Zelda Wiki:Featured Content Disqualification

Given that Zelda Wiki 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 do not 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, per user, 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 is an empty spot, feel free to nominate any other content which you feel is eligible for disqualification, clearly stating why. If a new article or picture becomes featured, this list will be gone through. If a nomination obtains a score of -3, for a "sufficient amount of time" determined on a case-by-case basis, it will be considered a successful Disqualification and will be replaced with new content. If a nomination has had a score of +4 for at least a week, it will be considered a Failed Disqualification.
 * Featured Article criteria
 * Featured Picture criteria

Because the nature of the wiki changes daily thanks to active editors, it is likely that an article nominated for Disqualification may overturn the original cause for nomination during its run. If this occurs, a review of the original cause will be instated to determine if the original claims remain legitimate. If the article has indeed superseded its initial nomination, it will be immediately considered a Failed Disqualification and will be replaced with new content.

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

(List of Disqualified content — List of Failed Disqualifications) = Currently proposed articles for disqualification =

Sacred Realm
Current score: -1 This article is overly long and redundant. It includes excessive redundancies and descriptions in its writing style which gives the impression of fan fiction/fanon, exaggerated events and theories which in turn carries across a very un-encyclopedic appearance. 20:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's far more elaborate than it should be, it's full of assumptions and full-blown theories, the wording is excessive and repetitive, some information is repeated, there is information that really isn't relevant, and it reads way too much like a story, not like an encyclopedia article. 03:36, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree. It's full of theories, which might be good if they didn't take up the entire page. It reads like a story, and, it's hard to get correct information if one isn't looking out for the theory warnings. 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to agree. The redundancy is terrible, along with the  theories which take up most of the article. I'm aware that this  contradicts my supporting vote, but to be honest...I only skimmed the  article. I didn't take the time to really look at the content. 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Screw it, I'm retracting the vote. It may be a little redundant, but it can be fixed. I'll work on removing redundancies and fixing it up, myself. 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

= Currently proposed pictures for disqualification =

The Wind Waker illustration
Current score: 0 This image should be removed now that the HD version is a featured picture. They're far too similar and the HD version is definitely the superior image. Plus, it's our second oldest featured pic; our standards are not the same now as they were over five years ago. 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I'll have to agree for the reasons stated above. Nothing else to add, really. Caleb said it all. 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)