Zelda Wiki:Featured Content Disqualification

Given that Zelda Wiki.org now has a good number of Featured articles and pictures, it's been decided that a process for weeding out some of the less-than-exemplary content should begin. So this is it!

The goal is to ensure that our current selection of Featured Content remains the best possible showcase of quality content, by removing any articles or images which don't meet the stated criteria. This will be done by the voting process below.

The rules are simple. For "Disqualify" votes (votes that support the disqualification of something), one vote per calendar month per category is allowed. That is, one vote for pictures and one vote for articles. The voting system is entirely independent from any votes placed in other content voting pages. "Keep" votes (votes that oppose disqualification) are limited also to one a month. Votes are to be added below the relevant or  header. Please base your judgment primarily on the relevant criteria detailed here:

There can be a maximum of FOUR articles and FOUR pictures nominated at any given time. If there's an empty spot, feel free to nominate any other content which you feel is eligible for disqualification, clearly stating why. At the point where a new Featured slot is required (usually when a new article or image reaches the required number of votes to become Featured) we will remove one of the below Featured contents and replace it with the newly-Featured material. Oh, and as always:
 * Featured Article criteria
 * Featured Picture criteria

'''ALL votes and nominations MUST be signed using --~. If you do not sign your opinion or second, your vote WILL NOT be counted!'''

(Disqualified content) = Currently proposed articles for disqualification =

Current score: -3
When this article was featured, it was definitely the best website article on the wiki, having been one of the first to use the infobox and be properly subdivided and include references. However, now that so many other website articles have been improved in the same way, it's simply average. Fairly short, and it seems a little unfair to promote only one of our member sites in this way. Also, nearly a year on it seems that the controversy of the launch must have died down enough to make it less than newsworthy. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The articles really not that well written.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed with Adam. At the time the site was new so it was interesting, but it is now old news, the article is not too exciting to the point that our visitors should be looking at it as featured material. Make room for better articles that everybody can enjoy. I don't necessaryily think its bad to have a website featured, but in the future, I don't think featured websites should be mixed in the rotation, but rather, just get a 2month run or so and then that's it. Mases 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) There isn't anything unique about this article anymore. Just one of many.--Mjr162006 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

 * 1) Since the addition of "The Masterminds" section on the menu puts it on EVERY PAGE on the wiki, "featured" status is kind of unneeded at this point, but I could care less which way this one goes. --Captain Cornflake 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: +3
It's gotten kind of messed up and low-quality. Where's the ciatation (excuse my spelling), and it's under the category "Articles lacking sources". I don't think it should be featured anymore.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Yeah, I don't really see what you mean? Looking at the edits made since it was featured, I can only see a few main changes. One was the rewriting (improvement?) of a few sections, and the other was the addition of various new sections, particularly Toon Link and the Relationships section. I can't see how new information can possibly be detrimental to the article quality (providing that it's well written and presented, which this is) --Adamcox82 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WHOA! WHOA! Hold your horses, man! I was sure i'd never see this happen! Just look at the article, there is no way it is low quality! Is it me, or is the world going crazy? --Seablue254 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. I can't see how the quality has gotten worse. Looking back in the history, the only things that actually diminished it are acts of vandalism. UPDATE: I realized what you meant about the citation. I have dealt with the citation issue. The article is no longer in "Articles lacking sources". I added several references as well. It is now a much better article.--Matt 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: +1
This one was my nomination, and I wasn't so sure at the time that it us good enough. But I nominated it anyway for the sake of having at least one place as a featured article. Now, compared to the other great articles we've featured, it doesn't come up to the same standard. --Adamcox82 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...err No. This is one of my favorite places. It is also a good article. --Seablue254 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Current score: 0
This one's been around for a long time, and while it is a nice article, it's nothing revolutionary. The sections are pretty short, and while interesting it's hardly that noteworthy. Time for a change methinks! --Adamcox82 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

= Currently proposed pictures for disqualification =

Current score: +1
This image is rather small. The quality is not up to par with the other featured pictures. The source is also unknown.--Matt 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) That is all correct, and then some. also, i just don't like the picture :P --Seablue254 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) You know what, I actually really like this one. Not only is it the only LA image to be featured (and likely the only one available which could ever qualify to be featured), but I think it's pretty cool in a retro/cheesy kinda way ;P It does worry me that there's no source, but surely a bit of searching could turn up another copy that we could replace and add source info? I'll get on it now. --Adamcox82 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, I agree, this is practically the only LA featurable image, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a bigger version!--Magnus orion 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: 0
Okay, I know I uploaded and nominated this one. And while it's good quality and I like the subject, that's about it. It's not an exceptional composition, the background is dull, and it's one of a great many Twilight Princess images. Also, since it took over 2 months to get enough votes to be featured, I suspect that if we'd been running the opposition voting scheme at the time it may have never made it. --Adamcox82 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Current score: 0
Not a fan of this image. The background (as others have pointed out) is very dull, the image itself is hardly exceptional, and it's not even from a Zelda game! I wasn't keen on this being featured at the time, except back then we had no opposition voting process! --Adamcox82 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There is a whole set of images like this one from SSBB. Just having one of them featured is not fair. We should avoid nominating content that is one of many in the future (remember the former planet, Pluto :P!). We should not give images like this featured status just because it is cool. This one isn't even canonical.--Mjr162006 19:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Current score: 0
I know I helped this one on it's way by uploading a better version, and I really like it as an image. However, I've seen half a dozen other images from this set which are all equally as good, so why should this one be featured and not one of the others? Or all of them? We need to make space for new stuff, and something has to go... --Adamcox82 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)