10,278
edits
118Wiki:Featured Articles: Difference between revisions
m
Adding a "Featured Article Review" section. This may be developed at a later date.
m (Adding a "Featured Article Review" section. This may be developed at a later date.) |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*'''Slight Support''': Some concern about aspects of the actual character (is it me, or is he a superhero?), but here to judge the article, not the character. As an article, it's presentable, quite detailed, we've ironed a lot of the typos out, though it could still do with a proof read by the characters author in parts. Decent article, yes. Featured Article? Maybe. I'm not totally convinced yet though. - [[User:Salak|<font color="maroon">Lt. Salak</font>]][[Image:Nav-PhoenixC.jpg|30px|USS Tiger]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 08:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | *'''Slight Support''': Some concern about aspects of the actual character (is it me, or is he a superhero?), but here to judge the article, not the character. As an article, it's presentable, quite detailed, we've ironed a lot of the typos out, though it could still do with a proof read by the characters author in parts. Decent article, yes. Featured Article? Maybe. I'm not totally convinced yet though. - [[User:Salak|<font color="maroon">Lt. Salak</font>]][[Image:Nav-PhoenixC.jpg|30px|USS Tiger]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Salak|Talk]]</i></sup> 08:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
**'''Slight Oppose''': I've worked hard to set aside my distaste for certain aspects of the character and look solely at the quality of the article itself. After reading recently promoted and nominated articles, I don't think "presentable" is good enough for featured article. I'm glad this article had the makeover it did (ironing out typos, grammatically incorrect passages, etc.) and this really is a decent article, but I don't think that it showcases our group's writing the way a Featured Article should. I think the time and effort that he's put into thinking through the character is laudable, but the writing doesn't engage the reader and keep them interested in a way I would expect a Featured Article to. There is lots of detail, which is usually a good thing, but sometimes this leads to redundant passages with significant repeating from section to section. In short, this is a decent article but decent does not equal Featured. [[User:EJVerde|Karynn Ehlanii]] 11:38, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | **'''Slight Oppose''': I've worked hard to set aside my distaste for certain aspects of the character and look solely at the quality of the article itself. After reading recently promoted and nominated articles, I don't think "presentable" is good enough for featured article. I'm glad this article had the makeover it did (ironing out typos, grammatically incorrect passages, etc.) and this really is a decent article, but I don't think that it showcases our group's writing the way a Featured Article should. I think the time and effort that he's put into thinking through the character is laudable, but the writing doesn't engage the reader and keep them interested in a way I would expect a Featured Article to. There is lots of detail, which is usually a good thing, but sometimes this leads to redundant passages with significant repeating from section to section. In short, this is a decent article but decent does not equal Featured. [[User:EJVerde|Karynn Ehlanii]] 11:38, 30 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
==[[Image:Cscr-candidate.png|16px]] Featured Article Review== | |||
:''This section is for the re-evalution of existing Featured Articles, in the event that an existing Featured Article is felt to fall below the expected standards. An article that fails a Review will lose its Featured Status.'' | |||
:''Please place each article title as a linked level 3 header (like <nowiki>===[[this]]===</nowiki>) below this italicised instruction text. The newest discussion is to be placed nearest the top. Please add '''Retain''', '''Demote''' or '''Comment''' in bold in front of your first constructive comment in reply to an article name and stamp each comment with 4 tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If you wish to switch your opinion, strikethrough your previous stance (by surrounding with <nowiki><s> and </s></nowiki> <s>'''like this'''</s>) and post your new stance before your comment.'' | |||
==[[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] [[:Category:Featured Articles|Featured Articles]]== | ==[[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] [[:Category:Featured Articles|Featured Articles]]== | ||