Zelda Wiki:Failed Disqualifications: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
(Housekeeping!) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Failed Article Disqualifications == | == Failed Article Disqualifications == | ||
{{hide | {{hide | ||
| header= [[Link]] | | header= [[Link]] - Failed on June 26, 2008 | ||
| content= '''<div style="font-size:130%;">Final score: +4</div>''' | | content= '''<div style="font-size:130%;">Final score: +4</div>''' | ||
Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{hide | {{hide | ||
| header= [[Link's Crossbow Training]] | | header= [[Link's Crossbow Training]] - Failed on March 19, 2010 | ||
| content= '''<div style="font-size:130%;">Final score: +5</div>''' | | content= '''<div style="font-size:130%;">Final score: +5</div>''' | ||
This page is really well done but I just don't think it is really relevant at this point in time. It was nominated and featured awhile back when it was still a relatively new game, much like how the Twilight Princess article was also featured. Now that the game is no longer new and it has died down a bit, I think it is time for this article to be removed as well. Still a great article, but other more interesting articles should be featured instead. [[User:Mases|Mases]] 07:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | This page is really well done but I just don't think it is really relevant at this point in time. It was nominated and featured awhile back when it was still a relatively new game, much like how the Twilight Princess article was also featured. Now that the game is no longer new and it has died down a bit, I think it is time for this article to be removed as well. Still a great article, but other more interesting articles should be featured instead. [[User:Mases|Mases]] 07:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
Line 32: | Line 33: | ||
#Newness =/= quality. {{User:Minda of Darkness/sig|And that's a fact.}} | #Newness =/= quality. {{User:Minda of Darkness/sig|And that's a fact.}} | ||
#Really, its worthy. Recently, its seen a revamp in many of its sections, and if its the "stages" section we're worrying about, it can easily be rewritten to seem more encyclopedic. "Newness" is not much of an argument, as the [[Bomb]] article was recently featured, and that is hardly "new". {{:User:Cipriano 119/sig}} 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | #Really, its worthy. Recently, its seen a revamp in many of its sections, and if its the "stages" section we're worrying about, it can easily be rewritten to seem more encyclopedic. "Newness" is not much of an argument, as the [[Bomb]] article was recently featured, and that is hardly "new". {{:User:Cipriano 119/sig}} 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
}} | |||
{{hide | |||
| header= [[Dodongo]] - Failed due to editing improvements | |||
| content= '''<div style="font-size:130%;">Final score: -7 (edited and salavaged)</div>''' | |||
This article has a template on it saying that it needs to cits its references and sources. This is not the type of article that should be featured. In addition to this, most of the images are not cited properly at all. This article needs a lot of work. I'm ashamed to have this as a featured article. [[User:Mases|Mases]] 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
{{disq}} | |||
#No sources = No feature. Its all-around arrangement and phrasing isn't quite up to par for a feature either. --[[User:Douken|Douken]] 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
#Yeah, this was one which definitely slipped through the net, and got featured based on the subject matter rather than the article itself. Looking at the voting history [[Zelda Wiki:Featured Article Nomination/Archive|here]], at least half of the supporting votes would be completely invalid under the forthcoming stricter guidelines. {{:User:Adam/sig}} 09:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
#Extremely poor article. In fact, I'm fairly certain that few, if any, sources even exist for this enemy. There is so little to write about them anyway. It will never be anything exemplary.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 00:28, June 12, 2009 (UTC) | |||
#There's little references, and as Matt has said, there really cannot be for such a minor enemy who has only appeared in a few of the games. Furthermore, the layout was, and still is in a bad shape, and really needs a serious overhaul for me to even think about keeping it featured.{{:User:Steven/sig}} 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
#References are a big thing now, and this article barely has any. It hasn't made enough appearances throughout the series to even write too much about it. The layout could use some work, too. [[User:Dany36|Dany36]] 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
#I looked it over hoping to save it, but I think it's in Din's hands now. {{:User:Axiomist/sig}} 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
#Sorry, Mr. Dodongo. I'm afraid that you're going to have to go. Having two templates on a page saying that it needs work pretty much answers the question. {{:User:Alter/sig}} <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">23:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC)</span> 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{keep}} | |||
I do believe that its recent reorganization saved this article from disqualification. While it may look as if there is less information on the page now, it was always that much, as the page was EXTREMELY redundant when it came down to content in its earlier form, making the page "look" longer. It still carries the style, punctuality, and readability of its previous organization, so I see no reason to disqualify it at this point. {{:User:Cipriano 119/sig}} 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
After checking this article's previous revisions compared to after it was reorganized, I'm going to say that it's quite improved seeing as it's no longer redundant, is organized nicely, reads great. I honestly don't see a reason to disqualify it now.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 15:20, March 31, 2011 (UTC) | |||
::'''''As per the Failed Article Disqualification rules, an article that has been sufficiently edited in order to supersede a Disqualification nomination may overturn its nomination if its original cause is unfounded. In this case, the Dodongo article is allowed to retain Featured status.''''' | |||
{{clear}} | |||
}} | |||
{{hide | |||
| header= [[Majora's Mask (Object)]] - Failed due to editing improvements | |||
| content= '''<div style="font-size:130%;">Final score: -4 (edited and salavaged)</div>''' | |||
I'm surprised this has remained featured for so long. I would hardly call this article good by any stretch of the imagination. It is mostly theory and strategy guide and doesn't cite sources. I hardly think it could ever be worked up to a good quality article. It is just too small of a subject. Even if it is a boss.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 01:04, June 9, 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{disq}} | |||
#I'm also going with the disqualification of this article. It has plenty of information, but no references to back it up. As Matt has said, the theory section takes up half the article, and the rest is mostly walkthrough. Quite frankly, these issues need to be resolved, or the mask and Boss need to have seprate pages.{{:User:Steven/sig}} 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
#Yeah, this article is rather poorly written as well. Not enough references. Most of it is theory as well. It needs disqualified.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
#This article disgusts me. How did it ever make featured status? The quality and organization is poor and it is written like a narrative, not to mention the MASSIVE theory sections. Gross. Kill. | |||
#Uhm. Yeah. This article shouldn't be Featured. The bulk of the content is in the theory section and it's currently nominated for a merger? Not to mention that the "Fierce Deity and the Moon Dungeons" section has nothing to do with the Mask in itself. Time to trim it from the list. {{:User:Embyr 75/sig}} 21:18, 15 February 2011 (EST) | |||
{{keep}} | |||
::'''''As per the Failed Article Disqualification rules, an article that has been sufficiently edited in order to supersede a Disqualification nomination may overturn its nomination if its original cause is unfounded. In this case, the Majora's Mask (Object) article is allowed to retain Featured status.''''' | |||
{{clear}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
[[Category:Featured Content Voting|D]] | [[Category:Featured Content Voting|D]] | ||
{{Voting}} | {{Voting}} |
Revision as of 20:10, 18 April 2011
This page is an archive of an old Talk Page. The contents have been moved from another page to clear space and to preserve history, so this page is locked from editing. If you wish to ask about the corresponding page, or respond to an earlier message, you may direct any comments to the current talk page. If you wish to refer to a message on this page, link to Zelda Wiki talk:Failed Disqualifications.
This is a list of articles and pictures that were nominated on the Featured Content Disqualification page, but were deemed to be of a good enough quality to keep their featured status.