WikiFur:Featured article candidates

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.

This page is a proposed WikiFur policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Here we determine which articles are featured on WikiFur:Featured articles, and on the front page. A featured article should exemplify WikiFur's very best work. See what is a featured article for criteria.

Once consensus has been reached about a particular topic, place a summary of it it in the next available slot, and update the featured article pages to reflect this. For an article that is particularly significant on a certain day, such as a radio broadcast, it may be suitable to postpone it to a later date.

Contents 1 Procedure 1.1 Adding nominations 1.2 Supporting and objecting 1.3 Writing a good summary 1.4 Featuring an article 2 Nominations 2.1 Mark Allen's Pet Project 2.2 Sono Eliane Anderson-Kei 2.3 Extinctioners 2.4 Fur Valleys 2.5 Teenagers From Outer Space 2.6 London Furmeet 2.7 Vision Entertainment Group 2.8 Furry fandom 2.9 Pornography 2.10 Human 2.11 AX 2.12 ArtPlz

[edit] Procedure

[edit] Adding nominations

1. Check the featured article criteria and make sure the article meets all of them before nominating.
   • WikiFur is not as big as Wikipedia, therefore it may be appropriate to nominate articles that are lacking in one or more areas. You should still try to remedy this to the best of your ability before nominating it.
2. Place {{FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link.
4. (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, WikiFur:Featured article candidates/Television → WikiFur:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1
5. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top.
6. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article.
7. Finally, place {{WikiFur:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.

[edit] Supporting and objecting

Please read nominated articles fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

• To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
• If you approve of an article, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
• If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
  • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to featured article status. This will probably involve some changes to the article based on feedback. Before objecting, consider just changing the article yourself so you don't have to.

[edit] Writing a good summary

Once an article has been selected, it should be summarised in a way that encourages readers to read more about the topic. Ideally, the first paragraph of a featured article is already a lead section, but if it is not you may need to adjust the article. You should merge these sorts of refactoring changes back to the original.

Once this is done, pick and choose sections of the lead to be placed in the featured text. You may also decide to include the lead portions of further sections within the article, or to synthesise your own summary of them. Try to include plenty of links within the summary so that readers have an easy time reading about related topics too.

The final touch is the picture. This should usually be right-aligned and sized to anywhere between 100px to 150px, depending on the shape of the image. Don't forget to turn the text of the article name into a bolded link to the article, otherwise people won't be able to read more about the topic.

[edit] Featuring an article

Once the summary is written, you should feature the article:

1. Place the summary on the appropriate page - e.g. [[WikiFur:This week's featured article/Week 36, 2008]]
2. Change the template on the article's talk page from {{FAC}} to {{featured}}
3. Add {{featured article}} to the very bottom of the article itself (after categories)
4. Make a note of the featured article in the appropriate section of the Featured articles page
5. Add {{WikiFur:This week's featured article/Week 36, 2008}} to the top of the complete list of featured articles
6. Click the header of the month name on that page to bring up the featured article log for that month, and move the nomination discussion template from below to the top of that page.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Mark Allen's Pet Project

I believe that this article meets all of the FA critera. It also covers an area that is lacking in FA's, which is comedy shows realted to the fandom, performed by someone who is NOT a furry themself. The article is referenced, contains an image and I believe covers the main points. ISD 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sono Eliane Anderson-Kei

A very well-written, detailed and complete article along the lines of earlier featured article Banrai--Kendricks Redtail 09:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Articles about people can be problematic because they can request exclusion, or they don't like the attention. But that alone shouldn't stop us from featuring if it really is a compelling article. Mostly, it's lacking in references(I know there's some inline links and some has a self-evident source, but there's a complete lack of references for the rest.) --Rat 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extinctioners

A very complete article about a popular furry comic that features nice imagery and a cast list! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariana Windstorm (talk • contribs) .

It is indeed. But . . . hmm. It's been a featured comic, too. Should we have it as a featured article as well? (I guess technically there's no reason not to, it just seems odd) --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked Samii Tiger what she thought about this. She disagreed, saying it's already seen facetime on the frontpage, so it shouldn't be eligible. I think it's a nice article to feature, but along Samii's lines of logic, I would have to oppose it (although we HAVE repeated FAs before.--Kendricks Redtail 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh...Samii Tiger didn't create the Extinctioners. How's she relevant? Spaz Kitty 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral third party. No connection whatsoever. I could have easily worded it as "Another fur." Also, I'm switching my oppose to support, as we have precedent in Captain Carrot who was both Featured Article AND Featured Comic according to our archives.--Kendricks Redtail 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Lacks references. I do understand that for most of it the series itself is the reference. But the out-of-universe stuff needs references. --Rat 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fur Valleys

Has plenty of information, though it's somewhat fractured - I'm not convinced that the separate section headers work, although perhaps they would with a bit more information in each section. What I think this article really needs are more pictures depicting the different areas - other than that, it seems like it a good article. --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a lot of research, but there's a lot of red links. I don't feel it's ready for the front page in that state. --Rat 05:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious its a long one! My main concern is all the one liner subsections. It feels like a compilation of stubs to me.--Kendricks Redtail

