UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

Shortcut: GA 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.

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)
3. Yes As above. --Grogh 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes Same --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Yes As above. --Jack Officer 01:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yes --User:Humphreybot ^{MOB THEM BEAVERS} - Incorrectly signed vote struck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Yes --User:Humpreybot ^{MOB THEM BEAVERSBTW iscariotasswipe, I live in Cincinnati Ohio, and am an owner of www.lovelandcastle.com. I am sick and tired of internet bullies spewing crap, so if you ever grow a pair of balls and want to see if you can talk crap like you type it, come visit me. Feb 8 2010 6:34pm est}

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 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. 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Boring and incomplete - User:Whitehouse 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
6. No - Incomplete articles don't qualify for good article status. When the entire article has been filled out then sure. Until then it's not a good article. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
7. No -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   And, TA-DAH!, has everyone just seen how right I was? I say this system is open to meatpuppetry as soon as it's seen to be easily abused and we get our first instance. This article is losing by six votes and we get four votes all of a sudden within 24 minutes, my, what a coincidence(!) I wonder if a certain group, let's say for the sake of argument, MOB, is spoken of highly in this article? I wonder if these four users have something in common, perhaps shared membership in the same hypothetical group? That seems likely, I wonder if there was a shout out on IRC.... Of course systems like suggestions and historical have things like similarity conditions and minimum participation requirements, this doesn't and MOB gives us our nice first concrete example and more importantly proves me right. Although I did expect more class from MOB. Still, I feel a chorus of the 'I Told You So' song coming on. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yet it was me you bitched at about meatpuppetry. Nice going. Hope you had money on it. 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think you'll find I never addressed you directly, I just used your nomination as my example because we both know what would have happened if you hadn't removed it, wonderful meatpuppetry. Guess we'll never know since you decided to have it so bravely run away in the face of perfect prescience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Hardly. I withdrew it because I'm tired of idiots like you assuming foul play when there is none. Now go find someone else to condescend to. 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Don't worry, I believe you. So does disciple number one. Nobody else does though, particularly with your Conndraka inspired removal post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   The one where I implicitly state that I withdrew it because I was tired of idiots like you assuming foul play when there is none? If I wanted to meatpuppet something for personal gain I'd have used a group page or something more personal, not a community effort I merely did grunt work for. Of course, that kind of reasoning is far too simple. There's got to be more to it, obviously. Fuck off, you arrogant shitepipe, and stop speaking for people who are perfectly able to speak for themselves. 05:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Again you fail basic reading comprehension, people did speak for themselves when they said "Like Iscariot". They didn't say "Some of his points" or "Only his first line", they said "Like Iscariot" because they agreed with what I wrote in its entirety. The people spoke, you just didn't like the answer. Please cry more. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Actually it's the fact that you called ulterior motives from the get-go, rather than actually asking why I chose the article I did. Of course I had to have put it up for selfish reasons. OBVIOUSLY. It's not like it seemed like a, I don't know, good fucking article to me. 05:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   My, how right you are. After all, my experience has taught me that asking people with ulterior motives means they just tell you their schemes, that's how it works! How could I have forgotten such a self-evident truth of reality that people never lie. I quote the Prophet Gregory "Everybody lies". For the sake of argument, how many times have you ever asked someone you felt wasn't being entirely truthful and open about it and they've just come clean about it? You can give me as many examples as you like, I'll direct you to the world of politics and win the argument with contemptuous ease.

   You thought the article was good? How quaint, how unselfish of you.... to nominate your own article.... truly you shall go to paradise when you pass on to sit with the Enlightened Sting and Saint Bono. What next? Will you nominate your next Youtube video for an Oscar? Couldn't wait for someone else to nominate it now could you? And behold, you've started posting responses to my votes in different nominations, turning this into the den of drama that I so accurately predicted, didn't take it with grace and a simple and honest note when withdrawing your own nomination. Nope, you started dragging your terribly hurt feelings across to a new arena. Please continue to prove me right, it gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling. You know, like when you've just eaten a kitten.

   For the record I have better articles sat in my userspace, do you see me dragging them here like a insecure blonde looking for approval? Nope. And why? Because I'm happy to let the articles themselves be the indicator of quality, not an artificial category that I'd meatpuppeted into.

