UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive

This is an archive for the storage of old Good Article nominations.

Nominate one here!

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

Past Nominations

Successful

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)
10. --Qwints 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
11. ----Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
12. yeh all of these are great.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No

Passed with 12 in favor.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 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)
9. ----Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
10. good good--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No

Passed with 10 in favor.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 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)
9. ----Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
10. and again--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No

Passed with 10 in favor.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NecroWatch

Main page for the NecroWatch project which is a good mix of fluff, encourages survivors to take risks and be proactive, and in its mission tries to get more people to contribute to the Wiki. Quote from extropymine during original discussion about Featured Articles. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. One day I will get the cake. I always like A.L.I.C.E. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:08, 29 April 2009 (BST)
3. *coughthecakeisaliecough* Excellently written, creative, well formatted, and useful to boot. Certainly seems like feature material to me. - X:/Lorddragonfang ^{[ Talk ]}  00:11, 30 April 2009 (BST)
4. I love the Necrowatch stuff. I am not only saying this because A.L.I.C.E. will open to the doors to the NecroTech facility in which my character is sleeping if I don't. --Cpl Adrian Shephard 00:56, 30 April 2009 (BST)
5. Very useful service, and should be plugged at every change. Like now. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:51, 30 April 2009 (BST)
6. The cake is very hard to get down...there's no milk! Other than that, I absolutely agree--Dr Mycroft Chris 14:22, 30 April 2009 (BST)
7. I heartily endorse this nomination. --  RoosterDragon  17:32, 30 April 2009 (BST)
8. Who the hell is ALICE?? ;) --WanYao 19:53, 30 April 2009 (BST)
9. For the cause! CITIZEN VI 23:14, 30 April 2009 (BST)
10. For great justice! --N00bert ^{foxhound DA NW} 01:38, 1 May 2009 (BST)
11. Good stuff. I gots to get backs to dat. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:55, 1 May 2009 (BST)
12. As above. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:34, 4 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Pretty much unanimous. =) -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 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)
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)
5. Yes - I can't think of a better example of a "good article." --Moctezuma 19:32, 4 February 2010 (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)

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)

Yes

1. Yes - I like it.--Nallan (Talk) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - so historically relevant and so much effort went into this, I think it deserves to be held highly. --ϑϑℜ 13:36, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:52, 5 August 2009 (BST)

No

1. No. -change your vote on ALiM/Col and we'll talk.--xoxo 00:37, 6 August 2009 (BST)

Successful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

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)

Zombie

Out of all the character class pages I think this one is the best written one. It's in-depth, clear and very useful to new players. -- Cheese 21:56, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)
2. I'll vouch for that. Something that well written and designed deserves the recognition, in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:57, 18 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above. Any Donkey can see that this is an awesome page. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:20, 21 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful -D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Battle of Blackmore

Normally I don't like POV stuff, but I really liked this. Pure class. It's already gotten through Category:Historical Events voting which already says something about its quality and significance.

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Yes please. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:42, 9 May 2009 (BST)
2. It's awesome. Utterly POV, but it's so far gone that it doesn't actually matter anymore. Once it's obvious, it's almost neutral; because the reader adjusts it in their mind. Plus the fact that it's hilarious.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 22:41, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. I echo the above sentiments. Its not NPOV, but then it doesn't even try to be. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:50, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. It's very funny. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)
5. Hilarious. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (BST)
6. Strong yes. --Haliman - Talk 02:10, 11 May 2009 (BST)
7. Wow yes. The pictures alone are priceless. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:34, 13 May 2009 (BST)
8. Awesomeness. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - and proving the value in biased, comic history that was written by the losers. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

River Tactics

This nomination should speak for itself.

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Well, yeah. --WanYao 15:34, 9 May 2009 (BST)
2. I remember reading it when I was a little boy. Beautiful stuff. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. Quotes are awesome. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. Very well written. And a good tactic.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 22:44, 9 May 2009 (BST)
5. As DDS.--xoxo 04:55, 10 May 2009 (BST)
6. As J3D.--Thadeous Oakley 11:11, 11 May 2009 (BST)
7. As Thad. --Haliman - Talk 22:04, 14 May 2009 (BST)

   As Hal. Wow, I'm unoriginal. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (BST) Double vote struck ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  22:36, 14 May 2009 (BST)

8. As Hal. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:36, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Thanks to the congo-line of voters. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

Guides:First Day in Malton

Very well written guide and covers pretty much everything you need to know about the game. -- Cheese 16:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 16:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)
2. Balanced. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:52, 10 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above. --Haliman - Talk 02:11, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

