|
|
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
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)
All info there. Great looking article. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Support (1)
- Lots of details and well written. WebkinzMania 08:36, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
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)
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 good looking article, full of all the information and has got the basic plot in quotes too. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 14:37, 22 November 2011 (EST)
Support (2)
- Good article. Fast work putting it together! -- Mythigator 02:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)
- Per above. WebkinzMania 08:37, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
Definitely complete and long for a one time crew member. The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.) 12:52, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
Support (2)
- Cook879 14:50, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
- Awesome. Well done! --Fred (Talk • Contribs.) 05:17, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
Neutral (1)
- I dunno, not really supportive. |
      | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 13:01, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
#Though complete, there are articles on this list I think are more deserving.--Cook879 14:45, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
Oppose (0)
- The only reason I voted for the is because we always have the same type of comprehensive article. So, it would be good to have something different. --Fred (Talk • Contribs.) 04:47, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
I added info about roughly all the time he appeared, it has some trivia, I think it could be comprehensive. | | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 03:13, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Support (0)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (1)
- Without voice actor information, it can not be comprehensive. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 03:24, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
- I went for Ping Marshall, as he's one time and we don't have him for any other character. | | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 03:46, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
I think this article could be comprehensive. Full with all information from the short. Phinbart - just one of the huge Bart fans! 12:00, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Support (1)
I suppose it's complete, but I had to put half of it into past tense. PHINBART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 12:25, 26 March 2012 (EDT)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
A great article with multiple images and definitely deserves to be comprehensive. Contains an abundance of information. Josegiraffio 18:22, 31 March 2012 (EDT)
Support (0)
Neutral (0)
Oppose (0)
Full to the brim with info. ~ Phinbart (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
Support (1)
Well, I had to change "and" to an ampersand (&), because that is how the show's title is written like. It is an okay article. --Fred (Talk • Contribs. • Editcount) 23:13, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
Neutral (1)
- Good article, but the term is cel (only ONE "L") when it's used in reference to animated cartoons. -- Mythigator 15:17, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
Oppose (0)
For a page that was started over one hour ago, it has 3,418 bytes and a lot of references and is very informative. I listed former Yankee players that were on the Simpsons (or mentioned). WebkinzMania 08:40, 21 April 2012 (EDT)
Support (0)
Oppose (0)
|
