Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured articles/Nominations

(Difference between revisions)
(Ederchil's proposals and my own (which are broadly the same))
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
::I recall coming up with a list a year or so back, but I can't recall where it is. -- {{User:Ederchil/sig}} 12:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 
::I recall coming up with a list a year or so back, but I can't recall where it is. -- {{User:Ederchil/sig}} 12:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::{{blockquote|A FA must:<ul><li>Describe an important event, artifact or person, be it in the real-world or in Arda.</li><li>Have a limited amount of redlinks (5%?).</li><li>Have full sourcing.</li><li>Have some good images.</li><li>Have a bulk of text in the "History"  section.</li><li>Have (if available) a full "Portrayal in Adaptations" section.</li><li>Have (if available) a full genealogy in the [[:Template:Familytree|familytree]] template.</li><li>Have (if available) an "Other Versions of the Legendarium"  section.</li><li>Have as many relevant templates (disambigs, see also's, navigation, pronounce) as possible.</li><li>Have language links if available.</li><li>Have a "Merchandise" section (for [[Decipher Cards]], [[Games Workshop]], chess pieces et cetera).</li></ul>|[[User:Ederchil]] at [[Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured articles]] on 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)}}
 +
:::I'm broadly in agreement with the above, but I would add "location" to the list of acceptable topics and take out the requirement for a "Merchandise" section. My own proposals would look like this:-
 +
 +
:::#The text is ''entirely'' written by TG editors with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation;
 +
:::#There are no outstanding [[:Category:Maintenance templates|maintenance templates]] on the article;
 +
:::#The article is well referenced throughout, leaving the reader under no illusions as to where to source information themselves;
 +
:::#The article conforms to TG's [[Tolkien Gateway:Manual of Style|Standards]], as well as those laid out in the relevant [[Tolkien Gateway:Projects|Project]];
 +
:::#The text is sprinkled with ''relevant'' [[Help:Images|images]] (including captions) of appropriate size - if necessary, including a gallery;
 +
:::#Articles are at least 5,000 bytes long (for comparison, that's the current revisions of [[Beorn]] or [[Tar-Aldarion]]);
 +
:::#Where applicable, contains "History", "Portrayal in Adaptations", "In Other Versions of the Legendarium", "See Also", "Genealogy", "Etymology" and "Bibliography" sections;
 +
:::#Where applicable, ''full use'' has been made of relevant templates, e.g.: [[:Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates|disambiguation]], [[Template:Seealso|see also]], [[Template:Main|main]], [[Template:Navigation|navigation]], [[Template:Pronounce|pronounce]], [[:Template:Familytree|familytree]];
 +
:::#Where applicable, contains interwiki links;
 +
:::#Preferably no red-links, but no more than half-a-dozen.
 +
:::For more, any article which can tick those boxes should be an FA (and is currently how I judge articles). --{{User:Mith/sig}} 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:18, 2 March 2011

Nomination limits

Let's try to hold the nominations down to 2 or 3 at a time. Hyarion wants to concentrate on bringing more articles up to standards, and I agree.--Theoden1 16:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


Criteria

I think we should come up with better criteria for nominating an article. Some people have mentioned pictures, references, and sources as necessary components - I'll agree. Yet saying we cannot use this article becuase it has no footnotes, when the Featured Article doesn't have any cannot work out. Can we establish a formal list of criteria? --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

O.o Eriador has 45 footnotes. But yes, I agree, it's a good idea to establish a list of criteria. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  10:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I recall coming up with a list a year or so back, but I can't recall where it is. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
A FA must:
  • Describe an important event, artifact or person, be it in the real-world or in Arda.
  • Have a limited amount of redlinks (5%?).
  • Have full sourcing.
  • Have some good images.
  • Have a bulk of text in the "History" section.
  • Have (if available) a full "Portrayal in Adaptations" section.
  • Have (if available) a full genealogy in the familytree template.
  • Have (if available) an "Other Versions of the Legendarium" section.
  • Have as many relevant templates (disambigs, see also's, navigation, pronounce) as possible.
  • Have language links if available.
  • Have a "Merchandise" section (for Decipher Cards, Games Workshop, chess pieces et cetera).

User:Ederchil at Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured articles on 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm broadly in agreement with the above, but I would add "location" to the list of acceptable topics and take out the requirement for a "Merchandise" section. My own proposals would look like this:-
  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 (for comparison, that's the current revisions of Beorn or Tar-Aldarion);
  7. Where applicable, contains "History", "Portrayal in Adaptations", "In Other Versions of the Legendarium", "See Also", "Genealogy", "Etymology" and "Bibliography" sections;
  8. Where applicable, full use has been made of relevant templates, e.g.: disambiguation, see also, main, navigation, pronounce, familytree;
  9. Where applicable, contains interwiki links;
  10. Preferably no red-links, but no more than half-a-dozen.
For more, any article which can tick those boxes should be an FA (and is currently how I judge articles). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)