Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Good articles

I've noticed that on Wikipedia they have Good articles that are not at FA level, and may never be due to the limited scope of their content. I think this is a good idea, as, especially with something like Star Wars, there are a number of articles on smaller characters that are actually of a very high quality. The lack of information means they cannot be thousands of words long though.

How would people feel about introducing "Good articles" here? --Eyrezer 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good! Maybe we could add something like the featured star to the good articles...say, a green star? --Xwing328(Talk) 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Somebody brought this up a while back, although nothing ever came of it. But I really like the idea and I'm all for it! -- Ozzel 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and created a template to use for this - Template:Good. It's based on the same thing as the featured star, but uses a green check instead. Hopefully we can start to implement this and vote for articles that qualify as "Good." --Xwing328(Talk) 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Do we need to run this throught the consensus thread? Here are the requirements from Wikipedia:

A good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

--Eyrezer 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay guys, let's take this for a test run. Head on over to Wookieepedia:Good articles and take a look. Any comments, suggestions or whateve can probably go on the talk page. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we need to change the part in section number 2 since we don't do cites and references like they do on Wikipedia. -- Ozzel 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I believe articles should have every appearance, mention, source, etc. listed before being eligible (following the current method we use on Wookieepedia). --Xwing328(Talk) 01:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Before we get too far along with this, should the {{good}} template be incorporated into the {{eras}} template to keep it from covering up the era icons? This was somewhat discussed here - Forum:Eras and Featuredstar templates - and here - Forum:Era/Star troubles. --Xwing328(Talk) 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we would probably have to make a new one called {{eragood}}. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well {{erasstar}} didn't solve the problem with {{featuredstar}}. Actually, all we'd have to do is add the "good" symbol to {{eraicon}}. Then to label an article as good, type {{era|good}}. Does that make sense? If you give me permission, I'll go ahead and do it and we can see how it works. --Xwing328(Talk) 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Go for it. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, I think its done...testing (see top of page) --Xwing328(Talk) 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Looks good, although I don't think articles should be both good and featured. Featured articles should trump good articles so that only one icon is shown at the top. --Eyrezer 07:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I agree. That was just to test it. --Xwing328(Talk) 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Cool --Eyrezer 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we've got the tag down. I guess the next step should be to create Wookieepedia:Good article and get the requirements finalized. -- Ozzel 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Im for this 100% Roron Corobb 8:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the template from this page just so it wouldn't add this forum to the category.--Xwing328(Talk) 05:39, 21 July 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.