The Fall of Monroeville Mall

Because in all honesty its probably the best article about Monroeville that exists. Because the event in question (Easy zombie win) was part of the reasoning behind the permaheadshot rule change.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:56, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. This is my vote. Touch it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:56, 3 May 2009 (BST)
2. Scary. I was just about to nominate this. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:58, 3 May 2009 (BST)
3. If one Monroeville page deserves this status, it is this. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. As above. --Haliman - Talk 02:12, 11 May 2009 (BST)
5. Me likey. - Cheese 15:27, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Article is really well written and deserves to get Good Article status. -- Cheese 15:27, 11 May 2009 (BST)

---

Rat Tactics

Developed independently of the similarly themed, if more well known, Hiding in Plain Sight page. Rat Tactics predates that -- just barely. These are the tactics that helped us survive, even sometimes almost thrive, during the March of the Dead. And anyone who says it was because of Kevan boosting syringe rates just wasn't there, surviving... rat style. --WanYao 20:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. c.f. my nomination, above --WanYao 20:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Yar. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)
3. This is a great article. I remember reading about and using these tactics. Very helpful. A fun, interesting style of writing. Nuabreed knows his stuff. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 06:02, 8 May 2009 (BST)
4. Yes. -- --Athur birling 08:56, 8 May 2009 (BST)
5. Yes. --Le bourreau 11:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - The plebs have spoken. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

User:Grim s/Grims guide to staying alive

Controversial, influential and mostly dead on the money -- if a bit, uh, overly cynical and at times quite over the top. Kinda like good ole Grim himself.... --WanYao 20:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. I nominated the gorram thing --WanYao 19:58, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. I was never a huge fan of Grim but this amused me. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)
3. A great piece of work. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:38, 3 May 2009 (BST)
4. Influenced my later guide (which is in need of a rewrite,) and a good guide for newer players, if it is a bit aggressive. Very nice piece of work. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:42, 7 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - While Grim may be gone, his sense of humour will live on. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

First Siege of Caiger Mall

Pretty well written article, it's got plenty of information in it and it's pretty interesting to read. Particularly since Caiger has a lot of history and this was the first major siege that occurred in front of it. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Although can we not replace those pesky red links with simple bolded text? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:03, 29 April 2009 (BST)
3. This is arguably the most important allusion to UD's past, and a very popular one. I agree with Rosslessness- if this does get chosen, we should simply bold the dead links. -- Lorddragonfang  ^Talk 00:04, 30 April 2009 (BST)
4. Yes - but kill those red links with bolded text or undelete the pages. Also - as above. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:51, 30 April 2009 (BST)
5. Yuh. Some history is dead, but we can still record it ;) --WanYao 19:53, 30 April 2009 (BST)
6. I like this page, I suggested this on UDWiki_talk:Featured_Articles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (BST)
7. As all above, but I'm going to remove the red links as Ross suggested. Really annoying. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Red links aside, this wins. =) -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

---

Unsuccessful

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)
6. --Very good read, but shouldn't be categorized as a "Good Article". So, as most everyone else. --Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Seriously? Since when is a suburb a good article?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed with 5 in favor and 7 opposed.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 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)
7. --As most everyone. Too many links. --Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
8. bandwagon vote--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed with 1 in favor and 8 opposed.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness/Hmm

I like this page.... I think it's a good article... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well next time you find one, make sure you follow the rules above and add the template on the article. --

 

 

 

 

06:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I decline please?

• Many of the links are now dead, as Cheveyo has deleted the groups forum. I could upload the saved screenshots I have, but in the current format its broke.
• I'm probably going to remove several sections anyway. I don't want the page being used as "How to avoid zerging accusations playbook."
• Its part of my namespace, and as such might want to change the page name before even considering it's good articleness.
• Its full of spelling mistakes.
• It is NPOV. I am merely reporting the result of my investigation into the belief of zerging. I even ask people to come to their own conclusions about what the information suggests.