[edit] Teenagers From Outer Space

I suspect there are a few more links that could be added, and I think the language could do with tightening up in some places. Despite this, it appears to give a good summary of the game and would definitely be useful as a "five minute introduction" to it. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is anywhere near being an appropriate featured article. There isn't a single clear mention of furry relevance. In addition to that issue, there a sections that are very casually worded and I would image are quoted from somewhere, and at least one which is an unspecified excerpt. -- Sine 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to furry relevance - it's my understanding that TFOS has been played at furry cons (was mentioned in Jan '97 issue of InFurNation, ConFurence's magazine), usually with large numbers of furry characters - furries are effectively aliens, so it's a pretty good match. I agree that this is not cited in the article as it stands. --GreenReaper^(talk) 09:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good. There's a big block of unformatted text under Elements; maybe format it as a list, or bold the key points. Probably should have another image too. --Rat 06:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I added another image, and tried my idea out on the Elements section. If anyone else wants to try something else, they're welcome too. Support now. --Rat 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I guess from talking to people I understand how this is furry and all, but not once in the article is it even vaguely mentioned why this could be furry. Without the concrete ties, this really doesn't have much of a place here. If we could talk more about how furries can get into this and its popularity at furry cons, then maybe. --Kendricks Redtail 09:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Furmeet

This article has quite a lot of stuff in there. Could do with a little reorganizing and tweaking. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many red links. Should have a couple images. --Rat 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vision Entertainment Group

Has plenty of details, but remains concise. Includes appropriate links to other articles, separate section headers, an image, good formatting etc. My main concern would be that it could be biased due to the lack of editors other than the original writer. Does anyone else here have experience with this group? --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs cleanup, copyedit, some references. --Rat 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furry fandom

I am nominating this article because I feel that it succinctly describes just about every element (including the controversies) of the furry fandom while maintaining objectivity. -- DeVandalizer 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's long, and certainly has lots of information . . . my main concern is that it's recently been overhauled, and the person doing so said it needed more work. Looking at it, it looks like it could do with breaking up a bit more using a bit more in the way of sections, and some pictures (possibly from other articles) would help as well. There are also a lot of redlinks on there that are not specifically furry and should really be linked to Wikipedia instead. --GreenReaper^(talk) 07:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All true, it will require more work but at some point in the future it should be prime material. I'll work on it and hopefully I can get it fixed up by next week. -- DeVandalizer 08:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, too many red links. Unresolved questions of whether it should be split or merged. Needs images. --Rat 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

However featuring it may encourage others to add to it. (Okay, unlikely, but one can dream.) Personally I vote yes.
  Tori Belliachi    talk    contribs    about   23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography

As potentially controversial a topic as this may be, this is actually an informative article. I'm not quite sure what to add (I hesitate to say "a picture" ;-p), though it probably could be longer. --GreenReaper^(talk) 11:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, should the "Pornography in furry fandom" section of Pornography should be moved to Furotica ? --EarthFurst 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because the pornography article should be about such works. The brief general introduction is the prelude to the furry-specific content - we're a furry encyclopedia, after all. There is a very slight difference between erotica and pornography, and I honestly don't think the differences are great enough to have separate articles here (note the relative sizes of Wikipedia's articles). --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Like the tags say, "needs references". --Rat 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on the account of this isn't what I want headlining furry sites, personally. --IanKeith 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Oppose.--Kendricks Redtail 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose under same terms --  Tori Belliachi    talk    contribs    about   21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human

There's a lack of pictures, but it's very amusing, and seems pretty well-written. Perhaps we should save this for April Fools, though? :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:51, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why this is here at all when we could just refer to the main Wiki article. Although it was fun "redefining human."--Kris Schnee 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. It does lack references, but I don't think people would start at WikiFur for scientific facts. --Rat 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AX

Nominated becuase it's mine?

What do you guys think? Is there not enough info or external links?

It's good. I would prefer to avoid featuring too many pages about people (and particularly about contributors), but even with that I'll give mild support.

It might be better if it had have input from others who know you, as right now it appears to have been basically made by you with edits by us. I appreciate that might not be easy though, as there might not be others who know you (esp. considering your age, which also limits the amount that you could expect to be there), and I think we've previously featured articles about people with themselves as the main contributor (eg Verix). --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:34, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Right now, it's too short. Lacking references. --Rat 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

External link to your drawings and sketches will be very helpful. Perhaps examples of how you stand out from the average 'shadow' like myself. As it stands, I'm sorry, the article not good enough to be a featured article.Perneseblue 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArtPlz

I nominate this article that I rewrote because I believe its a pretty good size example, plus has a picture and good selection of links. ^_^; --Nidonocu - talk 11:48, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• I'd have to oppose this, because I don't think a frequently-changing article that's been accused of so much NPOV and inaccuracy deserves to be featured as the best WikiFur can be. nn; Almafeta 11:59, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Um.. why should the frequency of changes dicate if an article should be featured? An article that has changed alot indicates that it has been worked on by many people to get to the point at which it is now. I personally also stand by my text in that it is NPOV, its accused yes, but none of those accusations have been backed up with evidence that disputes what I've written. --Nidonocu - talk 12:15, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

A bit too short. Also low on references for a contentious topic. --Rat 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not so much the article that gains my opposition but rather the subject that the article discuss. ArtPlz gallery no longer works, nor its administrator's LiveJournal been live since April 2006. Harshly put, the subject matter is dead, and -like anything on the Net- gone without a trace. Unless ArtPlz has captained the Furry fandom in the past, this article should not be a candidate for a feature article status. And looking at the data the recommendation was made, Sep 2005, should its candidancy remain live. 3 year has passed. It isn't going anywhere. -- 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of this page is derived from Wikipedia. The original article was at Featured article candidates. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with WikiFur, the text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.