UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Shortround (talk | contribs) m (Protected "UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles": Good night sweet prince... ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) |
|||
| (540 intermediate revisions by 84 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Navigation (header)}} | {{Navigation (header)}} | ||
'''''Please note that the Good Article procedure is ''no longer in use''. Please see [[UDWiki:Featured Articles]].''''' | |||
{|style="background: #E6F2FF;border:solid 1px #A3B1BF;padding:10px;width:100%" | {|style="background: #E6F2FF;border:solid 1px #A3B1BF;padding:10px;width:100%" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
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. | 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 [[:Category:Good Articles|Good Article Category]] for easy findage. | Articles that are deemed "good" will be placed in the [[:Category:Good Articles|Good Article Category]] for easy findage. The page will also have the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:GA|GA]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template placed onto it. If a nomination is declined by the page owner then the nomination should be cycled without the page being added to the Good Article Category. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 30: | Line 34: | ||
#'''Yes''' - Much better than all the other candidates. --[[Example page|BetterMuch Ralph]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) | #'''Yes''' - Much better than all the other candidates. --[[Example page|BetterMuch Ralph]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) | ||
#'''Yes''' - I like this part [[Example page|here]]. --[[Example page|Specific Jen]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) | #'''Yes''' - I like this part [[Example page|here]]. --[[Example page|Specific Jen]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) | ||
====No==== | |||
#'''No''' - I don't like it. --[[Example page|Unspecific Sam]] 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
#'''No''' - This issue [[Example page|here]] needs to be addressed. --[[Example page|Issue Lue]] 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Please add {{[[Template:GoodArticleNom|GoodArticleNom]]}} to any page that has been nominated. | Please add {{[[Template:GoodArticleNom|GoodArticleNom]]}} to any page that has been nominated. | ||
==New Nominations== | ==New Nominations== | ||
===[[Amusing Locations in Malton]]=== | ===[[Amusing Locations in Malton]]=== | ||
Seriously. | |||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
*'''Yes''' - Cause in retrospect the images alone deserve showcasing. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
*'''Humourous Suggestion''' - This shouldn't be on the main space. Oh wait, this isn't the suggestions page. :P --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Seriously one of the best articles on the wiki. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)</sub> | |||
*'''Yes''' - Excellent article. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
*clearly there are no standards for this anymore apparently. Nothing has changed since it failed it's last votwe and it's never been what could be considered a quality contribution to the wiki or an example of exemplary content. It's a bunch of snickering at unfortionate naming conventions for locations. Hell, a large part of why it exists is to explicitly violate three of the four criteria listed here. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
*:Of course there are no standards for this anymore, no one is making any decent articles and we still need articles to cycle onto featured articles. I say we do our best to promote rewards for decent articles. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:56, 10 April 2012 (BST) | |||
# | |||
==Recent Nominations== | ==Recent Nominations== | ||
'' | ''Older nominations can be found in the [[UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive|archive]].'' | ||
[[Category:Good Article Nominees]] | |||
Latest revision as of 20:42, 8 August 2012
Please note that the Good Article procedure is no longer in use. Please see UDWiki:Featured Articles.
| 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
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. If a nomination is declined by the page owner then the nomination should be cycled without the page being added to the Good Article Category. |
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
- 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)
- Love it! --Few Words Joe 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Yes - Maintains good article balance, strong intro, accurate information, good grammar and spelling. Well wikified. --Overly Technical Jim 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Yes - Much better than all the other candidates. --BetterMuch Ralph 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
- Yes - I like this part here. --Specific Jen 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST)
No
- No - I don't like it. --Unspecific Sam 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- No - This issue here needs to be addressed. --Issue Lue 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Please add {{GoodArticleNom}} to any page that has been nominated.
New Nominations
Amusing Locations in Malton
Seriously.
Yes
- Yes - Cause in retrospect the images alone deserve showcasing. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Humourous Suggestion - This shouldn't be on the main space. Oh wait, this isn't the suggestions page. :P --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously one of the best articles on the wiki. ~
01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC) - Yes - Excellent article. --Papa Moloch 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No
- clearly there are no standards for this anymore apparently. Nothing has changed since it failed it's last votwe and it's never been what could be considered a quality contribution to the wiki or an example of exemplary content. It's a bunch of snickering at unfortionate naming conventions for locations. Hell, a large part of why it exists is to explicitly violate three of the four criteria listed here. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Recent Nominations
Older nominations can be found in the archive.
