UDWiki talk:Featured Articles/Good Articles

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

I've added {{GoodArticleNom}} to the top of all pages that have been nominated. Should increase community participation. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:00, 30 April 2009 (BST)

There's {{GA}} too, for when we get a few pages through. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:03, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Voting/Discussion

Should we not make this page more discussion oriented? FA's are good for votes since people are choosing their favourite for the FA. But here we should probably have a more discussion based element. It makes people elaborate on their reasons a little more, and also frees us from pigeon-holed responses. --  RoosterDragon  16:28, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Sure. How would it be done? --  AHLGTG THE END IS ACTUALLY NIGH! 18:38, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I don't know why such stuff can't be added to the main page. Perhaps after for and against a Ways to improve this article section? Or a link onto the talk page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:23, 1 May 2009 (BST)

From New User Template voting

1. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:03 1 May 2009 (BST)

   Reason please, Boxy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The shoemaker (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 May 2009.

   I'm going to cross it out if you don't give a reason by May 05, 2009. Can I do that?--The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:46, 4 May 2009 (BST)

   I don't think a reason is required for these. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (BST)

   Technically it is, and Shoemaker can, but I suggest he leave the vote there, lest boxy is forced to say why this article truely shouldn't be here, as opposed to my merciful comment. I would assume the comment would be along the lines of "The article fails to meet the criteria for a good article. It isn't well written (it doesn't have particularly sophisticated or even plausible grammar, paragraph structure and formatting, making it very hard to read) and it isn't generally awesome. Even this new page we are on right now has 3 times more views that New user template has, which, might I add, doesn't even have correct grammar in its title". D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:51, 4 May 2009 (BST)

   It's title isn't descriptive, and the content is confusing and badly formatted. It's mostly a duplicate of content already in the help section, and what isn't could be covered with a few lines being added to the basic formatting page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:08 4 May 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. I think its been seven days since I added it, and according to that, the voting is over. So, I'll go ahead and move it to the concluded section; or if that's for ones that pass, I'll just delete it. Whatever works. <(O_o)> --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 22:06, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Um, it's only been 3 days, I believe... and this is really crowding up the page, I'm going to move these commments to the talk page. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Cycling

Archiving after 7 days is good, but I deleted the older ones early this time, it was just making the page too long, plus you'd already archived them. Also, are you sure you want to arrange the archives into Successful and Unsuccessful? Over a long period of time (where 30% might be successful and 70% unsuccessful), it may be difficult to read in a chronological sense, plus it makes it harder for the archiver, he can't just copy+paste it from the GA page. What do you think? I just think if theres a possibility of changing it we might as well discuss it now, before there are 100+ articles and its too late. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:32, 15 May 2009 (BST)

I'm thinking of properly sorting the articles into a decent archive system, maybe in 3 month blocks by whether it was successful or not? -- Cheese 15:35, 16 May 2009 (BST)

By the looks of it, even that'll be pretty massive (and 3 months is a little unorthodox). Why not one month, and shove it on the UDWiki:Job Queue for others to help along? 3 months is okay, of course. I would just vote for 1 month. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Arch

	Good Article Nominee
	This article has been nominated for good article status. Please go to the good article voting page and vote on the page's nomination.

So it doesn't come up again. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:38, 29 September 2011 (BST)