Thanks --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any user may effectively decline any nomination of a page they own (group or user page) due to the Specific Case Editing guidelines meaning they can choose not to include the good article category on that page. You can leave this here or just cycle the nomination on grounds that you won't allow the changes to be made to your page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - If only to counteract Red Hawk's idiotic misreading of the NPOV criteria, which states "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. If community opinion is ever going to override this criteria it will be for something as heinous to all fair players as blatant cheating through zerging. Ross' article is well researched and the model for drawing attention to such lying scumbags. That being said, I expect Ross to decline the nomination and render this vote moot. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - Same as above. --Moctezuma 12:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes --Chaostraveler 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. No - Breaks the NPOV criteria; while well researched, I really do not feel zerging allegations are appropriate for GA (and by extension potential FA). --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I'd be lying if I told everyone I thought Poodle was serious about making this a GA. --
    
    
    
    
   06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. No - No matter how good formulated and proven, drama-pages like these shouldn't be included in the FA/GA sections.--Thadeous Oakley 12:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Cycle this DDR. But just in case you don't, it's a great bit of damning info, but not so much a good article.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ross has declined the idea of having his page a GA candidate so I'm cycling this early. Basically, as Iscariot. --

 

 

 

 

13:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, being an involved party voting no, anyone who thinks that the cycling is unfounded can obviously undo, although I don't expect much of a problem. --

 

 

 

 

13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you,... I meant for it to be humorous, if nothing else. I do, however, think that it was a well researched article. Perhaps we could have a humorously suggest FA? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank god. I knew you couldn't be serious. --

 

 

 

 

13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't... could we do a humorous suggested FA section,.... kind of like the humorous suggestion page? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time atm but the short answer is no. --

 

 

 

 

00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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)
3. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 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)
4. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 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)
3. ALiM crowd. --xoxo 00:34, 6 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)

   No points until you work a dragon reference into it. The best one I've ever gotten was "flaming cock", on XBL. --  RoosterDragon  17:54, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   Feel free to quote me out of context on that. That possibilities are endless, I'm sure. --  RoosterDragon  17:55, 5 August 2009 (BST)

3. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   So roosters saying its too short and you're saying its too monotonous? Crazyassniggers.--xoxo 07:15, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 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)
2. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't nicely written an are two goddamn monotonous to read unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

The Ridleybank Resistance Front

Descriptive, humourous and generally awesome, I think the RRF's is one of the few group pages that really does deserve to be featured. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)
2. I am in agreement, and think we should have at least an example of a group page. Maybe not user pages, but since these are collaborative works and the RRF is long-standing, I don't think we have much to worry about in terms of their quality over time. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:20, 16 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above; also, it's not a bad idea to direct newcomers to "come one, come all" groups to get started. --Blackboard 07:40, 19 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. xoxo says no to groups. -06:26, 16 May 2009 (BST)
2. fuck off with this group shit --Cyberbob 07:46, 16 May 2009 (BST)
3. As Jed and Bob. No groups. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:06, 16 May 2009 (BST)
4. I agree with the above, I'll only consider them if the group is inactive (and therefore won't have their page changed afterwards). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:19, 16 May 2009 (BST)
5. No. --WanYao 00:10, 17 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Precedence for group pages has now been further cemented. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:42, 21 May 2009 (BST)

Dunell Hills Police Department

One of the BIG groups, I would Suggest RRF but... eh.

Yes

1. Nice layout, informative, and overall a well designed group page. Also has this:

which is awesome...For the general subject, I think group pages should be nominated here, some of them are real good, but demanding NPOV from a group page obviously doesn't work. --Thadeous Oakley 11:20, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No

1. NPOV, please. --Haliman - Talk 02:07, 11 May 2009 (BST)
2. GOOONG!! --WanYao 03:38, 11 May 2009 (BST)
3. This isn't a featured groups section, it's about articles. Sure, DHPD may be an awesome group, but the page isn't all that notable. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:15, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   That said, I'm not against groups being featured, although that does open up problems with meatpuppets. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:20, 11 May 2009 (BST)

4. No. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (BST)
5. Naw. --Pestolence^(talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (BST)
6. Nope. For the same reason I wouldn't want a user page featured. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)
7. No, as it's subject to change like user pages. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)
8. ahahahahahaha. --Cyberbob 17:52, 15 May 2009 (BST)
9. No. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - As per lack of support above. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:00, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Amusing Locations in Malton

It's fucking awesome.

Yes

1. Perhaps the best page on this fair wiki of ours.--xoxo 04:52, 10 May 2009 (BST)
2. After a lot of deliberation, I have to say yes.--Nallan (Talk) 04:54, 10 May 2009 (BST)
3. Best page EVARRRR. --Blackboard 01:55, 11 May 2009 (BST)
4. Extremely weak yes. Get real humour. --Haliman - Talk 02:09, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   Actually, I loled at the Ha Monument. --Haliman - Talk 02:39, 11 May 2009 (BST)