   Finally, both yours and disciple number one's signatures are illegal. You have one week to make them legal. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   You really are a pathetic asshole. You still refuse to back down over the core issue. I thought it was a good article. What the fuck is this page called? UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles. So fucking what if I had a hand in writing it. I've contributed to other pages nominated here, too. And I'd have nominated it had all the work been done by Kelly, or Rev, or Gor, or anyone else who contributed. If we all sat and let good pages be justed by their own merit, there'd be no fucking point to this system at all, now, would there? You're forgetting that I put the page up for a vote. One which, despite your incorrect expectations, was left to be voted on naturally and without any meatpuppets. Not that you care. No, no. You just want to bitch, to fill whatever spare time you seem to have. A simple I don't think this article is good enough vote would have sufficed, but no. You had to start slinging personal accusations right out of nowhere. So fuck you. 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Refuse to back down? If by that do I think that I'm completely right and you're completely wrong, then yes. Slight correction though, you didn't leave the nomination "to be voted on naturally", you quickly removed it in the face of a dissenting opinion. You didn't argue your point that "it was good" you just withdrew it. Can't have been that good if you're not willing to endure some criticism over it. Notice I didn't have to meatpuppet support for my point of view, that's because I had a well constructed argument that I could (and still am) defending. Other users agreed with all or part of that argument, and not with yours. I tell you what, I'll start voting 'simply' on your articles when you have the basic fucking humility not to nominate them yourself or have a minion do it for you, sound fair? Of course that won't happen, there's a much coveted category to be won if you do manage to sneak one through, and that, like, wins you the entire internet!!1!!eleven! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   I have mentioned twice now explicitly why it was withdrawn, and once implicitly whilst withdrawing it. I don't care to have words put in my mouth and motives laid at my feet when neither are true. In the face of a wall of false accusations, I felt it better to withdraw the nomination than to have anyone else start chipping in with lies. Of course, if there was an honest bone in your body you'd admit you fucking knew that. 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Wait, you don't like having words put in your mouth and now you're telling me what I am supposed to have known? And I thought only Americans had an irony deficiency. Let's look at the things I am supposed to have accused you of (and anyone with any ability to read can see was directed at the system as it was being used and no names were ever mentioned), we'll just use the second sentence of my vote on your nomination: "This is now going to turn into the same den of drama that the historical system was". Didn't take your own advice about 'simple' responses to suffice did you? No, you dragged your issues over to this second nomination fulfilling the prophecy that certain nominations would turn this into a drama-fest. I called it, you proved it. "Wall of false accusations"? Basic evidence points to the fact that you've proven me right. No accusations needed, the evidence is plain to see. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

8. No - Incomplete.-- Adward  22:20, 8 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Needs Moar Housekeeping --Rosslessness^{Want 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 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)
10. No - It's a terrible article. Fix it to make it up to date and not awful and then maybe I'd change my vote. But for now fuck no. - Goribus 04:02, 7 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 - --Thadeous Oakley 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--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. As Ross. 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
3. No Same as above... -Poodle of Doom^{M! 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 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)
8. No - And this would be why: "Warning, almost everything on this page is original content, little of it is canonical and some is even currently disputed. Please do not cite this as a factual resource in other articles." - Goribus 04:02, 7 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

1. I helped build this page and don't think it's good. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)
5. Yes - It's well designed, informative, and fun. It also makes me sad that I missed out on all the fun. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Too much "wall of text" and not enough "organized article". --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
3. No - Starts off with long walls of text about boring shit that no one cares about and then degenerates into quick paragraphs and then single sentences. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
4. No - These location "articles" are clogging up the voting section. I'm sick of hearing about them in the news.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:06, 7 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.'

Malton Murder Awards 2009

Yes

1. Yes - Entertaining, fun, and aesthetically pleasing. Slightly biased for obvious reasons, shouldn't interfere with the NPOV criteria. 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - It looks good, is fun, and anyone that wants a list of nominations need only click the talk page. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes - Well made and informative.... --Technerd ^{CFT U!} 06:25, 7 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)
2. Too masturbatory and without decent purpose to a majority of the community. --
    
    
    
    
   08:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Right here is why this entire process needs removing from the wiki. This is now going to turn into the same den of drama that the historical system was and has caused people to want to get rid of that. What is 'good' about this article? What? No spelling mistakes? Looking pretty? Fuck me, let's make all my character pages into good articles then, they're prettier than this. Without a minimum limit as per historical this system is going to be the new dumping ground when people want a pointless tag for their page to try and be elitist over their piece of shit event/group/tactic/guide/whatever. Expect meatpuppetry galore when this system's seen for what it is, an easy way to lord a limited tag over people and claim it means something. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   When Cheese and I maintained this GA voting had a very utopian ideal where proper criticism would more or less leave the article moot as a GA. Now RHO and others have started cycling them, it's just become a vote. --

    

    

    

    

   12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   You fucking promoted him. There is no attempt to maintain or improve articles in his tenure, it's just a case of throwing a load at voting and seeing what sticks. I would bring this up with him, but he'd ignore the community as he did on his promotion bid, and everything else since he's been promoted.

   This is just going to become Historical Lite, same refreshing drama and meatpuppetry, half the actual people needed to force through the result you want. Historical has a minimum of 15 votes required to be a valid nomination with an approval rating of 66%, this system has no minimum participation limit and is now based around a simple majority. I looked through the archives, do you know how many of these nominations got 15 votes? One. A single one, and that was a user page. This system is unsalvageable, can we get rid of it now? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   I promoted him! Oh man, I forgot only sysops can cycle these! Better put him up for misconduct seeing as it's a sysop-only action! --

    

    

    

    

   20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   You know I remember a time when he used to at least ask shit on talk pages and actually listen and respond to the input given there. I wonder what event happened that showed him that ignoring what the community said was a perfectly acceptable action...?

