Assassin's Creed Wiki:Featured Article Nominations

File:Fanomsistrutt2.png

Bureau

Nominations Hub

Good article nominations

Featured article nominations

Recruitment

This page lists all the nominations for Featured status. The Istruttori monitor this page and the voting process.

---

Featured is the highest level an article can achieve, and as such, it must meet certain requirements.

An article must…

• …be well-written and detailed.
• …be unbiased, non-point of view.
• …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
• …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on ACWiki.
• …following the review process, be stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
• …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
• …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
• …have no more than 3 redlinks and none in the introduction, infobox, or any templates.
• …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
• …not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
• …be completely referenced for all available material and sources.
• …have all quotes and images sourced.
• …provide at least one quote on the article. A leading quote at the beginning of the article will be required only if there is quotable dialogue by or about the subject. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
• …include a "personality and characteristics" section on all character articles.
• …include a reasonable number of images of sufficient quality to illustrate the article, if said images are available.
• …have a "behind the scenes" section when the info is available
• …pass review by the Istruttorium review panel.

If the article meets at least 6 of the pre-requisites, the article is permitted to be held for nomination.

---

How to nominate:

1. First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above. Note that a previously featured article cannot be featured on the Main Page again; however, it can be restored to featured status.
2. 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).
3. Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
4. The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
5. Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 3 Istruttore supports and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article."

How to vote:

1. Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
2. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
3. Please note that in order for your vote to count, you must have 50 mainspace edits.
   1. If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved. Please cite which rule your objection falls under, if possible. Failure to do so may result in your objection being considered invalid.
4. 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. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
5. Once the article has five supporting Istruttori votes and no outstanding objections after at least a week, the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article." Although articles do not need regular users' votes to pass, non-Istruttori are encouraged to review articles and participate in the process.

Also remember to add {{NomF}} at the top of the article you are nominating.

Archives: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4

Hunt on Cyprus/Removal - Removed

Featured status removed as per request.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 15:39, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.

Another look at the page made me realized how messed up it was, even before it passed FA status. Overly long paragraphs (some paragraphs contain unnecessary info), messy formatting of pictures, unorganized sectioning, improper/informal wording. I'll do a revamp of the page some time in the future but, for now, I say its status be removed. --Jack WallsSupermen 09:05, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Remove Yeah, sue me for nominating it before. --Jack WallsSupermen 09:05, November 29, 2011 (UTC) I see what you mean about the wording. Not difficult to fix, just lengthy and tedious. -- 'R BlaiddDdraig Enter... THE SCARY DOOR 09:53, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Yay. For me some parts are not phrased very well and in some sections there is bad formatting. Romeh Speak now 16:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Could indeed do with quite a bit more work. Nesty Contact me! 20:29, November 29, 2011 (UTC) As Blaidd and Rome have said, the wording needs improvement and formatting work. Nostalgia Let's talk. 03:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Keep Comments

Daniel Cross & Hannah Mueller/Removal - Keep

With the majority voting to keep and the discussion dead.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 15:39, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.