5. Why not? I mean, seriously if it isn't your cup of tea then fine, but the fact is, a lot of work has obviously gone into it and it is well set out and a bit of a laugh for those who do think that way. Judging by the page views and contributors it obviously generates a bit of interest. It is a "good" article, because most of the articles here are waaaaay worse anyway.--DiscoInferno 08:23, 14 May 2009 (BST)
6. Brilliant, funny, and well-designed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No

1. Too much potty talk, not enough real humour. --WanYao 10:30, 10 May 2009 (BST)
2. Some of it's funny, but as Wan "lol cawks!!!" isn't really humor. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:08, 10 May 2009 (BST)

   What does that even mean? And what's that got to do with ALiM?--xoxo 09:27, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   What do cocks have to do with ALiM? Who would know... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   Ohhhh right. Lol i didn't realise cawks = cocks. And me and Nick even had a phone call about it. The closest i could get was that he meant lolcakes, which still didn't make a lot of sense...--xoxo 05:38, 12 May 2009 (BST)

   Wow. And you thought Nick was lame for calling you up about the coup last year. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:16, 12 May 2009 (BST)

   O.o Linkthewindow  Talk  22:10, 13 May 2009 (BST)

   Well i'm sorry i'm so sophisticated i don't find 'umour in misspelling...*upturns nose slightly* --xoxo 07:57, 14 May 2009 (BST)

   Fixed my indenting ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  08:11, 14 May 2009 (BST)

3. As Link. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (BST)
4. Was never funny. Also Haliman's quip "get real humour" is real humour in of itself. --penis lol i said penis am i funny???????????????? 17:53, 15 May 2009 (BST)

   Your bitterness is real humour, i have missed her.--xoxo 06:24, 16 May 2009 (BST)

   p sure you don't know what bitterness is - its either that or you suck at reading people --Cyberbob 07:47, 16 May 2009 (BST)

5. Like I attempted to do once upon a time (and I think I shall do again) ALiM needs a clear-out of all the rubbish cock jokes and replaced with genuinely funny articles. Funny block names shouldn't always automatically be made a location, some work should be put into the page to make it more than a stub. -- Cheese 14:42, 17 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Page needs some work before it can be considered a good article. -- Cheese 14:42, 17 May 2009 (BST)

  Ahem, i assumed this required a straight forward majority. What's the criteria for selection? Since this is an admin page (starts with UDWiki) you can't give one person the ultimate say. Point me towards the part where it says how much suppot you need or whatever...--xoxo 07:24, 18 May 2009 (BST)

  It's not technically a vote, it's similar in nature to a promotion bid (but with an article). If several people have raised points against it becoming a good article then those points should be addressed beforehand, hence allowing for improvement of it. If it was a straight majority then we'd have quite a bit of meat-puppeting going on. =p -- Cheese 08:20, 18 May 2009 (BST)

  Understandable, however with a promotion bid it is clear who you need to woo in order to be sucessful. Who chooses here? Is it you? Or just whoever gets to the article first?--xoxo 08:25, 18 May 2009 (BST)

  At the moment it's mostly me who's been doing it, with DDR getting a few earlier in the week. -- Cheese 08:31, 18 May 2009 (BST)

TUMBLEWEED-aikido-river'n-stuff Tactics

This nomination would speak for itself if only it weren't so busy scrambling around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Hell, yeah. --WanYao 15:36, 9 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. Nahhhh.--xoxo 04:54, 10 May 2009 (BST)
2. Nope. --Haliman - Talk 02:38, 11 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Not enough support to be considered a good article. -- Cheese 21:58, 16 May 2009 (BST)

---

The Pluto Press

It speaks for itself. To bad sonny stopped updating it.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:12, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Lawl--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:12, 6 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. Because Pluto isn't a planet. (actually, I'm not a big fan of the format.) --Pestolence^(talk) 03:22, 6 May 2009 (BST)
2. Because Pluto is a dog. --WanYao 15:28, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. Because Pluto sucks. --Haliman - Talk 02:35, 11 May 2009 (BST)
4. Because Sonny stopped updating it.--xoxo 05:03, 11 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - As per lack of support for the article. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

Ridleybank/History

Created by the RRF, this is an awesome page, with great original content and informative as well. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. My nomination, my vote. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (BST)
2. Yarp. I like it. -- Cheese 16:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. I like the content and it is well written but it's just a bit to bland in my opinion. If some links were thrown in where suburbs and locations were mentioned, it would definitely help its readability. Plus a picture, if one were so inclined. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:06, 9 May 2009 (BST)
2. It's dry and uninspiring. --WanYao 15:29, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. As Wan. Needs moar pics. --Haliman - Talk 03:45, 11 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - As per above comments. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

