Brickipedia:Featured Article Nominations

From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki


Featured articles - Featured Article Nominations - Content Improvement - Articles for Rating
Rating-fa-glossy.png
Shortcut:
BP:FAN
BP:FANOM

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). The Featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best Brickipedia has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favourite themes, minifigures, etc. or to get praise for your "hard work" on an article.

A featured article must...

  1. ...follow the Manual of Style in all aspects.
  2. ...have at least one well-written original paragraph describing what the article is about.
  3. ...have a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.
  4. ...have several relevant section headings and considerable content (continuous text) in the respective sections.
  5. ...be complete in a way so that it does not neglect any major facts or details and constitutes a detailed description/overview/presentation of the subject in question.
  6. ...have its infoboxes filled out completely, or as best as potentially possible.
  7. ...be unbiased and written from a neutral point of view.
  8. ...contain several relevant images, apart from the one in the infobox, that are placed within the text, in addition to pictures in a gallery.
  9. ...not be tagged with improvement messages, since the FA should already comply with the MoS and be both complete and neutral.
  10. ...not be about an as yet unreleased set, minifigure or theme.

How to nominate:

  1. First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured 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. The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
  5. Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 5 supports and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), it will be added the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".
 Use the following code for a nomination:

== [[<article>]] ==
*'''Nominated by:''' ~~~~
*'''Nomination comments:'''
===Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK===
;Support
;Object
;Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
;Comments

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. Please cite which rule your objection falls under! Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid.
    2. Either way, update the vote count in the section header, add +1 when you support the article, add -1 when you object.
    3. (QCG members only): If you find that this article does not comply with the Manual of Style, list the reasons why under "Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)", and sign your name along with Crown Knights.png ({{RG}}).
  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. If after one week, if an article has a total of five votes, the ratio of supporting votes to opposing votes is 70%, and if there is nothing listed under the Manual of Style check heading by a QCG member, the nomination is approved. However, if after one month, any of these criteria are not met, the nomination is to be removed. The original nominator may also remove any of his nominations if he/she sees fit.
  5. No nominator may vote for their own nominations.

Also remember to add {{FANom}} at the top of the article you are nominating.

Every month the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the {{featured}} template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the {{featured article}} template. Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list.


Nominations

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful (May 19)

7700 Stealth Hunter

Vote score: +3, Technical Check: Currently OK

Support
  1. I'd say that it is FA quality. That criteria should be based on the type of page, and this is more than "good" for its topic. User:Ajraddatz/sig 23:25, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Looks Great, Should be a Featured Article Already, Infobox is good, LEGO is capitalized, and the Description is thorough. Oh and it has Stealth in it :D User:LSCStealthNinja/Sig LSCStealthNinja 14:34, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Looks good enough Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 03:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Yesh User:Darth henry/Sig 3 02:07, April 12, 2012 (UT
  5. Crown Knights.pngThis is definitely FA quality. You guys have been way too strict about this. "Wowing" someone really depends on what the article is about. I'd be more "wowed" by something more interesting. Read the FA requirements, compare it with other FAs, and then come back. The Word Count is not that important. People are being far too picky about this...if anything, I think we should remove FA status from the Castle Article as it is totally copied from Wikipedia. BF2 Talk 12:43, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Crown Knights.png I'd definitely support it for GA, just not sure whether it has the potential to be called an FA NovaHawk 03:57, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
    Do you have any suggestions to improve the article? User:Captain Jag/sig1 04:03, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
    Not really, I think it's going to be as good as it will get, but there's only so much you can say about a set that size. Obviously, larger sets usually mean more features, which means a longer article. NovaHawk 04:21, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Crown Knights.png I don't know. I mean, the content is very good, but it only feels like a C1 to me, even though it's probably more. :/ Berrybrick 02:05, March 8, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Crown Knights.png Per NHL. Definitely C1 quality though, methinks. User:Cligra/Sig
  4. HMM, idk--WCDDoherty 14:52, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  5. It's good, but doesn't seem FA quality to me. --User:Crazed Penguin/spook
  6. Crown Knights.png Yeah. It could be a GA, but I'm not sure about featured. User:UltrasonicNXT/Signature
  7. Crown Knights.png Great article, but if it only looks "Good enough," then it's a good article. An FA needs to wow someone, and as good of an article as this one may be, I don't see it being featured. -User:Nerfblasterpro/sig1 11:30, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Object

