relevant and so much effort went into this, I think it deserves to be held highly. --ϑϑℜ 13:36, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- Linkthewindow Talk 22:52, 5 August 2009 (BST)
No
Successful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Guides:Zombie
I'm in the process of nominating guides that passed with large majorities on Guides/Review here. Linkthewindow Talk 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
No
- I consider this good content but it is marred by outdated references. There is plenty here to aid new players but it needs some housekeeping. References to old-style xp-loss headshot, among other things, are too archaic to forgive. -- RoosterDragon 05:33, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't nicely written an are two goddamn monotonous to read unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Amusing Locations in Malton/Urban Dead Colloquialisms
As above. Linkthewindow Talk 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
Yes
- Yes--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
- Giganta-yes--CyberRead240 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- ALiM crowd. --xoxo 00:34, 6 August 2009 (BST)
No
- No - Get rid of that damn ALiM template and we'll talk. Cyberbob Talk 05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- No - Much as I am surprised to find an ALiM page not entirely filled with poor cock jokes, and indeed even a reasonable fit to the definition of "useful", I don't think it's GA. I think the current content is good but it needs to be more comprehensive. Chuck in some more common terms and that'll satisfy me. In essence: GA standard, but lacking length. -- RoosterDragon 05:19, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- It's a bit rich of you to be accusing something of "lacking length" Rooster ;)--CyberRead240 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Guides:Beyond average damage
As above. Linkthewindow Talk 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
No
- No - Love the guide, but I think for it to pass for GA it needs an update.--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
- No - As above, it need some freshening up, though it's sound stuff. -- RoosterDragon 05:13, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- No - As Nick. Cyberbob Talk 05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Guide: Zoe Gorefest's Guide for The Career PKer
As above. Linkthewindow Talk 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
No
- No - A good guide, but it lacks something with makes it GA. -- RoosterDragon 05:12, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- No - Could do with some nicer formatting. Cyberbob Talk 05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
- I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)
Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)