Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured articles/Nominations

Nomination limits

Let's try to hold the nominations down to 2 or 3 at a time. Hyarion wants to concentrate on bringing more articles up to standards, and I agree.--Theoden1 16:17, 9 June 2008 (EDT)


I think we should come up with better criteria for nominating an article. Some people have mentioned pictures, references, and sources as necessary components - I'll agree. Yet saying we cannot use this article becuase it has no footnotes, when the Featured Article doesn't have any cannot work out. Can we establish a formal list of criteria? --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

O.o Eriador has 45 footnotes. But yes, I agree, it's a good idea to establish a list of criteria. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  10:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I recall coming up with a list a year or so back, but I can't recall where it is. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
A FA must:
  • Describe an important event, artifact or person, be it in the real-world or in Arda.
  • Have a limited amount of redlinks (5%?).
  • Have full sourcing.
  • Have some good images.
  • Have a bulk of text in the "History" section.
  • Have (if available) a full "Portrayal in Adaptations" section.
  • Have (if available) a full genealogy in the familytree template.
  • Have (if available) an "Other Versions of the Legendarium" section.
  • Have as many relevant templates (disambigs, see also's, navigation, pronounce) as possible.
  • Have language links if available.
  • Have a "Merchandise" section (for Decipher Cards, Games Workshop, chess pieces et cetera).

User:Ederchil at Tolkien Gateway talk:Featured articles on 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm broadly in agreement with the above, but I would add "location" to the list of acceptable topics and take out the requirement for a "Merchandise" section. My own proposals would look like this:-
  1. The text is entirely written by TG editors with correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation;
  2. There are no outstanding maintenance templates on the article;
  3. The article is well referenced throughout, leaving the reader under no illusions as to where to source information themselves;
  4. The article conforms to TG's Standards, as well as those laid out in the relevant Project;
  5. The text is sprinkled with relevant images (including captions) of appropriate size - if necessary, including a gallery;
  6. Articles are at least 5,000 bytes long (for comparison, that's the current revisions of Beorn or Tar-Aldarion);
  7. Where applicable, contains "History", "Portrayal in Adaptations", "In Other Versions of the Legendarium", "See Also", "Genealogy", "Etymology" and "Bibliography" sections;
  8. Where applicable, full use has been made of relevant templates, e.g.: disambiguation, see also, main, navigation, pronounce, familytree;
  9. Where applicable, contains interwiki links;
  10. Preferably no red-links, but no more than half-a-dozen.
For me, any article which can tick those boxes should be an FA (and is currently how I judge articles). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I like it. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, under "References" on Eriador is bibliographical information, not footnotes (perhaps we have been taught different things). Regardless, I like the criteria, yet it still seems too objective. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is a difference between a bibliography and footnotes. What were you taught footnotes are? -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  08:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that's irrelevant and that we should focus on the criteria, but Wikipedia says this:
  • As signposts to direct the reader to information the author has provided or where further useful information is pertaining to the subject in the main text.
  • To attribute to a quote or viewpoint.
  • As an alternative to parenthetical references; it is a simpler way to acknowledge information gained from another source.
  • To escape the limitations imposed on the word count of various academic and legal texts which do not take into account notes. Aggressive use of this strategy can lead the text to be seen as affected by what some people call "footnote disease".
I always held with the first point as "supreme", but there are multiple meanings.--Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 01:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have a dangerous habit of telling people their answers are "irrelevant" when they answer you. I kindly ask that you cease this practice.
In any case, I'm not sure where you got your information from because Wikipedia:Footnotes follows the exact same practice that we follow: "Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes: to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article; or, to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." If you go to the "Advanced" section of the page, you see that they separate out "Notes" and "References" in the same way we do. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not be ceasing my "habit," Mith, because my definition of a footnote is irrelevant in this discussion and so is yours! This is about criteria, not the definition, so please don't worry about that and I will stop my "habit." Because, you see, now we are talking about our definitions and NOT about the criteria, so you can easily see how I would not want to go down this path. Thank you. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 01:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)