UDWiki:Featured Articles/Review/Archive

This is an archive for the storage of old Featured Article reviews.

Please place new entries on the top of the relevant list.

Successful Reviews

Monroeville

Monroeville was the first permadeath city, and a quite notable event, and if Borehamwood is a featured article, this one should be too. (The article isn't any more or less comprehensive than the Borehamwood one).

-- Jen ^{T | SFHNAS | PK} 14:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Borehamwood correctly featured; Monroeville similar; so should Monroeville be featured. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

yeah, do it. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely deserves its spot on the FA-list. PB&J 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Processed A ZOMBIE ANT 12:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The Fall of Monroeville Mall

Originally reviewed as successful on 11 May 2009. I'm putting this up for review because it lacks an introductory section, or any clear context at all. If someone writes a clear, comprehensive introduction to the article, I'll support its retention. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Extending discussion while Ross works on it. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 06:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments (The Fall of Monroeville Mall)

Looks like it's right up Ross' alley. If anyone can write an awesome into for the Fall of Monroeville Mall it'll be Ross. ~ _{03:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)}

What a fine and sexy page. Sure, I'll give it a rewrite. I'm sure others can add to it. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 13:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kinda meh but that should change after it has been rossified. -MHSstaff 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a mess, so no, for now. PB&J 14:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ross (or anyone else), is this being worked on, or can I defeature it? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, I just redid decay. give me a few days will ya? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So moved. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 06:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hows that? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the improvements! I am now definitely in favor. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll cycle this and decay as successful. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 18:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Verdict: Successful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 18:20, 15 November 2012)

---

Decay

Originally reviewed as successful on 20 July 2009. It lacks a proper description of what decay actually is. Also, the vast majority of the article is quotes of the in-game descriptions; there's not much other content at all. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments (Decay)

Yeah that's a pain to look at. Kill it. Fire optional. ~ _{03:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)}

Keep, as long as we introduce it properly. (I'll do this) --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 13:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The page needs a summary at the very least which should help with the lack of focus. It could also use some more content beyond the in-game descriptions. -MHSstaff 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ross and MHS. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Needs more than just a re-write, it's actually really hard to even look at. PB&J 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the better kept secrets on the wiki. I have been using it for a long time, and, as a life-cultist, this is really useful stuff. Sad to say though, I have to agree with the others who say that it is not featured article material as it stands. Mostly game quotes means that it is only marginally an article to begin with and its usefulness is limited to only a couple play stiles. I would say that linking it to any relevant tactics pages might just cover it, and I would probably leave this to the authors of those pages or other motivated parties.-- Albert Schwan  _{Monday, 5 November 2012}

Right. Done an initial rossification, condensed three lists into two, done a rough summary and other sections. What do we think? Going in the right direction? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is heading in the right direction. It would be nice if there was a different (more concise) way to present the external/internal descriptions without using so much vertical space. It makes the article feel artificially "empty" and it is also somewhat tedious to scroll through. -MHSstaff 22:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fan. I would now support this continuing as a FA, but I'll leave the review up in case others want to comment. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How about sortable tables? Make the desription text smaller so the tables don't take up so much verticle space. 85% - 90% text size seems to the most acceptable to most people. ~ _{16:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}

I did think about this, but haven't done it. Put them in. I'd like to see it. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 16:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to ask a dumb question: Why does it take more AP to repair Level 2 than 3, and a building can also spend more days at Level 2? -MHSstaff 23:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Because I can't copy and paste correctly. I'm going to lose the reference section tomorrow, make the numbered notations link directly to the images. Will shorten the page a bit. What else can we shorten? --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 23:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What we think of the table?--Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 23:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it looked neater and easier to read if the cells containing the decriptions were uniform. So I chenged the background color. Feel free to revert or pick a different color. Looks like its getting there. ~ _{01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)}

Right, bob says he's now in favour, it's about a third the length and super sexy. Unless someone objects I'll cycle this as successful. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 19:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Verdict: Successful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 18:20, 15 November 2012)

---

Failed Reviews

Gameplay Review

Per the discussion above, the issue that this is mostly just a reference and link page has been brought up. Please comment on whether this article should retain its FA status. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:12, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Review Comments (Gameplay)

As per my comments above, I believe that this page is essentially an excellent summary or amalgamation of a number of topics, rather than being a topic unto itself. As such, it's ideal for becoming a permanent fixture on a place like the front page, where it can serve as an effective primer for newcomers to the game. But it lacks the focus on a narrow topic that would make it awesome, since gameplay is anything but a narrow topic. I mean, when I look down the list of FA candidates we have right now and see stuff like epic battle reports, incredibly detailed write ups of features I never knew had so much going on, and intricate fictional histories, I don't see a summary of general gameplay realistically sitting next to them, no matter how well written it is, simply because of what it is. Those things are all awesome. This one isn't, despite its excellence. —Aichon— 03:53, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I was going to write something, but then I realized Aichon said it all, much better.-MHSstaff 03:58, 24 August 2012 (BST)

It's just a good glossary article, nothing particularly special; and there's no way that I can see to make it more special without sacrificing the apt brevity. As Aichon. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:15, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Agreed --Ross^WHO????ness 16:57, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Aichon. -- Johnny Twotoes 03:21, 29 August 2012 (BST)

There is a very good Gameplay section on the Wikipedia Article about Urban Dead. Why don't we use it on this article? Anyone against? ~ _{04:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:50, 2 September 2012)

---

Survivor-Zombie Imbalance

Originally reviewed as successful on 20 August 2009. My concern stems from the fact that its information has not been updated for over a year in terms of the graphs, more than two for the text. Is someone actively updating it? If not, we may not want to feature such an out-of-date page on the Main Page. In addition, it has numerous headers with minimal content under each which could definitely be consolidated. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments (Survivor-Zombie Imbalance)

I'm gonna be honest. I'm not even gonna read that mess. ~ _{03:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)}

I think this is one of the more interesting articles on the wiki and should be featured. Keeping it current will always be a problem though. -MHSstaff 23:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just needs an update and a proper introduction, maybe a change in formatting, if it looks too intimidating to read. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the content through all the headers. I prefer FA not include anything that looks like it was updated via twitter. If someone wants to style-it-up maybe, but as it currently is, against -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

kill it--User:Sexualharrison14:40, 4 November 2012

As Kirsty. PB&J 14:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone planning to work on this one, or does it lose FA status? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

we really need a workshop to put pages that need improving. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 16:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC))

---