…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:
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.
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.
The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
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:
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.
Please note that in order for your vote to count, you must have 50 mainspace edits.
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.
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.
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.
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. --JackWallsSupermen 09:05, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
Remove
Yeah, sue me for nominating it before. --JackWallsSupermen 09:05, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the wording. Not difficult to fix, just lengthy and tedious. -- 'R BlaiddDdraigEnter... 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. RomehSpeak now 16:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
Could indeed do with quite a bit more work. NestyContact me! 20:29, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
As Blaidd and Rome have said, the wording needs improvement and formatting work. NostalgiaLet's talk. 03:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
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.
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. --JackWallsSupermen 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 BlaiddDdraigEnter... 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. NostalgiaLet'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 12Talk 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. TellerWords, 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 DucatoCouncil ChamberAssassination 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. --JackWallsSupermen 08:56, 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. --JackWallsSupermen 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 DucatoCouncil ChamberAssassination record 18:48, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
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.NestyContact me! 10:30, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
Revamper/nominator NestyContact me! 10:30, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Terrible, absolutely terrib-- oh damn. I've typed this in the Yay section... Oh well, I can't be fucked fixing it. -- 'R BlaiddDdraigEnter... THE SCARY DOOR 03:58, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
So what, you've worked it up to an FA standard, what do you want? A userbox? Wait... do you? --TellerWords, On my Screen :O 04:26, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
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 ACLet's talk. 14:31, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
All my comments have been covered. =GuardDog 11:37, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
I was misquoted! D: What? I did say that? Why was I not informed? TellerWords, On my Screen :O 12:45, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
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 BlaiddDdraigEnter... THE SCARY DOOR 03:35, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
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. NestyContact me! 18:28, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As revamper/nominator NestyContact me! 18:28, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Has sufficient votes.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 15:23, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
And another one. Sima likes to keep me busy, apparently... Anyway, did some major rewording, moved some images around, created a gallery, added quotes. I think it's ready, if you don't agree, let me know and I'll make it better. NestyContact me! 18:51, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As revamper/nominator, obviously NestyContact me! 18:51, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
We really need a new infobox image. But I fear the chances of getting one is slim. So, I guess it's set to go. --JackWallsSupermen 07:39, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Sure, yay. =GuardDog 13:36, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Nay
Comments
I might want to change a few things myself... tomorrow, so I will get back to this later. -- Master Sima Yi 23:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
As for the infobox image, I asked Jpulowski (The guy that provided the image for all Templar Agents and a few others) if he could find something. He hasn't replied yet. NestyContact me! 12:50, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sexy and I know it! --JackWallsSupermen 08:19, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
Also known as "Al Mualim". He was already GA, and I think I improved the page massively (if I may say so myself). I removed the random quotes, moved the images around, reworded the entire page, fixed the final words section, etc. etc.
Not good enough? Let me know and I'll improve it. NestyContact me! 19:46, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As revamper/nominator NestyContact me! 19:46, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Good job. -- Master Sima Yi 23:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
You ain't sexy, Jack.. XD --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 16:40, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
Already gave the page a revamp a while back prior to Revelations' release, now I cleared the page up. All info is on there, the formatting is good, pictures are good. I think it's worthy of FA status. Got any comments, leave them below. -- Master Sima Yi 23:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As nominator. -- Master Sima Yi 23:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Sufficient staff votes, been here long enough and no nays.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 03:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
All known info is on there, high quality images, proper formatting. I'm quite fond of it myself, and I see no reason why this couldn't be FA status. -- Master Sima Yi 12:00, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Been here long enough with sufficient vote.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 02:37, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
You know the routine by now: reworded, moved images around, fixed some sourcing, removed some OOU comments, fixed some links, etc. etc. If it is not good enough yet, let me know and I'll attent to it. NestyContact me! 09:44, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As revamper/nominator NestyContact me! 09:44, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