User:A Helpful Little Gnome

It's plain awesomeness and the fact that he's got very damn close to an exact replica of a UD screen. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)
2. As Cheese. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:56, 2 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above. --Haliman - Talk 16:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)
4. That is awesome. As per above. --Cpl Adrian Shephard 17:55, 2 May 2009 (BST)
5. That was REALLY awesome. -- Lorddragonfang  ^Talk 21:24, 2 May 2009 (BST)
6. As per Haliman. —Speels ^{♪ Hard Knock Life} 04:16, 3 May 2009 (BST)
7. As per above. --D.E.ATalk 13:11, 3 May 2009 (BST)
8. Its a brilliant piece of work. Cwissball ^{PKer / Dual Nature} 23:13, 3 May 2009 (BST)
9. If it weren't so awesome, I would never vote for a page like this. But incredible. Truly incredible.--The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:40, 4 May 2009 (BST)
10. Apparently we are looking for awesome, that page is awesome, thus it is what we are looking for. Or something like that anyway. - User:Whitehouse 00:10, 9 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. It's a great page, but I don't think user pages should be featured articles. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (BST)
2. Given that user pages can be changed to be totally different on the whim of the owner, I don't think it's wise to allow them in. If it was a user sub page dedicated to his game, I'd vote yeah, for sure -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:13 4 May 2009 (BST)
3. I'm with Pestolence. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)
4. I <333 this page. But, I have to agree with Boxy. --WanYao 01:43, 10 May 2009 (BST)
5. As the other naysayers.--xoxo 04:53, 10 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - While the page is unanimously agreed to be awesome, the fact that it is Gnome main user page and liable to change is an issue that should be corrected first. -- Cheese 15:24, 11 May 2009 (BST)

---

New user template

This page provides helpful information for new users that can allow them to easily customize their own user page. All of the info they need it right in front of them, in a copy-pastable format. All they need to do is decide where to put it and fill in the gaps. --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:47, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

I support the page because I believe it could really help all of the new users that come in all day every day. With customized pages, they can feel free to then get active within the wiki without worrying about their page all the time. Besides, I don't really see, to no one's offense, any pages that actually try to help people on the nominee list right now anyways. --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:50, 1 May 2009 (BST)

No

1. I don't support teaching newbies with HTML. This is a wiki. It also has no formatting, hence why it is difficult to read. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (BST)
2. -- 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.

   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)

3. The page needs a lot of work to be considered even passable. -Karek^maps?! 10:09, 7 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Page is deemed unsuitable in its present form and needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. -- Cheese 16:33, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

RNG

Pretty interesting and gives background on something that is at the core of our Urban Dead experience. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Although I preferred my old testament RNG. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:51, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. I suggested this on UDWiki_talk:Featured_Articles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (BST)
4. This is a great article. Very thorough and useful. The info applies to everyone.--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:43, 4 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. I'm not a fan of this article, and I wrote most of it's current content. Apart from that fact it could very well be wrong in some parts due to my limited knowledge of such functions, the main thing is that I think it reads a bit poorly in some places. Doesn't flow right. A second set of eyes could probably improve it a lot just with some restructure and reordering. --  RoosterDragon  17:39, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Meh --WanYao 19:51, 30 April 2009 (BST) To elaborate, it just doesn't excite me. <_< --WanYao 20:00, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. As Wan. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Several negative points raised and needs some fixing. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

Trenchcoater

Need I say more? This page is very funny to read and is overall awesome. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Does anyone need to say more? -- Lorddragonfang  ^Talk 00:09, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. GLORY TO THE TRENCHCOAT! --Orange Talk 00:30, 30 April 2009 (BST)
4. I'll need guns. Lots of guns. --WanYao 19:55, 30 April 2009 (BST)

   Weak Yes - It's a hilarious page as it is, but it definitely could be improved, as Link said in the No section. It deserves to be featured, but maybe cleaned up a little first. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (BST) _{Changing my vote. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (BST)}

5. I like this page, I suggested this on UDWiki_talk:Featured_Articles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. But reluctantly. It's funny, but it's little more then a piss-take at trenchcoaters, without examining common trenchie mistakes, etc. The current page (which is mostly quotes) should be moved off to a subpage and a new page built in it's ashes. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:17, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Not in it's current place. It's not a good example of a glossary page. Move it to somewhere like Trenchcoater Folklore, and place an actual glossary article (including a link to this page) at Trenchcoater, and then I'd change my vote -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:02 1 May 2009 (BST)
3. As Boxy. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Needs re-writing to correct the points raised in discussion. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---