UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 41: Line 41:


====No====
====No====
#Mostly a list of awards and names, and while the award descriptions are somewhat fun the page in general seems a little boring to me. :| - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


===[[Zombie Renaissance]]===
===[[Zombie Renaissance]]===

Revision as of 17:43, 6 February 2010

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. 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

  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.

Malton Murder Awards 2009

Yes

  1. Yes - Entertaining, fun, and aesthetically pleasing. Slightly biased for obvious reasons, shouldn't interfere with the NPOV criteria. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No

  1. Mostly a list of awards and names, and while the award descriptions are somewhat fun the page in general seems a little boring to me. :| - User:Whitehouse 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Renaissance

Yes

  1. Yes --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes True, there are some sections not filled in, however there is a bulk of information here that is almost unparalleled. As it is, it stands as a good article, and it has the potential to grow and become more detailed over time, should users choose to improve it.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No

  1. No - The article is incomplete, particularly in spots like the civil war between MOB and the RRF. Fill in the missing info and then bring it back here. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 07:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nope as Maverick, it's clearly still a work in progress. Chief Seagull talk 09:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  3. No - incomplete and tedious. -- 01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  4. No - Nothing but bullet points. Make it an article and not a checklist, and then yes. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Caiger Mall

Yes

  1. Yes - This location holds historic importance to the game, and has a well-written building history.--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

  1. Are you insane? It's badly written, full of POV and plain wrong. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Needs Moar Housekeeping --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. I was bored....sorry --C Whitty 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Needs to get cleaned up a bit more and a little more NPOV. Why not some commentary on those early seiges from those who were playing as zombies? --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  5. Hell no. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  6. For a location with so much actual in-game history, it's pathetic how bland the article is. There have been more interesting histories written about random and meaningless street blocks like Nickells Grove *cough*.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  7. It's just plain sloppy. --Moctezuma 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  8. Too much irrelevant stuff like outdated groups and the like. -- 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  9. Historical importance of a location shouldn't be a reason to judge it a Good Article. It is 'biased' and POV.. With some editing it might become a good article.. --Vykos CMS-Meta 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Malton

Yes

  1. Yes - The game areas all have well written pages, and are good material for FA.--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes - --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Quality page --C Whitty 20:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

  1. Full of pointless facts about demographics, and links to groups make it look like they are officially sanctioned. I feel a page like this would be better--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. As Ross. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. No Same as above... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Remove the Organizations section and add Ross's "Malton Motto" to the page; then I'll vote yes. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  5. No - As Maverick. Those group links have got to go. It's supposed to be our collective best effort at defining Malton, not an ad-banner for a few random groups.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  6. No I think the ads for the groups on the page should be replaced with just one ad for The Streltsy, which you can join here. --Moctezuma 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  7. No too POV. -- 01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Monroeville

Yes

  1. Yes --~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes A high quality page. Good stats, map cross-sections, etc. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yes - I'll always vote for a page with an FAQ! --Met Fan F 03:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  4. Isn't actually my piece of cake, but bias aside I think it is a good demonstration of what makes a GA. -- 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No

Borehamwood

Yes

  1. Yes --~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes A high quality page. Good stats, map cross-sections, etc. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yes - I give my stamp of approval. --Met Fan F 03:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  4. Isn't actually my piece of cake, but bias aside I think it is a good demonstration of what makes a GA. -- 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No

Curton Mansion

Yes

  1. Yes - Very well written history. --~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

  1. Out of date, overlong, POV, shite. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Too much "wall of text" and not enough "organized article". --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Nominations

Nomination discussion that have concluded in the past 7 days should be placed here. For older nominations, see the Archive.' 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. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 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 Praise Knowledge! 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 Littlemudkipsig.gif 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. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 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 Praise Knowledge! 404 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. -- 06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 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. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 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 Praise Knowledge! 404 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. -- 06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 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)

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. --AORDMOPRI ! 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 Praise Knowledge! 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 Littlemudkipsig.gif 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. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 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 Praise Knowledge! 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 Littlemudkipsig.gif 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 DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.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 --RosslessnessWant 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. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Yes -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.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. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== 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.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 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 DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.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 DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.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: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. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 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 Praise Knowledge! 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)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Featured_Articles/Good_Articles&oldid=1656162"