|
|
Archives: 2 1
|
|
|
This page is to nominate minor articles as being complete, or comprehensive articles.
What is a comprehensive article?
A comprehensive article is one that is complete with all its relevant information, but due to its slight size, cannot obtain Featured article status (our best work). The purpose of this project is to establish uniformity among Wikisimpsons, by seeing that all articles are, essentially, complete, with all their relevant material. Through this process, we mainly hope to let readers know when an article they are reading is complete, and not a "stub" (an article which has been denoted as lacking in information), though its size might suggest so. Episodes and regular and supporting characters cannot qualify as comprehensive articles, as they can obtain featured status. (For nominating these articles, see Wikisimpsons:Featured article.)
Criteria
An article must…
- …be well-written.
- …list all canon and non-canon appearances.
- …follow the Manual of Style and all other policies on Wikisimpsons.
- …not be tagged with any improvement tags (i.e. image needed, stub, etc).
- …have all canon (or non-canon if this is all there is) information presented.
- …be completely referenced.
- …have all image licenses fully filled-out.
- …provide at least one relevant quote on the article if available.
- …include a "Behind the Laughter" section for real world information (if any).
Nominating process
How to nominate:
- First, nominate an article you find is worthy of comprehensive status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above.
- 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).
- Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
- If, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 5 supports and no objections, it will be officially known as a "comprehensive article".
How to vote:
- Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
- Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
- If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
- 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.
- Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has 5 supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be officially known as a "comprehensive article", and the
{{comp}} template can be added to the top of its page.
- All nominations must be put at the bottom of the page.
Note: Remember to sign your posts (~~~~).
Nominations
Full of infomation. Doh5678 16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Support (0)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (1)
- With a bit of an improvement, it could be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Very unorthodox article but I think it is near enough complete, if not complete. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Support (1)
- Definately complete. No major worries. Doh5678 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
A great article with everything looking good. Seems to be complete with all info in it.
Support (1)
- Cook879 16:17, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
All info there. Great looking article. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Support (0)
Neutral (1)
- Just a little sorting out is needed. There was already an article called "Killer Krusty Doll". The "Evil" article is far superior, though, so I will merge the content from "Killer" into "Evil" and then set up a redirect. -- Mythigator 21:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose (0)
A good article, full of content for a one time thing. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.)☆ 14:34, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Support (1)
- TheUnderfaker 12:20, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
Amazing article for a book only in one episode. Full to the brim with info. Doh5678 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
Support (1)
- Excellent complete article. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.)☆ 17:28, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
- By the time you bring in all of the pertinent information about the book, you've pretty much got the episode's entire subplot. Small wonder it turned out to be huge for a book article. -- Mythigator 12:24, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
As long as it can be, and full with info from a 1 minute short. Phinbart - just one of the huge Bart fans! 12:36, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Support (1)
- Seems good enough to me. Solar Dragon (Talk • Contribs.) 17:27, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
A great page that I have put a lot of effort into bringing up and getting all the sources for. I think it deserves recognition for all my hard work on it :)  (Talk - Contribs.) 17:27, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
Support (4)
- It's a well written article, everything from the show appears to be there. Info from the comics/other media may be lacking, but I couldnt say for sure. I do know there was a comic where Jimbo was allergic to bees, can't recall the name though. I'll see if I can dig it up later. Otherwise great article! --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (EDT)
- Great article, and one that I didn't even know existed. Nicely done! -- Mythigator 13:11, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
- Your hard work's payed off! --Will k (Talk ~ Contributions) 07:13, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
- Great article, great pictures. TheUnderfaker 12:20, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
- Per all of the above. Doh5678 talk 12:23, 19 October 2011 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
|
