|
This project is for determining which articles should be classified as featured articles. Featured articles exemplify some of the best written and most informational articles on TF2 Wiki that adhere to the featured article criteria. Before submitting a page for featured article review, nominators may wish to first receive feedback by listing the article for open review.
Nominators are expected to make an effort to correct any objections that arise. Nominators are also expected to respond regularly to the article discussion, and adjust accordingly to constructive criticism.
In order for an article to be promoted, a consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators.
Consensus is determined by the featured article project leader (currently WanderingFox)
Once consensus has been reached, the article will either be marked as a featured article by the project leader, or a list of the criteria that the article fails to meet will be listed.
Nomination procedure
- Before nominating an article, please ensure that it meets all of the featured article criteria.
- If there have been no previous nominations for the article, or if the previous nominations have been archived, proceed to the next step. If a nomination is already in process, please use the current one.
- Create a new sub-section under the Nominated articles on the nominations page, with a link to the page as the section title. Don't forget to include your initial reasoning for the nomination.
- Add the {{Featured article candidate}} template to the top of the article's talk page.
Supporting and Objecting
Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
- To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (do not use the edit link for the whole page).
- To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
- To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the project leader may ignore it.
- Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that the matter has been addressed, they should say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text.
- To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominated articles
Nominating this article on the grounds that it's factually complete, and to the point. -- WanderingFox (Talk • Contribs) 10:25, 18 December 2007 (CST)
- I tentatively agree, it is a decent article but a bit more wikifying is needed to give plenty of paths for the reader to follow (a See also section would be useful as well). Also a few specific strategies on where best to cloak would be beneficial. --Aurora 10:29, 18 December 2007 (CST)
- I thought so as well. I'm really using this article as a test of process. It's something that's likely to show up here that will cause some discussion, and has some things to improve upon, but it certainly has potential. I'll wikify the article shortly. -- WanderingFox (Talk • Contribs) 10:32, 18 December 2007 (CST)
- I've added more links, and reordered/worded some of the content. Please look at the page again, and let me know if you still feel it's lacking. -- WanderingFox (Talk • Contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2007 (CST)
- Changed to Support --Aurora 17:14, 19 December 2007 (CST)
Oops do you want me to undo this its a good article and looks to fulfil the criteria the current cloak one has been up forever as well--markdeadlydavis 07:39, 11 January 2008 (CST)
- Comment The article is missing a few commas and has some other minor grammatical errors. I'll change this to support when they get fixed. -- WanderingFox (Talk • Contribs) 13:38, 11 January 2008 (CST)
- Support A few things before I think its ready for a featured article: --Nos 14:33, 11 January 2008 (CST)
- Dispensers cost 100 metal and a destroyed Dispenser leaves 50 metal worth of pieces. seems awkward to me. How about more along the lines of ... the remains of a destroyed dispenser are worth 50 metal. Or something. 50 metal worth of pieces just doesn't flow right, at least to me.
- The section about "two classes that can really benefit..." that has three points. I would suggest the third point not be a point, but another sentence following the two points.
- Should we leave in the part about needle boosting? I know it was part of the game, but its not really relevant any more.
- Should we have a template for buildings, which is maybe little more than a little table that includes metal needed, health, time to build, etc.?
- I think ive adressed al but the building one which i dont follow --mark"d"davis 08:39, 22 January 2008 (CST)
- Everything major has been addressed. The template idea was simply a suggestion, and doesn't really impact the usefulness of the article to any major degree. Going to go ahead and make this a featured article. Good job. -- WanderingFox (Talk • Contribs) 11:50, 23 January 2008 (CST)
Its well written, has lots of images, is quite fun to read, and it links well to other parts of the wiki --mark"d"davis 09:39, 28 February 2008 (CST)
- Comment. I partially agree. Is it just me or do the pictures in that article seem too disorganized. I think once we fix those up it could definitely be a featured article. --CountDOODOO 11:43, 28 February 2008 (CST)
- Comment. I'm the same as Count, they are a little disorganised and I think I would prefer a better main picture (might just be my eyes but it seems a little unclear). As a standard article it's fine but if it is going to be a Featured article I think these little things need addressing. Maybe we could do away with the table and just show all the gib pictures alongside each other in like a gallery (but not use the gallery feature) below everything else? Other than that it is a good candidate. --Aurora 12:02, 28 February 2008 (CST)
- Done the better main image i waited all night for someone to kill me, on the plus side my screenshot folder is quite full now, any more work needed ? --mark"d"davis 10:09, 14 March 2008 (CDT)
- I thought it was time we changed the featured article, so I spent a bit of time tidying up the Gibs article. Is it ready to go out into the big, wide world?--Wilsonator 22:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well written, concise, good images and layout and now that the table information has been added, complete. What do you think? --Wilsonator 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
|