   Regardless, I see you made a concise, point by point response to everything I raised. Oh, wait.... So given we've seen all these problems, potential drama, lack of use of the system, misuse by those supposedly maintaining it added to the fact that this system is not policy backed and thus only needs common sense users to say "Enough!", can we please get rid of this failed experiment already? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   So basically whenever Izzy doesn't get his way he throws a massive shitfit, points fingers, bitches, and makes massive tl;dr posts. And then when other people do it, it's "Shut the fuck up. Izzy's here. Listen to me. I'm more important then you are." Izzy, you're not even a fucking Sysop and you throw your weight around more then any of the actual Sysops. - Goribus 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   First, is the Gobots fan upset that I derailed his favouritist page EVAR getting a template? Secondly, massive shitfit? You're kidding me right? If you notice, I simply recorded my vote (like you did) and my reasons for it (like you did), are people not allowed to do this in your world if you disagree with them? Point the Third, you think sysops have the right to throw their weight around? My, you're going to be upset when your pet sysop tries that and gets shot down. Go read the Sysops Are Not Moderators policy and the sysops are no different to normal users section of the admin guidelines and enlighten yourself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Find me one instance of me 'throwing my weight around' and I'll give you a medal. For reals. Quit fucking accusing me of shit I'm not guilty of. 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Or what? You'll ban me? You'll cry more? You'll turn into a truck and make a movie with overt racism? If you actual read what I wrote you'd notice the qualifier "when", meaning 'yet to' and implying 'if and when he does'. Please try and read what I wrote instead of just imagining what fits your feelings of indignation and going off that. Thanks. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, you did say 'when' - and not 'if'. It's an accusation. Suck it up and admit it, you snide little bastard. 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Now you're changing your objection, first it was "Show me where in the past I've thrown my weight around", now it's "You're saying you think I'm going to throw my weight around at some point in the future". And you'd be right about the second, but that's not what you said originally, so I was right in responding the way I did. "Suck it up" buttercup, or learn to read in the English language. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Your conviction is obviously based on some percieved tendency, since I see no reason to suspect future transgressions without evidence of past ones. So, fine, I'll amend my challenge. Find me either an instance of me 'throwing my weight around', or the point at which it seemed I was about to begin to. 06:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   This isn't a challenge, there are no cages, swords or pistols. This is you misreading, now I must assume intentionally since I've already pointed out your comprehension failure, in order to try and remove the essential qualifier to my original statement. The qualifier (in case you forgot) was "when". Feel free to prove me wrong by never doing it, but something tells me it'll happen at some point in this meta community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, challenge accepted, I'll prove you wrong by continuing down the path I was already on. The second I'm no longer a sysop, for whatever reason it'll be, I'll expect an apology for you being wrong. 06:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Are you naturally illiterate? Or did you just skip the very first sentence of my last post that discussed the nature of this supposed challenge? Also in challenges, it's very poor form to start adding conditions after you've accepted, particularly when it requires nothing of yourself and something of the other party. Such is the behaviour of cowardly ninjas and _ing _un-ists. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   He's not the dumbfuck who thinks (or even likes to pretend) cycling GA's is a sysop-only action. --

    

    

    

    

   10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Wow, failure to read must be catching in the admin team. Weren't you retiring? Or was that just another "Look at me!" gimmick like that bet you wouldn't take? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   If failure to read is a trend in the admin team you'd make a perfect addition. No, you see I have a term to fulfil as crat, and whilst sticking with a job (all your aborted "policy discussions"? the GSM? your A/M case promises on all of us?) might not be your cup of tea, it's always been my intention to wait until the term ends before I retire, and I've always maintained that, even to you. Not my fault if hearsay tells your it'll be sooner. --

    

    

    

    

   12:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   We both know that certain people would block my promotion even though I could get more than the four vouches that Red Hawk One managed. My userspace projects are ongoing, and are of no concern to the wider community until they are put in the correct namespace and become actual policy proposals. The GSM was interrupted by three weeks of connection problems, not getting on the intertubes kinda messes with your ability to do shit. Your misconduct case is waiting on a response I get from the UK Information Commissioner's department of helpful monkeys. Anyway, you don't stick at things, especially when there are guarantees that you have to follow through with what you say you'll do, I remind you of the bet that you wouldn't get a ruling on to stop you welching on. And all of the above fails to take account that I was right about this page and this lost cause of a system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Whoa, didn't ask for your life story honey, the fact in my eyes outweigh your activity claims and other excuses. So your 'ongoing' works still get a great big meh rating. --

    

    

    

    

   22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

4. No, as Judas up there. --Thadeous Oakley 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
5. No - This is getting stupid. The awards are fine and I took an interest in them as they were happening but I'm 100% with Judas on this one. Stop putting up any goddamn part of the wiki for good article status. From now on I'm going to compulsively vote "no" on anything that comes through this system which doesn't fall into the classic category of a zombie or survivor guide.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
6. No - As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Nooooooooooo! Skywalker style baby. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I'd like to thank Whitehouse for actually being constructive and aiding the process of improving articles. 17:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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: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)

---