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

Banana Tactics

Well-written, delivers information in a concise and easy-read manner, and does not arse around with NPOV or pointlessness. This article has shown itself to be beloved by the community and perhaps now is the time to give it the spotlight it deserves.

Yes

1. Yes - Superb article. Bravo Karl. 15:16, 7 September 2010 (BST)

No

1. Die in a fire --Thadeous Oakley 15:39, 7 September 2010 (BST)
2. As Thad. —Aichon— 15:51, 7 September 2010 (BST)
3. Not worthy. - User:Whitehouse 16:28, 7 September 2010 (BST)

Mycock

Mycock is amazing! everyone loves mycock, why not put mycock on the main page? Then everyone can ogle at the glory of mycock.--VVV ^RPMBG 21:35, 6 September 2010 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes - Who doesn't love mycock? --VVV ^RPMBG 21:35, 6 September 2010 (BST)
2. Mycock deserves to be featured. Mycock is that big a deal. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:37, 6 September 2010 (BST)
3. We need featured locations. Mycock is one of the best locations in town to be. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 21:42, 6 September 2010 (BST)
4. I hardly had to think. --Thadeous Oakley 21:50, 6 September 2010 (BST)
5. Hmmm... What can be said about Mycock? Mycock is impressive. Mycock is the best by miles. Mycock is generally awesome, and Mycock isn't a stub. I think mycock should definitely be featured. I also want to see Ross writing about Mycock, and a picture of Mycock on the front page.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 21:58, 6 September 2010 (BST)

   Innuendo...sexual innuendo!--Thadeous Oakley 22:04, 6 September 2010 (BST)

6. The only official building to bring the radio filter into its knees. Or rather her knees? -- Spiderzed▋ 22:06, 6 September 2010 (BST)
7. I'm surprised no one recommended mycock before. -- 
   •   Timmah!  
   •   Talk  
   22:59, 6 September 2010 (BST)

No

1. At least until someone turns it from a factual piece into a hilarious play on words. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:54, 7 September 2010 (BST)
2. Boring, not worthy. - User:Whitehouse 15:08, 7 September 2010 (BST)
3. not v lengthy or interesting. unlike mycock. -- LEMON #1 15:18, 7 September 2010 (BST)
4. No, it's ridiculous and has more or less been done over and over again. --Huntress 15:24, 7 September 2010 (BST)
5. Just no. —Aichon— 15:54, 7 September 2010 (BST)

TUMBLEWEED-aikido-river'n-stuff Tactics

This shit be epic, faggots.

Yes

1. -- LEMON #1 13:57, 6 September 2010 (BST)
2. The most used tactic in all of UD. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:07, 6 September 2010 (BST)

No

1. No - But there really should be more nominations. --VVV ^RPMBG 19:21, 6 September 2010 (BST)
2. No - The main problem with this article is that it is hard to tell if it is a guide/strategy or a subtle parody of a guide / strategy. If it was purely a guide with better formatting and information, it would be pure awesomeness. If it was entirely a parody, it would be liquid sex. Unfortunately, it tries to be both and fails at becoming either. - MHSstaff 20:17, 6 September 2010 (BST)
3. No - We don't want to give newbies the wrong impression. —Aichon— 15:52, 7 September 2010 (BST)
4. Not helpful. - User:Whitehouse 16:31, 7 September 2010 (BST)

Recent Nominations

Older nominations can be found in the archive.

Malton Incident

It may be fanmade, but it provides some good backstory to how the zombie incident in Malton started. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:12, 24 July 2010 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes - I'm offended that you think being fanmade is a bad thing. This thing is a vital piece of our history. Without it, we'd have no way of knowing how this all started. --VVV ^RPMBG 02:54, 24 July 2010 (BST)

No

1. This is a no with a but - it's a good page, but it just look amateurish. I might give it an overhaul soon to have things like paragraphs, headers, more interwiki links, etc, though I don't know how that would affect this vote. 02:56, 24 July 2010 (BST)
2. Very similar to Possible Causes for the Situation, they are the two pages on the wiki that should be considered the best in the entire place, but just fall a bit short. Both of these pages added to my fascination with the rich history of Malton when I started many years ago but they need some basic formatting before being accepted IMO. It's not cause I don't think they shouldn't be GA's at this point, it's that with a simple 20 minutes of work, they won't only qualify but will also be miles ahead of what they are now. --
    
    
    
    
   03:07, 24 July 2010 (BST)

Failed -- LEMON #1 13:57, 6 September 2010 (BST)

Spawning

Just finished writing it. Feedback please, want to make sure its correct. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes - I think it's a well made article.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

   So do I,... I'll change my vote to yes sometime before his seven days are up. Just curious to have an answer to the questions presented. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Yes - I think every article is a good one. --Moctezuma ^{The Streltsy} 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - Very thorough. --TripleU 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Weak Yes - It really meets all criteria and pretty interesting. But the accuracy of the article is under the question. it'd be cool to gather statistics on a distance somehow, but it's kind of abuse to the system. --fe328 23:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Yes - Maybe not an article that I will read often, but then again that has no bearing on its quality. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Yes A well written article. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
7. yep liked it.. easy to follow.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Rubber stamp it.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Yes - Very easy to follow. And I can't think of anything that is missing. μ_nholy®_eign 09:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Yes - well rounded, good stuff. -Jack Kolt 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Yes - A surprisingly good article indeed. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Yes - A lot of effort was put into this as well as many charecter names.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No

