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.

In an attempt to revive the Featured Articles page, I nominate the following article for "Good Article" status. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Civilian

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. This is good but I have a query. In the Consumer section it says "This makes re-stocking much faster than in police departments or hospitals", but in the First Aid Kit section it says "it is proven that Hospitals are now the best place to search for FAK's. Even an unlit hospital has yielded FAK's with a greater rate than a lit mall"... so which of these is correct? Chief Seagull talk 12:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Considering the search rate for FAKs in Malls was nerfed a year or two ago, there's no doubt that Hospitals are the best place to find FAKs now. —Aichon— 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

9. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Military

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientist

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridleybank

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. It has nice templates/tables and images, along with being informative and entertaining. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Amazing, other than this typo. -- Rahrah wants you all to know that MOM is open now. 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. While there is some great flavour on the page, I do not think of any of the suburb pages as articles. They are more a collection of various information put in a small space with links where appropriate. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2. No! Suburb pages are a mass of information and sections and none of them should be classed as Good Articles. They have the potential to change daily in quality and content and while I commend the RRF for moderating the amount of noob crap that is thrown on Ridleybank's news section, it still shouldn't fly as a good article. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3. The East Becktown article is more clearly organized and the Eastonwood article contains a more coherent version of the suburb's history. I do no believe Ridleybank's suburb article to be any better than these two. It ought to be, but it is not. --Highlandcow 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
4. I didn't want to against this on my own, but I don't think Suburb's should get Good, because of the overall churning and changing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Building Information Center

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. It's too much like a directory and not really an actual article. Useful though. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I don't really think that the sections are ordered very well, and most of the content is short links to other pages. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3. As Misanthropy. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
4. A useful page, but just a well organised information directory, not much more. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
5. I agree with Misnathropy; the Building Information Center is more like a directory or portal to the content. As a portal, it isn't well organized. --Highlandcow 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

Nomination discussion that have concluded in the past 7 days should be placed here. For older nominations, see the Archive.'

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)
3. Yes - Very well compiled.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:08, 29 August 2009 (BST)
4. Yes - The formatting could use some work, but otherwise a good guide. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No

1. 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)

2. Too. Many. Words. --xoxo 07:18, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Successful. --

 

 

 

 

12:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---