From D&D Wiki
1. It is well written, comprehensive and stable.
- a. "Well Written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard.
- b. "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
- c. "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the formatting guidelines, including:
3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
4. Where appropriate it adheres to the d20 SRD or the d20 Modern SRD.
5. Variant rules should be beneficial, understandable and not overly encumberant.
- a. "Beneficial" means that the variant rule should be useful to player's or DM's
- b. "Understandable" means that the variant rule is written in such a way that it can be comprehended by the average player
- c. "Not overly encumberant" means that the variant rule should not be more complected than is necessary. It should enhance game play not slow it down.
--Hawk 19:49, 4 March 2008 (MST)
- I added it then changed it a bit (http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Featured_Articles&diff=236146&oldid=236144). Let me know what you think. --Green Dragon 01:36, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- I saw good work your words are much more eloquent --Hawk 02:00, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- Thanks :). --Green Dragon 20:44, 13 March 2008 (MDT)
I suggest adding a section:
=== Featured Articles Under Review ===
These are all the featured articles that have been nominated for review. Sometimes articles may change dramatically or the criteria for featured status may be changed, articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be listed for review.
category=Featured Articles Under Review
--Hawk 23:31, 4 March 2008 (MST)
- Go for it. Also, you should make a template to go along with it. --Green Dragon 01:37, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- By template do you mean category? --Hawk 02:01, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- Oh you mean Template for the talk page like the other one I pretty much stole from wikipedia. Sorry a bit slow tonight. --Hawk 02:04, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- You're fine. Thanks for doing all that. Also, I changed the image on the template (I thought it looked a little silly (it almost appeared as an arrow, and especially at first glance it did)) and truncated the wording. --Green Dragon 02:37, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- You're like my own personal editor :)... or perhaps more of a janitor cleaning up my mess :-p --Hawk 02:40, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- I still think the template:featured article looks weird on the right above the author box but thats just me. I also think we should find a 'director' for this section unless you honestly want more work to do GD? but that can wait until things get busier here... they will I tell you even if I have to pull out my +3 poking stick of motivation. --Hawk 02:50, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- I agree, a director can wait until things get more busy here. Although I would like to see this poking stick of motivation ;). --Green Dragon 22:08, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- I try not to use it too often as it is a cursed item there is a 30% chance the target will attack the wielder out of annoyance. the chance goes up by 5% every time it is used on the same target. Perhaps you should update that news item about all this so it says something along the lines of polish up your work children and submit it for review your community needs you. lol--Hawk 22:48, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- Done. --Green Dragon 00:15, 6 March 2008 (MST)
- It's amusing how many news items I have instigated in the month I've been here lol. *Ponders more changes :P*. --Hawk 05:53, 6 March 2008 (MST)
Give it a Try
Someone should nominate an article so we can give this a try. --Green Dragon 02:38, 5 March 2008 (MST)
I do not think nominations should be a democracy. I think the opposes and the supports should we weighed on their merits and a final decision based on that be decided. Thoughts? Who would make the final call, or can anyone think of a way to make the community make the final call? --Green Dragon 02:50, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- see above ^^^ --Hawk 02:51, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- Democratically elect a director (s)he makes the final call --Hawk 02:52, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- God I thieve a lot of ideas from wikipedia someone stop me *slaps self* --Hawk 02:55, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- Lol. --Green Dragon 22:08, 5 March 2008 (MST)
- GD: as a general rule of thumb how long do you think a nomination should be left open and just to be clear soon as we don't have a director yet you'll be making the final call on article nominations right? --Hawk 22:37, 6 March 2008 (MST)
- I will make the final call right now. Also, I think we can leave them open until the person with the final say in the nomination calls it good. Currently, for example, the Spider Rider is almost done whereas Chuck Norris is slowly dying. That one will soon be a failed nomination (most likely) and once the Spider Rider is finished with an example NPC, encounter, and a few other things, it will be a passed nomination. If those things never materialize, it will be a failed nomination. I guess I am trying to say that they should each be taken on their own merits. --Green Dragon 21:18, 9 March 2008 (MDT)
- Fair enough :) --Hawk 21:41, 9 March 2008 (MDT)
- The spider rider has an example NPC ect. now. --Sam Kay 10:41, 12 March 2008 (MDT)
- Please only post comments here that pertain to this discussion. This is not an MoI system. Thanks. --Green Dragon 20:22, 12 March 2008 (MDT)
- Maybe make it a vote between a democratically elected council of five people (or just amongst the admins). You could put the voting site up as a featured article for a week, and then replace it with whatever the nominated article is supposed to be. For the voting system, nomination would involve making a section with their name as the title, and then below you have people vote post "yea" and then sign to vote for him. After the week is over, the four people with the most votes would form the council, along with Green Dragon. Example.