The possibility of an upcoming DLC prevents staff from voting. Vote closed until we have more news. NestyContact me! 12:27, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
The last one on the list Sima gave me, so please be so kind as to vote. If it is not good enough, I'll edit it and make it better! NestyContact me! 10:09, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As revamper/nominator NestyContact me! 10:09, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
With the upcoming DLC, new Info is bound to be added. With that, new information will need to be placed. Until then, I will not vote. TellerWords, On my Screen :O 05:28, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Was the DLC confirmed? The article looks good and reads well, but if there really is upcoming info, I'm with Story on this one. =GuardDog 03:21, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
The DLC has not yet been confirmed, though it is very likely. Also, I have taken it up to myself to saveguard this page from vandalism/speculation and to add the upcoming info myself upon release. NestyContact me! 09:53, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
What those guys said. --JackWallsSupermen 12:13, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, Lucy and Maria. Interesting.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 02:37, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
Sima and I both worked on this page, and we believe it to have everything it needs. It has information, it has quotes, it has images, and it definately has style. Time to vote once again people! NestyContact me! 22:45, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yay
As revamper/nominator NestyContact me! 22:45, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
I worked on this! -- Master Sima Yi 23:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Not the work I had in mind to make, but I guess it'll do for now. Hoo-RAH! --JackWallsSupermen 12:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Altayeer.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 02:37, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Nay
Comments
The early life could use some expansion (like the mention of that Peter guy). I'll see if I can do it myself. --JackWallsSupermen 15:41, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Agreed and closed.. --Vatsa (talk • Gentek) 02:37, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
This page's already made GA, and since then, several quotes, images and two new sections (Design and Templar Replicas) have been added. Seems worthy to me now, but please say so if something needs to be fixed. =GuardDog 17:01, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Yay
As nominator. =GuardDog 17:01, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Vote closed Click [show] to view the votes and comments.
TST and I both worked on this article, and have consulted with Guard. After rounds of editing and lots of rewording, we believe the article is ready for FA status. Thanks for voting. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 00:54, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Much better. Yay for me too now. =GuardDog 04:30, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
Much better. Yay for me too now. =NestyContact me! 22:49, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
Nay
Not trying to be a pain here, but keep in mind that an FA article needs to be understandable for all our users. An articles quality is not determined by the amount of "difficult" words in it. Reword it a bit more and I'll change my vote. NestyContact me! 04:37, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Pre-event details are a bit lengthy; it might actually be better to shorten or skip Shadowing. The opening section could use a mention of the aftermath, and its last two paragraphs about Suleiman might be better suited for the body, rather than the opening. But otherwise, information seems complete and flows well, will vote after changes. =GuardDog 09:36, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
I've done some work based off of your comments, which I hope should change your vote; if you still believe it needs work, however, then I understand as well. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 20:24, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
I've done a bit of rewording per Nesty's request, and I believe it should be simpler to read now. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 12:04, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
I've reworded nearly the entire article, as it was basically a walkthrough of the entire event prior to my revamp. I've also inserted new images into the article, and I did some work with the infobox. I believe it is of FA quality, and I have implemented some suggestions Guard has given me. Thanks for voting. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 18:57, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
I've done a good amount of expansion on the article, primarily in the Aftermath and opening sections. I've also reworded most of the article, replacing quotes and images as well. Furthermore, I did some work to tidy up the infobox, and I believe it's ready for FA. Thanks for voting, everyone. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 11:54, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Although it is a rather brief article, I believe it is written to an FA standard and has some cool images to accompany it. I've attempted to do as much expansion as possible, though this event is just terse overall. Thanks for voting. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 06:04, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yay. Good work. Though I personally do not like the infobox picture or the Greek Fire one. Assassin-Rome(Talk if you will) 15:19, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
There was a lot of unnecessary information. The description of the Great Chain wasn't needed, that's what the link to its separate article is for. And the Aftermath section was far too detailed, I deleted most of that. Otherwise the rest of it is good, just one minor thing. In the Meeting with Yusuf Tazim section, it mentions Ezio and Yusuf discussing the bomb, yet the quote for that part is in the next section, making it a bit out of place. So a new quote is needed for the Destruction and escape section. Once that's done I'll vote Yay. -- 'R BlaiddDdraigEnter... THE SCARY DOOR 13:39, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for that Blaidd. I just added the only quote from AC:R that is relevant to the Destruction and escape section. It's not great, but it's better than anything the novel could provide. Nostalgia ACLet's talk. 21:38, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I don't like it... But I won't vote nay unless I can figure out why I don't like it... NestyContact me! 22:15, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
