UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

Shortcut: GA 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.

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)

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

New Nominations

Place new Nominations under this header.

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)

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

1. 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)

Amusing Locations in Malton/Urban Dead Colloquialisms

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
2. Giganta-yes--CyberRead240 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - Get rid of that damn ALiM template and we'll talk. Cyberbob  Talk  05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. 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)

   Heh, I'm surprised you didn't go for a cock joke LOL. Works on so many levels...--Nallan (Talk) 06:28, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Guides:Beyond average damage

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

No

1. 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)
2. No - As above, it need some freshening up, though it's sound stuff. --  RoosterDragon  05:13, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. No - As Nick. Cyberbob  Talk  05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Guide: Zoe Gorefest's Guide for The Career PKer

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - A good guide, but it lacks something with makes it GA. --  RoosterDragon  05:12, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. No - Could do with some nicer formatting. Cyberbob  Talk  05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Guide:Siege PKer Guide

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes - An excellent read. I always liked rule six for being particularly cunning. --  RoosterDragon  05:11, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - This is great. Cyberbob  Talk  05:18, 5 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.

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

1. - D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:38, 3 July 2009 (BST)
2. - Yep. Although its missing the top level of decay. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:10, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Against

1. 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.--xoxo 18:53, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Successful - god this is late. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:51, 20 July 2009 (BST)

---