# Crown Knights.png Per NHL. Definitely C1 quality though, methinks. User:Cligra/Sig

  1. Your reason is 'per NHL', and his reason was that it was short. See below for me refutation of this. User:Captain Jag/sig1 21:19, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
  • Crown Knights.png Should be using {{Price}} in the infobox since it was voted through. I know it's only a recent thing, but I don't any new noms should go through without it since it affects the MoS. I would do it myself, but I want to see how usable the template is- if I'm the only person who can use it, there's not much point in having it. NovaHawk 13:11, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Just added a description on the minifigure. User:Captain Jag/sig1 01:25, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
@NHL: really? Here is a comparison with some other FAs. The first number is the set number, second is the characters for the article, the third is the words in the description.
  • 7700 - 6614, 718
  • 5988 - 7983, 685
  • 6195 - 8359, 839
  • 6441 - 4471, 432
  • 6973 - 7193, 683
  • 6986 - 6769, 573
  • 7327 - 9972, 709
  • 7675 - 10530, 767
  • 7676 - 15065, 1187
  • 7775 - 6097, 395

So, this set actually has a longer description than many of the others. It has a shorter character count, but there is only one minifigure to go in the minifiguregallery, and only one minifigure in the "Minifigures" section. User:Captain Jag/sig1 18:09, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think it goes so much on how many characters/long of a description an article has. It should go by: 1) The quality of the content within the article 2) The coherence of the description 3) other... User:Skdhjf/SigT 20:52, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
    • NHL was saying that the problem that he had with the article was that the set was small, and so the article was short. I was showing that it is not as short as some other FAs. Quality and coherence are both improvable aspects (as in they can be improved, unlike the size of a set), any suggestions for doing so? User:Captain Jag/sig1 21:16, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
    • Wow, obviously I'm out of practice with judging these things. Basically just saying I've seen it, will think about changing my vote. NovaHawk 22:26, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Nominated it for GA in case this doesn't pass, not withdrawing this though. User:Captain Jag/sig1 22:23, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Amazing article with far more information than even needed - definitely FA quality. Only concern is a lot of grammar issues such as run-on sentences. I can't fix those now, but will get to that tomorrow. User:Ajraddatz/sig 04:20, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful (May 11)

6278 Enchanted Island

Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Not OK

Support
Neutral
  • It's not a bad article by any means, but I wouldn't really call it FA quality. User:Cligra/Sig
  • Ok for GA, don't know about FA. NovaHawk 01:43, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with NHL, it's good but not great.--WCDDoherty 21:24, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
Object
  1. It is good... but it doesn't have good quality and not a complete description. User:Mr. Minifigure/sig 01:24, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Not convinced with this one. Definitely good, but not enough information for featured IMO. Not that I know what could be added... just doesn't seem like enough. User:Ajraddatz/sig 01:45, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
  • Crown Knights.png Should be using {{Price}} in the infobox since it was voted through. I know it's only a recent thing, but I don't any new noms should go through without it since it affects the MoS. I would do it myself, but I want to see how usable the template is- if I'm the only person who can use it, there's not much point in having it. NovaHawk 13:11, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
Comments


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful (May 11)

2507 Fire Temple

  • Nominated by: User:Darth henry/Sig 3 02:10, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: It's pretty good. Nice work BB!

Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK

Support
Neutral
  1. Not too sure. --User:Crazed Penguin/spook 02:12, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
  2. I think with a bit of a clean up it should be okay as a featured article, but as for now... I'm neutral. -User:Power Jim/sigcode 07:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
Object
  1. Crown Knights.png Definitely GA quality, though. User:Cligra/Sig
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
Comments


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was struck

Marvel

Vote score: -2, Technical Check:Currently OK

Support
Object
  1. Crown Knights.png Not even class 3... Berrybrick 14:51, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  2. No. Just no. --User:Crazed Penguin/spook 22:31, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  3. I think we can all say there is far too little info for this article to be a featured article, I mean really? It's only a C4 article! -User:Power Jim/sigcode
  4. This is a C4 article and not by a stretch FA. User:Darth henry/Sig 3 06:42, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
Vote to strike nomination (QCG members only)
  1. Crown Knights.png Do I really need to say why? NovaHawk 22:26, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Crown Knights.png No. Berrybrick 22:30, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Crown Knights.png User:Captain Jag/sig1 00:55, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Comments


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful (May 11)

Indiana Jones (Minifigure)

Vote score: ±0, Technical Check:Not OK

Support
Object
  1. Crown Knights.png I do. There is hardly any video game description and the background explains hardly anything in the sets. On top of that, it's pretty much a text wall. Berrybrick 15:12, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Crown Knights.png I really don't think it should have even made c2 status- it's incomplete. NovaHawk 22:26, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  3. # Do I need to say why it shouldn't be? --User:Crazed Penguin/spook 06:56, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
  • Crown Knights.png It's incomplete. VG variants need listing and describing. (how did this pass c1?) NovaHawk 22:26, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

*Exactly what Berrybrick said, I would support if it had more video game disc.--WCDDoherty 21:25, April 17, 2012 (UTC) (Please unstrike and move to the Object section if that's what you intended Crown Knights.png NovaHawk 22:19, April 17, 2012 (UTC))

