Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured article nominations
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)
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 • (Talk • Contribs • Edits) 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. -- 10:59, 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:-
- The text is entirely written by TG editors with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation;
- There are no outstanding 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 Standards, as well as those laid out in the relevant Project;
- The text is sprinkled with relevant 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.: disambiguation, see also, main, navigation, pronounce, familytree;
- Where applicable, contains interwiki links;
- Preferably no red-links, but no more than half-a-dozen.
- For me, 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)
- I like it. -- 17:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, under "References" on Eriador is bibliographical information, not footnotes (perhaps we have been taught different things). Regardless, I like the criteria, yet it still seems too objective. --Breragor • (Talk • Contribs • Edits) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)