Zelda Wiki:Featured Content Disqualification: Difference between revisions
PhantomCaleb (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==Dark Link Render== | ==Dark Link Render== | ||
<h3>Current score: - | <h3>Current score: -2</h3> | ||
[[File:Darklinkrender.png|thumb|200px]] | [[File:Darklinkrender.png|thumb|200px]] | ||
This image is rather small and the quality is far from impressive. It isn't nearly as nice as the other featured pictures we have now. Out with the old! {{:User:Embyr 75/sig}} 14:47, 18 April 2011 (EDT) | This image is rather small and the quality is far from impressive. It isn't nearly as nice as the other featured pictures we have now. Out with the old! {{:User:Embyr 75/sig}} 14:47, 18 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
#It's not as high res as you'd expect a featured picture to be. There are also very visible artifacts. It just doesn't have that crisp, clean look we want. {{:User:Abdullah/sig}} 15:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT) | #It's not as high res as you'd expect a featured picture to be. There are also very visible artifacts. It just doesn't have that crisp, clean look we want. {{:User:Abdullah/sig}} 15:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT) | ||
#It's too bad that we're disqualifying a picture just because of its poor quality, since that is something that can always be fixed and I have no doubt in my mind that a high quality version of this render would have a place amongst the other featured pictures. As it is, though, the quality is so bad (quite far from being "almost perfect" or "perfectly rendered") that it's pitiful compared to the other renders we have featured. Until a better quality version of this render is uploaded (at which point I don't think disqualification would even be a question), this picture is not worthy of being featured. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 08:06, 6 May 2011 (EDT) | #It's too bad that we're disqualifying a picture just because of its poor quality, since that is something that can always be fixed and I have no doubt in my mind that a high quality version of this render would have a place amongst the other featured pictures. As it is, though, the quality is so bad (quite far from being "almost perfect" or "perfectly rendered") that it's pitiful compared to the other renders we have featured. Until a better quality version of this render is uploaded (at which point I don't think disqualification would even be a question), this picture is not worthy of being featured. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 08:06, 6 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
#First of all, this picture is amongst the smallest of the currently featured, and extremely pixel-y at that. It almost looks as if it was overcompressed in a photo editing program, with all of its sharp edges and "dandruff-like" white speckling. Even the transparency, though the majority is well-done, misses spots of white background by Dark Link's foot, around his arm, and shoulder - even though there's only white speckling, its still very noticable. I guarantee that a better version of this render exists somewhere - its Dark Link! Considering that this is a piece that won Featured status in 2008 (a time in which the standard of images and articles was much more relaxed then now), I believe its time to update this image or wipe it completely. {{:User:Cipriano/sig}} 09:00, 6 May 2011 (EDT) | |||
{{keep}} | {{keep}} | ||
#I think that Dark Link should be kept. It is small, but the quality is almost perfect. Also, the background is cropped perfectly. Not an annoying picture with an unwanted background. --[[User:Masked Kafei|Masked Kafei]] 20:03, 3 May 2011 (EDT) | #I think that Dark Link should be kept. It is small, but the quality is almost perfect. Also, the background is cropped perfectly. Not an annoying picture with an unwanted background. --[[User:Masked Kafei|Masked Kafei]] 20:03, 3 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:00, 6 May 2011
Given that Zelda Wiki now has a good number of Featured articles and pictures, it's been decided that a process for weeding out some of the less-than-exemplary content should begin. So this is it!
The goal is to ensure that our current selection of Featured Content remains the best possible showcase of quality content, by removing any articles or images which do not meet the stated criteria. This will be done by the voting process below.
The rules are simple. For "Disqualify" votes (votes that support the disqualification of something), one vote per calendar month, per category, per user, is allowed. That is, one vote for pictures and one vote for articles. The voting system is entirely independent from any votes placed in other content voting pages. "Keep" votes (votes that oppose disqualification) are limited also to one a month. Votes are to be added below the relevant {{disq}} or {{keep}} header. Please base your judgment primarily on the relevant criteria detailed here:
There can be a maximum of FOUR articles and FOUR pictures nominated at any given time. If there is an empty spot, feel free to nominate any other content which you feel is eligible for disqualification, clearly stating why. If a new article or picture becomes featured, this list will be gone through. If a nomination obtains a score of -3, for a "sufficient amount of time" determined on a case-by-case basis, it will be considered a successful Disqualification and will be replaced with new content. If a nomination has had a score of +4 for at least a week, it will be considered a Failed Disqualification.
Because the nature of the wiki changes daily thanks to active editors, it is likely that an article nominated for Disqualification may overturn the original cause for nomination during its run. If this occurs, a review of the original cause will be instated to determine if the original claims remain legitimate. If the article has indeed superseded its initial nomination, it will be immediately considered a Failed Disqualification and will be replaced with new content.
ALL votes and nominations MUST be signed using --~~~~. If you do not sign your opinion or second, your vote WILL NOT be counted!
(List of Disqualified content — List of Failed Disqualifications)
Currently proposed articles for disqualification
Sacred Realm
Current score: -2
This article is overly long and redundant. It includes excessive redundancies and descriptions in its writing style which gives the impression of fan fiction/fanon, exaggerated events and theories which in turn carries across a very un-encyclopedic appearance.User:Mandi/sig 20:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Disqualify- Yes, it's far more elaborate than it should be, it's full of assumptions and full-blown theories, the wording is excessive and repetitive, some information is repeated, there is information that really isn't relevant, and it reads way too much like a story, not like an encyclopedia article. User:Matt/sig 03:36, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
Keep
Negated/Retracted VotesI'm afraid I have to agree. The redundancy is terrible, along with the theories which take up most of the article. I'm aware that this contradicts my supporting vote, but to be honest...I only skimmed the article. I didn't take the time to really look at the content.User:Justin/sig 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Screw it, I'm retracting the vote. It may be a little redundant, but it can be fixed. I'll work on removing redundancies and fixing it up, myself.User:Justin/sig 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently proposed pictures for disqualification
Dark Link Render
Current score: -2
This image is rather small and the quality is far from impressive. It isn't nearly as nice as the other featured pictures we have now. Out with the old! —Embyr 75 --Talk-- 14:47, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
Disqualify- It's not as high res as you'd expect a featured picture to be. There are also very visible artifacts. It just doesn't have that crisp, clean look we want. User:Abdullah/sig 15:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
- It's too bad that we're disqualifying a picture just because of its poor quality, since that is something that can always be fixed and I have no doubt in my mind that a high quality version of this render would have a place amongst the other featured pictures. As it is, though, the quality is so bad (quite far from being "almost perfect" or "perfectly rendered") that it's pitiful compared to the other renders we have featured. Until a better quality version of this render is uploaded (at which point I don't think disqualification would even be a question), this picture is not worthy of being featured. — Hylian King [*] 08:06, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
- First of all, this picture is amongst the smallest of the currently featured, and extremely pixel-y at that. It almost looks as if it was overcompressed in a photo editing program, with all of its sharp edges and "dandruff-like" white speckling. Even the transparency, though the majority is well-done, misses spots of white background by Dark Link's foot, around his arm, and shoulder - even though there's only white speckling, its still very noticable. I guarantee that a better version of this render exists somewhere - its Dark Link! Considering that this is a piece that won Featured status in 2008 (a time in which the standard of images and articles was much more relaxed then now), I believe its time to update this image or wipe it completely. — ciprianotalk 09:00, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Keep- I think that Dark Link should be kept. It is small, but the quality is almost perfect. Also, the background is cropped perfectly. Not an annoying picture with an unwanted background. --Masked Kafei 20:03, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
