UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Protected "UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles": Good night sweet prince... ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))
 
(482 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Navigation (header)}}
{{Navigation (header)}}
'''''Please note that the Good Article procedure is ''no longer in use''. Please see [[UDWiki:Featured Articles]].'''''
{|style="background: #E6F2FF;border:solid 1px #A3B1BF;padding:10px;width:100%"
{|style="background: #E6F2FF;border:solid 1px #A3B1BF;padding:10px;width:100%"
|-
|-
Line 14: Line 18:
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.  
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 [[:Category:Good Articles|Good Article Category]] for easy findage. The page will also have the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:GA|GA]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template placed onto it.  
Articles that are deemed "good" will be placed in the [[:Category:Good Articles|Good Article Category]] for easy findage. The page will also have the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:GA|GA]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template placed onto it. If a nomination is declined by the page owner then the nomination should be cycled without the page being added to the Good Article Category.


|}
|}
Line 30: Line 34:
#'''Yes''' - Much better than all the other candidates. --[[Example page|BetterMuch Ralph]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - Much better than all the other candidates. --[[Example page|BetterMuch Ralph]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - I like this part [[Example page|here]]. --[[Example page|Specific Jen]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - I like this part [[Example page|here]]. --[[Example page|Specific Jen]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
====No====
#'''No''' - I don't like it. --[[Example page|Unspecific Sam]] 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
#'''No''' - This issue [[Example page|here]] needs to be addressed. --[[Example page|Issue Lue]] 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Please add {{[[Template:GoodArticleNom|GoodArticleNom]]}} to any page that has been nominated.
Please add {{[[Template:GoodArticleNom|GoodArticleNom]]}} to any page that has been nominated.


==New Nominations==
==New Nominations==
''Place new Nominations under this header.''
===[[Amusing Locations in Malton]]===
 
Seriously.
===[[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. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 05:39, 5 August 2009 (BST)
 
===[[Guides:Zombie]]===
I'm in the process of nominating guides that passed with large majorities on [[Guides/Review]] here. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 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. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 05:33, 5 August 2009 (BST)
 
===[[Amusing Locations in Malton/Urban Dead Colloquialisms]]===
As above. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
====Yes====
====Yes====
#'''Yes'''--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
*'''Yes''' - Cause in retrospect the images alone deserve showcasing. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
#'''Giganta-yes'''--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)
*'''Humourous Suggestion''' - This shouldn't be on the main space.  Oh wait, this isn't the suggestions page. :P --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 
*Seriously one of the best articles on the wiki. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)</sub>
====No====
*'''Yes''' - Excellent article. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
#'''No''' - Get rid of that damn ALiM template and we'll talk. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 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. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 05:19, 5 August 2009 (BST)
#:It's a bit rich of ''you'' to be accusing something of "lacking length" Rooster ;)--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)


===[[Guides:Beyond average damage]]===
As above. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
====No====
====No====
#'''No''' - Love the guide, but I think for it to pass for GA it needs an update.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
*clearly there are no standards for this anymore apparently. Nothing has changed since it failed it's last votwe and it's never been what could be considered a quality contribution to the wiki or an example of exemplary content. It's a bunch of snickering at unfortionate naming conventions for locations. Hell, a large part of why it exists is to explicitly violate three of the four criteria listed here. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
#'''No''' - As above, it need some freshening up, though it's sound stuff. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 05:13, 5 August 2009 (BST)
*:Of course there are no standards for this anymore, no one is making any decent articles and we still need articles to cycle onto featured articles. I say we do our best to promote rewards for decent articles. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:56, 10 April 2012 (BST)
#'''No''' - As Nick. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
 
===[[Guide: Zoe Gorefest's Guide for The Career PKer]]===
As above. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
====No====
#'''No''' - A good guide, but it lacks something with makes it GA. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 05:12, 5 August 2009 (BST)
#'''No''' - Could do with some nicer formatting. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
 
===[[Guide:Siege PKer Guide]]===
As above. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)
====Yes====
#'''Yes''' - An excellent read. I always liked rule six for being particularly cunning. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 05:11, 5 August 2009 (BST)
#'''Yes''' - This is great. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 05:18, 5 August 2009 (BST)


==Recent Nominations==
==Recent Nominations==
''Nomination discussion that have concluded in the past 7 days should be placed here. For older nominations, see the [[UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive|Archive]].''
''Older nominations can be found in the [[UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive|archive]].''
 
===[[Decay]]===
 
It's pretty basic, but I think it deserves a run here to see what people think of it. I found it very helpful and informative.
 
'''For'''
# - {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 11:38, 3 July 2009 (BST)
# - Yep. Although its missing the top level of decay. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:10, 3 July 2009 (BST)
 
'''Against'''
#Yeah i like it, but it looks like rubbish and if you are well versed in the game would be quite confusing. I think this'd lower teh standard of good articles.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 18:53, 3 July 2009 (BST)
 
'''Successful''' - god this is late. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:51, 20 July 2009 (BST)


----
[[Category:Good Article Nominees]]

Latest revision as of 20:42, 8 August 2012

Please note that the Good Article procedure is no longer in use. Please see UDWiki:Featured Articles.


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

  • NPOV - The article must be from a neutral point of view and not show significant bias. Possible exceptions may be made, depending on the article and community opinion.
  • Complete - It neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
  • Well Written - The article uses good English, such as proper grammar and spelling and is written in a clear and highly readable style.
  • Generally Awesome - Here at the wiki, we're after stuff that's awesome.

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. If a nomination is declined by the page owner then the nomination should be cycled without the page being added to the Good Article Category.

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

  1. 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)
  2. Love it! --Few Words Joe 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
  3. Yes - Maintains good article balance, strong intro, accurate information, good grammar and spelling. Well wikified. --Overly Technical Jim 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
  4. Yes - Much better than all the other candidates. --BetterMuch Ralph 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
  5. Yes - I like this part here. --Specific Jen 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)

No

  1. No - I don't like it. --Unspecific Sam 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. No - This issue here needs to be addressed. --Issue Lue 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Please add {{GoodArticleNom}} to any page that has been nominated.

New Nominations

Amusing Locations in Malton

Seriously.

Yes

  • Yes - Cause in retrospect the images alone deserve showcasing. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Humourous Suggestion - This shouldn't be on the main space. Oh wait, this isn't the suggestions page. :P --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Seriously one of the best articles on the wiki. ~Vsig.png 01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - Excellent article. --Papa Moloch 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No

  • clearly there are no standards for this anymore apparently. Nothing has changed since it failed it's last votwe and it's never been what could be considered a quality contribution to the wiki or an example of exemplary content. It's a bunch of snickering at unfortionate naming conventions for locations. Hell, a large part of why it exists is to explicitly violate three of the four criteria listed here. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    Of course there are no standards for this anymore, no one is making any decent articles and we still need articles to cycle onto featured articles. I say we do our best to promote rewards for decent articles. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (BST)

Recent Nominations

Older nominations can be found in the archive.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Featured_Articles/Good_Articles&oldid=2017360"