FANDOM


Forums > Consensus track archive > CT Archive/Featured article criteria


This is for discussion on the criteria for Featured Article nominations, because we need some, BADLY. StarNeptune 06:57, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Proposed criteriaEdit

  1. Well written and detailed
  2. NPOV
  3. Sourced with all available sources and appearances
  4. Follows the Manual of Style and the Layout Guide
  5. Not be the object of any ongoing edit wars
  6. Must not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc)
  7. Succint proper lead that can be used for the front page featured box.

Comments/discussionEdit

  • Redlinks should be looked at carefully. At most an article can have 5, pending they are not detrimental to the subject in the article. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:58, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • A fact checking process would be good. --SparqMan 08:28, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I think, for characters, the text of the article should cover a complete biography, summarizing that character's noteworthy actions in every source they've been in. For example, Quinlan Vos is well-written, NPOV, well-sourced, etc., but is still very scarce as far as the meat and potatoes go. --MarcK [talk] 10:08, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't this the same discussion as the ground rules discussion? WhiteBoy 10:52, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • This one is focusing more on the criteria that has to be met before the article is considered worthy to be nominated. The ground rules is more about the nomination/voting process itself, and whether we should change it. I suppose it seems like I'm repeating myself, but they are closely tied together. StarNeptune 13:39, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Revision 1Edit

Here is the revised criteria, based on feedback gained so far.

  1. Well written and detailed
  2. NPOV
  3. Sourced with all available sources and appearances
  4. Follows the Manual of Style and the Layout Guide
  5. Not be the object of any ongoing edit wars
  6. Must not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc)
  7. Succint proper lead that can be used for the front page featured box.
  8. No more than 5 red links (but none is preferrable)
  9. Go through a fact checking process to ensure accuracy (Peer review? Objection system?)
  10. Complete, detailed biography for character articles

CommentsEdit

Add comments here.

  • Support wholeheartedly. --MarcK [talk] 11:29, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Add: Refers to a non-minutia topic. No matter how well it's written, Wookieepedia cannot feature an article about the life and times of Private CT 997 in the GAR. Add: Up to date, i.e., all recently released data is included.--The Erl of Wookieepedia
  • I would change the redlink criteria to a redlinks/number of paragraphs relation. A really large article could have 6 or 7 redlinks and that wouldn't look like an excess, while 4 redlinks in an article with 4 paragraphs could be considered very incomplete (though such a small article probably wouldn't be proposed anyways). --Thinortolan 23:50, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a lot less concerned about redlinks myself—an article with seven red links is just as good on its own as an article with seven blue links (especially if the linked articles are substubs, or require cleanup anyway.) — Silly Dan 23:59, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point, though I don't think we should completelly discard a redlink criteria. Maybe something more like using common sense with the amount and importance of redlinks could be better. --Thinortolan 12:31, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.