Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chauntea/archive1
I am of the conviction that this article I produced complies with criteria of:
- 1. Exemplary - Though an obscure topic, it demonstrates the depth of Wikipedia by being able to provide veridical information on any topic, such as this one!
- 2. Comprehensibility - Flesch reading ease of 44.6%
- 3. Veracious - All facts can be checked on the references cited.
- 4. Well-written - A Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 11.7 (approx.)
- 5. I believe it to be uncontroversial - but Iam happy to have it subjected to an NPOV check.
- 6. It complies with the style manual, in layout etc.
- 7. Has concisely annotated images, that are appropriate.
Also, I reckon that it has sufficient depth and breadth to be a featured article. --Knucmo2 00:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (talk)
- Object leaving aside the question of whether a DnD goddess is featurable, a few things need to be fixed:
- It should say which books she appears in (both rulebooks and Forgotten Realms fiction) and if she has any notable followers in those books
- It should have in-line references so we know which facts come from which reference
- I'd be shocked if the picture were actually fair use. I'd be surprised Wizards of the Coast didn't grant permission to use it if asked, though.
- Right now, it doesn't seem any better than the short essays you find on gods in, say, the PHB. If you weave together information from a few more books and deal with copyrighting, this might be featurable.
- Dave (talk) 22:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding the first question, a whole range of articles are featured on Wikipedia. There might be some more even obscure topics, not unlike this one, that are successfully nominated. Simply because it is grounded in fantasy (as is a significant proportion of literature) that does not mean it is not viable. Perhaps this is elitism on your part, though that might be going a little far.
- Furthermore, it complies with the criteria of featured articles Wikipedia:What is a featured article. The copyright issue is the only one that really needs resolution, and I shall endeavour to do that. I am awaiting a response from a request to use this picture on this page from Wizards. I will keep you posted.
- Knucmo2 00:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (talk) (indentation fixed by Dave)
- You did not address 1 or 2. Dave (talk) 00:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, your sources may not be reliable. For example, the Kitaran Sea one is specific to one campaign set up by a DM at Stanford and as far as I know, everything there about "specialty priests" is house rules, not core rules. For a fictional subject with a recently featured article, see Three Laws of Robotics. Dave (talk) 01:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Very well. I shall concede the candidacy of this article, even though others may support. The issues you have raised I shall post on the discussion, in order that the issues become resolvable for the future. Thank you Dave, for your scrutiny of the article. --Knucmo2 10:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (talk)
Object I could barely understand what the first sentence of the article is about. You can't expect a reader to click through three links to understand phrases not common in English can you? 2)I dont know what you mean by =overview=. An overview of the topic should be in the lead-in. 3) History is a bit short. 4) I believe that there should be some more reviews on the subject. Are there any sites that give people more info on the topic? =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)