Difference between revisions of "Wikisimpsons:Comprehensive article nominations"

Archives: 2 1

Contents 1 What is a comprehensive article? 2 Criteria 3 Nominating process 4 Nominations 4.1 Mapple 4.1.1 Support (2) 4.1.2 Neutral (0) 4.1.3 Oppose (0) 4.1.4 Comments 4.2 Dome 4.2.1 Support (3) 4.2.2 Neutral (0) 4.2.3 Oppose (0) 4.2.4 Comments 4.3 Panda-Monium! 4.3.1 Support (2) 4.3.2 Neutral (0) 4.3.3 Oppose (0) 4.3.4 Comments

This page is to nominate minor articles as being complete, or comprehensive articles.

What is a comprehensive article?

A comprehensive article is one that is complete with all its relevant information, but due to its slight size, cannot obtain Featured article status (our best work). The purpose of this project is to establish uniformity among Wikisimpsons, by seeing that all articles are, essentially, complete, with all their relevant material. Through this process, we mainly hope to let readers know when an article they are reading is complete, and not a "stub" (an article which has been denoted as lacking in information), though its size might suggest so. Episodes and regular and supporting characters cannot qualify as comprehensive articles, as they can obtain featured status. (For nominating these articles, see Wikisimpsons:Featured article.)

Criteria

An article must…

1. …be well-written.
2. …list all canon and non-canon appearances.
3. …follow the Manual of Style and all other policies on Wikisimpsons.
4. …not be tagged with any improvement tags (i.e. image needed, stub, etc).
5. …have all canon (or non-canon if this is all there is) information presented.
6. …be completely referenced.
7. …have all image licenses fully filled-out.
8. …provide at least one relevant quote on the article if available.
9. …include a "Behind the Laughter" section for real world information (if any).

Nominating process

How to nominate:

1. First, nominate an article you find is worthy of comprehensive status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above.
2. Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
3. Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
4. If, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 5 supports and no objections, it will be officially known as a "comprehensive article".

How to vote:

1. Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
2. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
   1. If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
3. As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors.
4. Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has 5 supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be officially known as a "comprehensive article", and the {{comp}} template can be added to the top of its page.
5. All nominations must be put at the bottom of the page.

Note: Remember to sign your posts (~~~~).

Nominations

Mapple

Good article, not quite featured content. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Support (2)

1. Looks good. -- Mythigator 22:50, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
2. --Cook879 15:33, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Neutral (0)

Oppose (0)

Comments

Dome

Good looking article, lengthy, complete. ☆The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)}☆ 15:35, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Support (3)

1. --Nick97 ^{(talk ~ contribs)} 11:15, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
2. --Cook879 15:33, 30 November 2012 (EST)
3. --Fred (Talk • Contribs. • Editcount) 17:37, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Neutral (0)

Oppose (0)

Comments

Panda-Monium!

I'm not sure if it's quite up to the level of featured content, but since this article has all of its information I'm pretty sure it qualifies as comprehensive. -- Mythigator 09:02, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Support (2)

1. --Cook879 15:33, 30 November 2012 (EST)
2. A good lengthy article. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 November 2012 (EST)

Neutral (0)

Oppose (0)

Comments