Forum:Mass featured article delistment nomination

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Mass featured article delistment nomination
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 February 2014 by Liquidhelium.

If you look through the list of current [[:Category:Featured|featured articles]], you'll notice that a lot of them are in poor condition. Many of them contain cleanup tags, some are poorly written, and most of them are out-of-date. Featured articles should be our best articles, but in reality, most of them aren't better than our average article. In order to improve the integrity of the featured article system I've made a list of articles, found below, that I feel should be delisted. This is only the first batch of articles, I do plan on making another thread with the remaining articles eventually. I think it would just be easier to handle 10 articles rather than 20+.

Featured articles from A-K that I feel should be delisted

Note 1: When I say "E.g.", I am not implying that this is the only example that exists of a certain problem. There are more examples, I am just not listing them all to save space.

1. Amascut
  • Out-of-date tag
  • Lacks references
    • E.g., direct quotations are missing citations, contrary to RS:CITE
  • "History" section could go into more detail
    • E.g., this section states that she "vowed for vengeance upon her brother for her transformation", but gives no details on how her brother caused the transformation. In fact, I'm not even led to believe he caused her transformation until this sentence.
  • On the contrary, the "Current Plans" section goes off-topic and into way too much detail. This section needs to focus a lot more on Amascut, because right now, it is really dull.
2. The Branches of Darkmeyer

This article is not much better than your average quest article, and I have no clue why it is still featured.

  • Short, choppy sentences
    • E.g., "Open the door, exit and close the door. Now go north and west around the next building. Enter it and go east, where Vertida will be standing."
  • Out-of-date tag
  • Does not include development, release info. For comprehensiveness, the release info should be included in the article itself; linking to an article that includes this information is not enough.
3. Castle Wars
  • Out-of-date tag
  • Lead section does not adequately summarize the topic, contrary to RS:LEAD
  • "Strategy" section: It would be nice if a summary of the information in the linked article were included in the Castle Wars article for comprehensiveness.
  • Poor organization:
    • E.g., standard defenders are introduced in the "Requirements" section before the term is adequately explained in the following section.
    • For clarity, it would be better if the content in the "Teams" section were introduced with the mechanics of the game.
  • Lacks detail:
    • E.g., it could explain what freezing "the enemy team's standard defenders" means
    • Article does not include development info
4. Desert Treasure
  • Out-of-date tag
  • Filled with short, choppy sentences
  • "Walkthrough": The purpose of some of the player's tasks could be explained.
    • E.g., the "Braving the Snow" tells you to go into the ice cave, but does not explain why. I shouldn't have to guess.
  • Does not include development info
5. Draynor Village
  • Cleanup tag notes the following issues:
    • "History section is very speculative, needs mention of The Skulls and the Battle of Lumbridge, both of which have affected Draynor hugely."
  • Lacks references
  • "Places of Interest" section contains short, choppy sentences
    • E.g., "It is useful to be there, because you can have a bank nearby, as well as an obelisk. Also, a lone black knight wanders the area. It is unknown why he is there."
  • Needs to include information on how to reach Draynor Village
  • "Personalities" could include an introductory section. It may be unclear to some readers what this list is supposed to represent.
6. Falador
  • Citation needed tags
  • "History" section contains speculation
    • E.g., "Little is known of the city's early days, although it is likely it faced conflict with the goblins that still inhabited the area."
  • Parts of the article read like a brochure, not an encyclopedia, contrary to RS:NPOV. Examples:
    • "Falador holds an impressive military"
    • "The east bank is in a great spot for Mining."
    • "The west bank is in a great spot for smelting ores."
  • "Events": Poor syntax. There is not much variation in sentence structure in this section. They're almost all in the following format: "On this date, that happened."
7. Fifth Age
  • Out-of-date tag
  • Needs references
  • Several sections could be merged; they're really short
  • The Fifth Age ended with the death of Guthix, but the article barely includes any info on how Guthix died at all. Since this is the event that ended this age, it should take up a lot more space in the article.
8. General Graardor
  • Out-of-date tag
  • Needs references
  • "Strategy" section: It would be nice if a summary of the information in the linked article were included in this article for comprehensiveness.
  • Poor organization: The lead section introduces a lot of info that the body does not. Not everyone reads the lead section, so information on how to reach Graardor etc. should be included in the body as well. The lead should just summarize this info; see RS:LEAD.
9. Gielinor

This article is not very detailed at all.

  • Lacks references
  • The references it does contain are bare URLs
  • Two of the references are to this wiki, which is an unreliable source
  • "Geography" section lacks detail
    • E.g., deserts
  • Does not include info on the current inhabitants of Gielinor
10. History of Varrock
  • Out-of-date tag
  • No references
  • Lead section does not adequately summarize the topic, contrary to RS:LEAD
  • "Modern events (169)" section is written using bullet points instead of prose
  • Says the city was destroyed, but does not include information on how it was rebuilt
  • Why was the name changed from Avarrocka to Varrock?

Smithing (talk | contribs) 00:26, February 18, 2014 (UTC)


Support - Long overdue. Suppa chuppa Talk 00:31, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Per nominator. Those pages aren't at the featured level any more. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:38, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - @Suppa: we might as well put forward those thingies we had come up with now. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:40, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Can we also do a better job of writing proses for the ones we'll be keeping? MolMan 13:26, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I believe something like this should happen for FIMG too. --Jlun2 (talk) 13:58, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Support - --Deltaslug (talk) 14:14, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - There's 40 pages in the featured category. Just from A-K you're proposing 10 to be removed. There's not going to be many left after this is done Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:31, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather have only 1 good featured article than 20 shitty ones. MolMan 22:18, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
Same. I just wonder if any will be left at all. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:40, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Mostly Support - I agree with every single one on this list, excluding Gielinor. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 17:16, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Support - After re-reading the article, I have decided that even it needs to go. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 17:56, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
Any explanation as to why exactly you disagree on Gielinor? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:18, February 19, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah...IMO Gielinor is the worst of the list. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:46, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Can we simply speedy delist all the articles that clearly don't meet FA criteria? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea. Something I've been actually considering is requesting all the articles be delisted. Nearly all the articles, except maybe 2009 Christmas event and Cook's Assistant, lack references. A lot of the other articles have other problems as well. Perhaps we could just delist them all, revamp the FA criteria, then open the FA process up to nominations again. This is just an idea I've had though. Smithing (talk | contribs) 20:55, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - The listed articles will all be deleted. --LiquidTalk 08:03, February 27, 2014 (UTC)