Look, I let it slide with Daniel Cross because the article was well written and I thought someone might add the mandatory Personality and Traits section soon after it was nominated, but now I see Hannah Mueller on the main page and I have to question some of the Staffs' thought processes at the time they saw these articles on this list. Neither of these articles have the mandatory Personality and Traits section, and Hannah Mueller is badly written at best. Honestly, even if somebody now writes a P&T section for both these articles, they still need to go through the entire process again and be looked at with a fresh set of eyes. Remove As nominator. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:11, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Keep Keep. Romeh Speak now 20:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Like many others, I feel the personality/appearance/traits section to be lacking in value. Nesty Contact me! 20:25, November 29, 2011 (UTC) No. -- Master Sima Yi 08:39, November 30, 2011 (UTC) Nein. We've actually rectified the rules for nomination (both GA and FA) so that it won't require all pre-requisites. This was done after a rather...unique, group discussion, and have all agreed to the new rule changes. Have a look at the rules again and see for yourself. --Jack WallsSupermen 08:53, November 30, 2011 (UTC) I actually think a Personality and characteristics section would make these two articles better, but if everyone is content with leaving them out seeing as it's no longer a rule, then I think the pages are good enough as they are. -- 'R BlaiddDdraig Enter... THE SCARY DOOR 09:10, November 30, 2011 (UTC) Both pages are good as they are now, though in the future both could use a personality and characteristics section. Nostalgia Let's talk. 03:36, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I was there for the entire discussion about the personality section, and while it may be required by the rules, it doesn't add much to the article that alredy is there. Subject 12 Talk to me 04:46, December 6, 2011 (UTC) The article (both of them) have good wording and look good with quotes, pictures ect... they changed the rules. So I'd say keep it the way it is. Teller Words, On my Screen :O 05:51, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Comments Both Cello and I agreed that the Personality and characteristics are not mandatory, in the case that the overall article is worthy enough to be kept Featured status, and all the staff are aware of this. Your criteria is, therefore, redundant. -- Master Sima Yi 20:15, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Eight at the top of this page, in big bold letters it says "An article must ...include a "personality and characteristics" section on all character articles." it's one of the rules, as set out since this page first came into existence; It doesn't matter what you and Cello think. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 20:57, November 29, 2011 (UTC) I know it says that. Otherwise my comment would've been redundant. And it doesn't matter what Cello and I think? Nice. I'm pretty sure that us staff have written the rules, and therefore we are also the ones who can bend them. Do not hide behind set rules all the time. -- Master Sima Yi 08:41, November 30, 2011 (UTC) If you have problems with the new rule changes, tell it to the judge. --Jack WallsSupermen 08:56, November 30, 2011 (UTC) It's still there. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 11:44, November 30, 2011 (UTC) Re-read my first comment thoroughly. -- Master Sima Yi 13:25, November 30, 2011 (UTC) And another thing, don't treat these rules like it's the Ten Commandments or something. God didn't write them, people on this wiki did. We staff can adjust them for the betterment of the wiki. --Jack WallsSupermen 14:41, November 30, 2011 (UTC) Sima: Re-read my response to that comment carefully. Rules are rules for a reason, and why you lot are simply trying to avoid improving the articles so they actually meet the requirements that had been previously agreed rather than try and argue with me, is beyond me. --Jasca Ducato Council Chamber Assassination record 18:48, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Rodrigo Borgia - Voting

As part of my apprenticeship, I have to get Rodrigo Borgia to FA. The page was already in quite a good shape, but I did quite a bit of rewording and some lay-out work. Personally, I think it is good enough as it is now. If you disagree, let me know why and I'll see to it your comments are adressed.Nesty ^{Contact me!} 10:30, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yay

1. Revamper/nominator Nesty ^{Contact me!} 10:30, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
2. Terrible, absolutely terrib-- oh damn. I've typed this in the Yay section... Oh well, I can't be fucked fixing it. -- 'R BlaiddDdraig ^{Enter... THE SCARY DOOR} 03:58, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
3. So what, you've worked it up to an FA standard, what do you want? A userbox? Wait... do you? --Teller ^{Words, On my Screen :O} 04:26, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
4. -- Master Sima Yi 09:14, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Nay

Comments

Infiltration of the Castel Sant'Angelo - Voting

I have expanded and revamped the entire page, replacing images and quotes, and doing a large amount of rewording. I've consulted with Istruttore GuardDog and Istruttore TheSt0ryTeller, both of whom agree that it is of FA quality, after providing me with some suggestions. Nostalgia AC ^{Let's talk.} 14:31, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yay

1. As nominator and revamper. Nostalgia AC ^{Let's talk.} 14:31, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
2. -- Master Sima Yi 09:14, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
3. All my comments have been covered. =GuardDog 11:37, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
4. I was misquoted! D: What? I did say that? Why was I not informed? Teller ^{Words, On my Screen :O} 12:45, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
5. It was severely lacking some information on the escape, so I added that. Though I didn't know the proper name for that door on the floor thing, or those mechanisms which held the gate shut, so I just used some generic words for them. I also removed the second paragraph of the Aftermath section, it went into too much detail and was unnecessary. Other than that, the page was written very well, so it's all good now. -- 'R BlaiddDdraig ^{Enter... THE SCARY DOOR} 03:35, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Nay

Comments

Rebecca Crane - Voting

And another one. Blame Sima for the amount of nominations I'm making, he told me to do this :) I think Rebecca's ready for FA - if you disagree, let me know why and I'll go on another edit-spree. Nesty ^{Contact me!} 18:28, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yay

1. As revamper/nominator Nesty ^{Contact me!} 18:28, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
2. Very well done. -- 'R BlaiddDdraig ^{Enter... THE SCARY DOOR} 03:58, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
3. Anything they can do, I can do better... faster too. --Teller ^{Words, On my Screen :O} 04:26, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
4. -- Master Sima Yi 09:14, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
5. Sure, looks good. =GuardDog 11:37, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Nay

Comments