I have been frequently analyzing my Dashing Swordsman (which is in a slump right now) and as I did so, I decided to take a look at the other nominees. Apparently, none of the nominees have been looked at in a while. While this makes me feel slightly better about my own nominee being covered in dust, I am curious (and anxious). Is it possible for nominees to be removed or deleted or anything if they get ignored for a long enough period of time? It could be a while before any of these make much progress. --Sir Milo Teabag 21:18, 4 May 2008 (MDT)
- I agree, articles that are not improving should stop being nominated. --Green Dragon 23:47, 4 May 2008 (MDT)
- In that case, how long do you think I could safely postpone editing my class? I want to keep it around, but I still haven't figured out how to work the preload. If it is removed, could I re-nominate it again in the future after I finally get around to making those changes? I also want to know what criteria we use to determine if something is too old or not. --Sir Milo Teabag 06:21, 8 May 2008 (MDT)
I believe we should set some goals on our FA. Goals such as How long a Featured Article stays on the main page while defining how we get an article to FA status with questions like How many votes/What percentage of support is needed for an article to be considered FA as well as How long does a nomination last?. With questions like these we can prevent the static appearance of our main page and help improve more articles. My personal answers:
- I believe that an attainable goal immediately would be monthly, and once a routine is set, within a few months we should be able to have a weekly fa on the main page.
- With our current FA nomination discussions in mind, I'd say most of the voting/commenting happens in the first week, and that nominations should have that deadline. 10:30, 17 December 2008 (MST)
I think Endhaven (3.5e Campaign Setting) is worthy of a FA nom and to see what the rest of the community thinks. However, the campaign setting is massive, so my question is this: Is it possible to highlight an entire campaign setting for FA status or would we need to seek out individual pages to highlight on specifics? 08:50, 9 January 2009 (MST)
So is this still being worked on? Derro was added back in June. All the noms except mine and neo-reploid were from over a year ago and haven't been acted on or rejected. Is there a process to this? --Wrecan 09:50, 28 September 2011 (MDT)
- Technically, yes, it's being used. But practically... the last featured article was nominated then confirmed within 30 hours (after only one vote), and after nomination there was a huge discussion which basically amounted to "this isn't good enough to be featured". JazzMan 09:57, 28 September 2011 (MDT)
- No. It was nominated, let's see, 17:03, 23 February 2009 (MST) and confirmed 12:20, 8 June 2011 (MDT). Things need to be of exceptional quality to be a FA, which almost none of these things are (I get the feeling that some people like nominating things which are not that great to improve them). --Green Dragon 18:51, 3 December 2011 (MST)
- That one, right. I assumed no one would say anything anyway since the main contributor kept silent. It was mostly fine too. This doesn't deter from the problem that people use this as a dump for their work which they want improved (e.g. Talk:Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook)– e.g. feats). For this reason its hard to cycle through the pages quickly enough. --Green Dragon 12:21, 9 January 2012 (MST)
- Well since this is only supposed to be used for pages that are complete, I can't see why people would use it for pages they want completed. As for "kept silent"... that's hard to judge on such a slow-moving wiki. The user's last contribution before his page was nominated was about a month an a half prior. JazzMan 18:16, 15 January 2012 (MST)
- I started going through them. As you can notice pages like Chocobo Breeding (3.5e Variant Rule) didn't even have an image. I'm all for getting more pages to be FAs and thereby cycling through them faster, so by all means please take some initiative here and get these looked over. I am sure you know what a good page is. --Green Dragon 12:18, 31 January 2012 (MST)
- Would it be worthwhile to introduce something like the good article review like wikipedia has? It could focus more on formatting and things so people would have a good idea of what needs to be corrected before they try to submit it for FA. Tivanir 11:29, 23 March 2012 (MDT)
- I think the problem is that people do not feel comfortable submitting pages for FA review. If we got more pages in the FA review system then I think we could consider it. I think that first we need to make sure that people do not feel offed by the FA process. How can we do this? Do you think that it would make sense to simplify (at least attempt) the process? Ideas? --Green Dragon (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2012 (MDT)