Comments


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful

Super Heroes

Vote score: +5, Technical Check: Currently OK

Support
  1. Looks good. --User:Crazed Penguin/spook 00:51, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Crown Knights.png I think it's fine now. Berrybrick 13:45, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
    Previously slashed vote un-slashed. Berrybrick 00:03, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Now that it's been rewritten and all previous issues have been sorted, sure. -User:King of Nynrah/sig1 23:26, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Good--WCDDoherty 21:27, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Per KoN. User:Darth henry/Sig 3 12:19, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
Object

# Crown Knights.png I refuse to support until TBA Set with Nick Fury is removed from the Marvel set list. I'd do it myself on sight, but I have too much respect for other users to remove it while a WIP is up. Berrybrick 23:48, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Done. (I lack respect! Whoever would have thought? :D) User:Cligra/Sig
*shrugs* Berrybrick 00:03, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
Eh? :/ User:Cligra/Sig
(*shrugs*) Is that better? :P Berrybrick 10:35, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
Comments
  • I want to support, because I did a lot of the work, but I think that there should be more background for the Marvel theme like what happens in the comics; especially for the Ultrabuilds. Berrybrick 00:48, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll get on it, but I don't think there's much info on that out ATM.. User:Cligra/Sig
  • Which is why I'm not opposing with that reason. Berrybrick 00:58, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Great article, but I do think it needs some expansion on the Ultrabuild section saying what they are. What I really don't get why the images in the tables are uncaptioned thumbs... it kinda looks weird NovaHawk 01:37, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the thumbs. I don' know about the Ultrabuilds though. Berrybrick 19:56, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • Done, I think... Is it okay now, NHL? User:Cligra/Sig
      • Well, it's got a WIP tag and an incomplete template in the Marvel section, I'm not sure why :S NovaHawk 14:57, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
        • The template's gone (?), and I don't think the WIP-er has actually done anything. :P User:Cligra/Sig
          • I removed the incomplete template, because it isn't. Berrybrick 00:34, April 16, 2012 (UTC)


The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful

Batman (Minifigure)

  • Nominated by: User:Cligra/Sig
  • Nomination comments: This only failed last time because nobody could be bothered to vote. :/

Vote score: +5, Technical Check: Currently OK

Support
  1. Crown Knights.pngQuite honestly, I've wanted to nominate this for sometime, but decided to wait until LEGO Batman 2 came out. But as long as somebody else is doing it it's fine. :P Berrybrick 19:56, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Everything you could ever want to know about him is on the page. User:Darth henry/Sig 3 19:59, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Per DH. Gotta make sure to update the video game section with all the LB2 info once it's released, but I don't think Berrybrick would have a problem with that :P -User:King of Nynrah/sig1 20:01, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, when I said "as long as somebody else is doing it" I meant nominating. No, I don't have a problem, but people will ignore the WIP, and that will annoy me. :P Berrybrick 20:03, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Yarr. It's good. --User:CzechMate/czech 02:57, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Crown Knights.png Great detail! User:Mr. Minifigure/sig 14:25, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
Object

# Would support if not for the following- Batman_(Minifigure)#LEGO_Batman:_The_Videogame has three empty images. If this is going to be an FA, everything should be filled out. Batman_(Minifigure)#Appearance_in_LEGO_Batman_2 says "So far, only images of the electricity and power suits have been found.", yet there's an image of his sensor suit in the corresponding minifiguregallery. Crown Knights.png NovaHawk 23:13, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.
I could only find a decent image of the glide suit, so I took some screen shots of the other three suits from YouTube videos. They aren't very clear, but it's better than nothing (and I guess that's what the descriptions are for). Berrybrick 00:03, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
So... Should the vote be struck? (sorry, not good about that sorta thing...) User:Cligra/Sig
I guess... personally I'm not satisfied with the quality of those images, but whatever. NovaHawk 00:15, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
  • There was one other reason I didn't nominate it before that I couldn't remember until now. There isn't a good image of the Electro suit, but this is one of those times we can make an exception, right? Berrybrick 23:22, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • We've got the best image that publicly exists of the minifig, and it's fully described, so I don't see any problem. NovaHawk 23:36, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Comments


Palpatine

  • Nominated by: User:CzechMate/czech 05:10, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Very good article, Seems very complete

Vote score: -1, Technical Check: Not OK

Support
Object
  1. Crown Knights.png Good- yes. Featured (for a minifigure article)- not sure if it does it for me. NovaHawk 05:24, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Crown Knights.png Per NBS. User:SKP4472/sig2 09:36, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
  • "In the video games" section tagged with {{incomplete}}, and rightly so- no content on LSW3.
  • Years incorrectly formatted in infobox.
  • At a glance, some problems with background- Palpatine/Sidious was a politician long before he killed Damask/Plagueis
    NovaHawk 05:24, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.brickimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickipedia:Featured_Article_Nominations&oldid=664117"