Forum:Article of the month criteria

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Article of the month criteria
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 April 2010 by Degenret01.

I feel that a new bullet point of criteria is needed for the nominated articles of article of the month. The bullet point should say something along the lines of:

  • The article should be expanded to its full potential.

I believe this to be a very important part of judging the quality of an article, since the overall goal of the wiki itself is to comprehensively expand every article to its full potential, making the wiki contain all the information that exists on RuneScape. Very few articles are expended to this level, (most of which are written by Morian Smith) and those that are should be forced into the spotlight through article of the month. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 04:54, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think most articles are expanded as much as possible already. It's good to see when new content is released, all users directly start to update articles, update templates, start adding images etc. I think this rule is a bit unneccesary. Miasmic Blitz icon.png Hapi007 Talk! Sign! . 05:45, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - It is very true. An AOTM should always be greatly expanded to it's full potential. But Hapi brings up a good point, it may be a bit unnecessary or, shall I say, obvious? Although I see no harm in a 9 word dot point. Lol Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 05:51, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't feel that it is taken into consideration sometimes. Take Bob the Jagex cat from this month's AOTM. It fills all the current criteria well, yet I felt hesitant to oppose it for "not being expanded to its full potential" since that is not what is meant to be considered when judging AOTM. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 06:24, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I don't really see this as too much of an issue. At the moment, we're not using a "fits criteria -> featured article" system, but instead users are supporting/opposing articles. So, if a user doesn't wish to support the article, by all means, oppose. On top of that, this is quite subjective. A user may think that a brief summary of an NPC's role in a quest is more than adequate, while others may think that the section should be extremely elaborate, so this rule might be difficult to enforce as well. C.ChiamTalk 06:59, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for AOTM are currently used as guidelines for nominating rather then actual criteria. They are not enforced at all. I don't plan on changing anything to do with how AOTM runs, apart from adding one more sentence for people to consider when Nominating/Voting. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:46, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral leaning to slight support - Seems a bit like unnecessary dressing on a cake, nice (To the reader), but as Hapi said, a bit unnecessary. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 10:35, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't know whether to oppose or support. Sure, it's fine, but it's a bit obvious. I don't think anyone would nominate a stub for AOTM. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 14:44, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is a well intended proposal. I'm not sure if the wording explains it well enough for me. The phrase "full potential" seems to be confusing. How about something like:

  • The article should be thorough, detailed, fully expanded, and comprehensive OR
  • The article should thoroughly describe all significant details about its subject

Even those don't sound quite right to me but I think they might be headed in the right direction. Any ideas or suggestions? Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 18:50, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, "full potential" does not seem a good choice of wording now. I think that the second dot point is much better then my one. Words like "full" and "comprehensive" should probably not be used since it is impossible for an article to be "fully expanded" since it could always be enhanced somehow by some means. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:46, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose per Evil yanks. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:59, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Umm, how exactly can you oppose per the nom? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 02:12, February 17, 2010 (UTC) 
Read Evil's post like 4 lines up. And gravedig much? :P scoot4.pngscooties 06:42, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Closed No consensus.--Degenret01 06:57, April 4, 2010 (UTC)