Against I think that the article needs to address the issue of 'what happens if the building requirments aren't met?' For example: under the Lab Assistant section,... what happens if there are no NT buildings that fit the crieria? Granted, this may never be the case,... in fact, I doubt that this would ever be the case,... but what if? Is there a really good answer for this? BTW, my vote can easily be swayed to a yes vote,... it's just that this is something I notice, and was hoping it could be addressed in some way... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Probably something I can't do with spadework, unless I spend a day creating Necrotech assistant Alts and then throwing barricades at the relevant NT's. Probably a question for Kevan. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not now anymore, but that could have been the case during the March of the Dead. No Necrotechs meeting requirements I mean.--Thadeous Oakley 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, so this issue would have to be addressed through a case study,... Perhaps such a thing should be noted in the article somewhere? Personally, I've got a similar, also interesting take on this subject. Considering the priority of NT buildings within the game, and the community as a whole, and inversly, being the big target they are for zombie groups,... how often do you think conditions like this exist? And is it VSB or lower? At that, when it comes to spawning, is this really a luck of the draw sort of thing, or is it something thats vastly affected by the actions of the people playing the game? I think that that's worth noting in the article to, simply because that last point I made is the whole allure of the game to a great many people... everything is situational, and all outcomes are affected solely by the individuals playing... and thus, so are the spawning locations in a way. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Lord and Saviour has answered on his talk page. I'll add to the page, today. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote struck, and changed to yes. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable accuracy and the minor need to test what happens if there are no valid spawnpoints.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No valid spawnpoints query answered. Now explain how I can improve on the so called questionable accuracy? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just rather dubious that there would be a complex method of spawning when you could have someone just spawn anywhere but...well...eh. Kevan replied and didn't try to knock you down so I'll change my vote.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Poodle and SS's reasons are so utterly stupid; if they think the reason for a glossary/player-resource article like this is to just prove what would happen in extreme hypothetical situations, then they are wrong. Having said that, this article is useful to show interested users the nature of spawning; and that is all. GA's in general should have the ability to interest any user into reading at leased a bit of it, but I don't think this has it. Narrow/special interest works don't generally fit my idea of a GA. --
    
    
    
    
   05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

   I just felt the article needed to be 'complete'. It's 'complete', so that's why the Keep. I don't see a GA needing to personally interest anyone, as long as it's a Good Article (NPOV, Compelte, Well Written, "Awesome"), it suffices.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

   By personally interest people, I mean it needs something in it that does inherently make it "awesome". This is boring. It covers a concept that is experienced within the first two clicks of making an UD account for everyone, I think this sort of coverage isn't unnecessary, but not groundbreaking enough to be a GA at all. --

    

    

    

    

   23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

   I think its range is more than that. It adds another reason for cading TRP's to only VSB and shows another benefit of emitting a feeding groan (which needs a major rewrite). I also think that its important to note that some suburbs underpopulation might be due to their lack of Firestations and Necrotechs. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

   Also why there might be a lower zed presence within the same suburbs,.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This be Successful. --

 

 

 

 

04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A Beginners Guide to Urban Dead

This article has been accessed over 80,000 times,.... has been cited by many other users as still being an important peice of information (as can be seen here, here, here, and here), as well as having been cited for information (like here for example). That said, many users, and pages not listed above, link to it, having thought it was important to keep. Also, when it was reveiwed here, it seemed to have some support as long as it was updated. These are the reasons why I think the article should be a Featured Article. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes As Above. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - Nice article - easy to read, good information. --fe328 11:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes It provides an excellent and highly detailed guide; I wish I knew half this stuff when I was starting out! --Oldharry101 ^W! 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes A little lacking regarding zombies, and understates the importance of malls, but has all the info a fresh slab of meat would need. --TripleU 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Yes OOOhhh.. Ids ddis de beoqqqwww. BEOWWW!!! Get Fit mutha fucka get fit!!! Heeaaywhooo. HOOOO! ShiaaAAAA. i'M About to take a shia lebouf on ya HOOOO!!! HOOO!!!!!!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

   I don't know what you just said other than yes.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Yes - although it could do with being split up into subpages. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Yes Its not really a guide, just a lot of important glossary pages all stuck together in one place. Still an excellent resource mind. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Yes - Helped some of my friends get into the game, wored for them will work for anybody. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No

1. POV much? Lacking basic information and vague when it comes to its own declarations. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

   Vague in it's declarations, and non neutral POV.... hmmm....? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

2. No - I don't really like the layout of it. Perhaps some tables for some of the information, or just links to separate pages with the information (for example Building types). I'm not really a big fan of a huge amount of information on the one page. Don't see why the information on building types needs to be repeated on this page as well, especially useless information like interior and exterior descriptions. It just builds up the page more. μ_nholy®_eign 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

   Really,.... you'd rather have it look like this? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   No I wouldn't like it like that. You know what I meant Don't be a smart-arse. But just in case I didn't make it clear the first time... The beginners guide should give relevant information that beginners need. Just the basics, some details where needed. But NOT a complete guide on the entire game. The details are included on other pages, and people can access them by searching if need be. Rather then clotting up a beginners guide with useless information. On top of that, some basic information that beginners would need isn't included as well. Thats why I don't like it. μ_nholy®_eign 11:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

   I do know what you mean,... however,.... I know being new to a game, I like to waltz in with everything on the table, and a good working knowledge of what I should be doing, or what the working aspects of a game are. Not just having my character spawn someplace... and not know what I should be looking at, or how to get into a building.... or why I should even give a rats ass about libraries,... which you seem to think are absolutly frivolous, amongst other things I've included. Obviously this isn't the case, both from an RP perspective, as well as a strategic perspective, both of which are touched on within the article. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna cycle this as Successful too. --

 

 

 

 

04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)