Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Featured article nominations

(Difference between revisions)
m (Removed a "the")
m (Smaug)
Line 96: Line 96:
 
*'''Agree''' - kudos indeed to [[User:KingAragorn|that fellow]]. >.< --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 
*'''Agree''' - kudos indeed to [[User:KingAragorn|that fellow]]. >.< --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 
*'''Agree''' - meets all the criteria -- [[User:Eldarion Telcontar|Eldarion Telcontar]] 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 
*'''Agree''' - meets all the criteria -- [[User:Eldarion Telcontar|Eldarion Telcontar]] 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 +
:Since [[Smaug]] has enough votes, shouldn't it be featured? --[[User:Amroth|Amroth]] 14:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  
 
[[Category:Featured Article Nominations|Featured Article Nominations]]
 
[[Category:Featured Article Nominations|Featured Article Nominations]]

Revision as of 14:31, 6 June 2011

Contents

Featured Articles

Any registered user can nominate an article for featured status. It should be well-written, complete, illustrated, and referenced and meet these specific criteria:

  1. The text is entirely written by TG editors with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation;
  2. There are no outstanding maintenance templates on the article;
  3. The article is well-referenced throughout, leaving the reader under no illusions as to where to source information themselves;
  4. The article conforms to TG's Standards, as well as those laid out in the relevant Project;
  5. The text is sprinkled with relevant images (including captions) of appropriate size - if necessary, including a gallery;
  6. Articles are at least 5,000 bytes long;
  7. Where applicable, contains "History", "Portrayal in Adaptations", "In Other Versions of the Legendarium", "See Also", "Genealogy", "Etymology", "Other Names and Titles" and "Bibliography" sections;
  8. Where applicable, full use has been made of relevant templates, e.g.: disambiguation, see also, main, navigation, pronounce, familytree, sequence;
  9. Where applicable, contains interwiki links;
  10. Preferably no red-links, but no more than half-a-dozen.

After nomination, an article should receive five votes with with no objections within a month or so; each user being able to cast one vote. Each entry should begin with Agree, Disagree or Undecided and be signed by the user, and, if they choose, an explanation of their vote.

Gandalf

It's a pretty impressive article, and well deserved for my favourite character and such an interesting character.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  07:14, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

  • Agree. If I'm not mistaking, Gandalf has already been FA once. That doesn't mean it can't be again, but it's near the end of the queue. Oh, agree, btw. but the sourcing needs to be a bit better. -- Ederchil 08:01, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. This article is extensive, appears complete, well-referenced, and lavishly illustrated. It is a prime example of what an FA should be.--Theoden1 13:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Yes, quite well done. Excellent, in fact.--Ingwe
  • Agree. Nice long article, good information, plus good introduction into Tolkien. Unsigned comment by ZehnWaters (talk • contribs).
  • Agree. After reading it, I have to admit it is the best article we have.--Odysseas-Spartan53 10:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Exellent Article! Besides, Gandalf is the heart of Tolkien's work. His article deserves to be featured. mthomas 12:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. The first thing new users see is the main page, and generally people are most familiar with Gandalf. --Yurpee
  • Agree. A central character in the LoTR trilogy. Everyone knows who he is and he deserves a good moment in the spotlight. -- Naruvir
  • Disagree - I think it's a big cluttered in its structure and severely lacks sources required to make it worthy of the title. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Gondor

Gondor would be a good choice. It's extensive, covers many bases, and has the requisite references. It should be next in line to be voted on for FA status.--Theoden1 10:41, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Undecided - although well-written, I think it needs to be better referenced as we should only show off the very best articles that TG has to offer. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dwarves

I think they're not given enough credit nor enough recognition - they're the most overshadowed of the major races in Tolkien's legendarium.

  • Agree - I don't know if the banner at the top of the article matters, so if not it has my full support. Otherwise I vote for another Dwarves-related article. -- Breragor
  • Undecided - As an article it needs some work, as is clear with the {{sources}} template at the top. However I agree that as a race they are often overlooked. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  03:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - A complete lack of sources, the structure is a bit haphazard and it contains a few too many redlinks and spelling errors for my liking. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - I have been personally working on compiling all the information I can find on Dwarves in Tolkiens books, even if it conflicts with itself. Once it is compiled for my personal use I will copy it to this website. -- TolkienScholar91 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - See Mith. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Númenor

It has been over a month (and there are "disagree" votes up there ^^) so I figured it's time for a new nomination; Númenor.

  • Agree - I believe Númenor and its history to be some of the most interesting in all of the legendarium. For it is in this history that Gondor and Arnor (and many great things and people in Middle Earth) are rooted. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 18:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Lack of sources, and I think the article is poorly structured (and contains fanon). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't there be a banner on the page then? Look, it's about choosing Númenor as the article (i.e. whether you think it deserves such recognition) and NOT the article itself. This is a perfectly fine article, it's not a stub and not horribly written, so just take it easy, Mith. On this page you have disagreed with every article unless you wrote it! --Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
How do you even find the Locations Portal? Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
I made it. Also there's a link to it on the Main Page. All portals are currently under development. Please don't remove "{{unsigned|Breragor}}", just sign your posts as you managed to do when you nominated Númenor yesterday. Thank you. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  22:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

J.R.R. Tolkien

It's about time the featured article was changed - this has many pictures, details, and sources.

  • Agree - The man himself deserves credit. If this article is not in good enough shape, I'm not sure what is. Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
  • Disagree - I feel bad about disagreeing again (as you pointed out I've disagreed to everything else), however, this article has some glaring faults:-
    1. It's not our article - it's Wikipedia's;
    2. As the largest (by far) Tolkien wiki, I feel that each and ever article we have should be better than all our competitors. Our article is significantly lacking when compared to the current Wikipedia article (which has been featured);
    3. No references at all: it contains an unused - and partly disordered - bibliography;
    4. It's barely been improved over the last six years, which is why we have the article J.R.R. Tolkien/temp as a plan for future development.
Unfortunately, for all the above, I feel this article cannot become the featured article.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Smaug

This article has developed pretty decently (kudos to User:KingAragorn for tracking all those refs!). Has it reached a FA status yet? --Morgan 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree - (once the original research issue is resolved). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree --Amroth 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - though if I have any fault with it, it's that the Etymology section is a bit hollow. It's three sentences, three lines, three sources. It doesn't really form one whole. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree about the Etymology section. I added something from The Ring of Words, which "fleshes" out the first paragraph a bit. The Trāgu stuff is still a bit apart, and I was thinking of adding something along the lines of "While Smaug is the name recorded in the Red Book of Westmarch, the dragon's original name in the language of Dale was Trāgu.", but I'm afraid it would close to over-interpretation..?--Morgan 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Smaug has enough votes, shouldn't it be featured? --Amroth 14:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)