''([[Zelda Wiki:Ex-Featured Content|List of Disqualified content]] {{-}} [[Zelda Wiki:Failed Disqualifications|List of Failed Disqualifications]])''
''([[Zelda Wiki:Ex-Featured Content|List of Disqualified content]] {{-}} [[Zelda Wiki:Failed Disqualifications|List of Failed Disqualifications]])''
='''<small>Currently proposed articles for disqualification</small>'''=
='''<small>Currently proposed articles for disqualification</small>'''=
==[[Dodongo]]==
<h3>Current score: -7</h3>
This article has a template on it saying that it needs to cits its references and sources. This is not the type of article that should be featured. In addition to this, most of the images are not cited properly at all. This article needs a lot of work. I'm ashamed to have this as a featured article. [[User:Mases|Mases]] 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
{{disq}}
#No sources = No feature. Its all-around arrangement and phrasing isn't quite up to par for a feature either. --[[User:Douken|Douken]] 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
#Yeah, this was one which definitely slipped through the net, and got featured based on the subject matter rather than the article itself. Looking at the voting history [[Zelda Wiki:Featured Article Nomination/Archive|here]], at least half of the supporting votes would be completely invalid under the forthcoming stricter guidelines. {{:User:Adam/sig}} 09:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
#Extremely poor article. In fact, I'm fairly certain that few, if any, sources even exist for this enemy. There is so little to write about them anyway. It will never be anything exemplary.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 00:28, June 12, 2009 (UTC)
#There's little references, and as Matt has said, there really cannot be for such a minor enemy who has only appeared in a few of the games. Furthermore, the layout was, and still is in a bad shape, and really needs a serious overhaul for me to even think about keeping it featured.{{:User:Steven/sig}} 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
#References are a big thing now, and this article barely has any. It hasn't made enough appearances throughout the series to even write too much about it. The layout could use some work, too. [[User:Dany36|Dany36]] 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
#I looked it over hoping to save it, but I think it's in Din's hands now. {{:User:Axiomist/sig}} 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
#Sorry, Mr. Dodongo. I'm afraid that you're going to have to go. Having two templates on a page saying that it needs work pretty much answers the question. {{:User:Alter/sig}} <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">23:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC)</span> 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
{{keep}}
I do believe that its recent reorganization saved this article from disqualification. While it may look as if there is less information on the page now, it was always that much, as the page was EXTREMELY redundant when it came down to content in its earlier form, making the page "look" longer. It still carries the style, punctuality, and readability of its previous organization, so I see no reason to disqualify it at this point. {{:User:Cipriano 119/sig}} 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
After checking this article's previous revisions compared to after it was reorganized, I'm going to say that it's quite improved seeing as it's no longer redundant, is organized nicely, reads great. I honestly don't see a reason to disqualify it now.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 15:20, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
{{clear}}
==[[Majora's Mask (Object)]]==
<h3>Current score: -4</h3>
I'm surprised this has remained featured for so long. I would hardly call this article good by any stretch of the imagination. It is mostly theory and strategy guide and doesn't cite sources. I hardly think it could ever be worked up to a good quality article. It is just too small of a subject. Even if it is a boss.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 01:04, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
{{disq}}
#I'm also going with the disqualification of this article. It has plenty of information, but no references to back it up. As Matt has said, the theory section takes up half the article, and the rest is mostly walkthrough. Quite frankly, these issues need to be resolved, or the mask and Boss need to have seprate pages.{{:User:Steven/sig}} 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
#Yeah, this article is rather poorly written as well. Not enough references. Most of it is theory as well. It needs disqualified.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
#This article disgusts me. How did it ever make featured status? The quality and organization is poor and it is written like a narrative, not to mention the MASSIVE theory sections. Gross. Kill.
#Uhm. Yeah. This article shouldn't be Featured. The bulk of the content is in the theory section and it's currently nominated for a merger? Not to mention that the "Fierce Deity and the Moon Dungeons" section has nothing to do with the Mask in itself. Time to trim it from the list. {{:User:Embyr 75/sig}} 21:18, 15 February 2011 (EST)
{{keep}}
{{clear}}
==[[Sacred Realm]]==
==[[Sacred Realm]]==
Line 61:
Line 31:
='''<small>Currently proposed pictures for disqualification</small>'''=
='''<small>Currently proposed pictures for disqualification</small>'''=
==Link's Awakening Art==
<h3>Current score: +4</h3>
[[File:Link's Awakening Art.jpg|thumb|200px]]
This image is rather small. The quality is not up to par with the other featured pictures. The source is also unknown.--[[User:Matt|Matt]] 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
{{disq}}
# That is all correct, and then some. also, i just don't like the picture :P --[[User:Seablue254|Seablue254]] 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
{{keep}}
#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. --[[User:Adam|Adam]] 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
#Yeah, I agree, this is practically the only LA featurable image, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a bigger version!--[[User:Magnus orion|Magnus orion]] 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
#If it matters anymore I found the source: [http://www.zeldainformer.com/images/news/links_awakening_art.jpg]-- [[User:Green_Tunic|Green_Tunic]] ([[User talk:Green_Tunic|Talk]]) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
#And I've found a larger version!: [http://www.the-triforce.com/jeux/fiche/links-awakening/images/wallpaper/4_112_.html] {{:User:Petenu/sig}} 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
#It's a good image, and the only Link's Awakening shot that ever could be featured. Also, I like it. :P {{:User:Alter/sig}} <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">23:56, January 2, 2010 (UTC)</span> 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
{{clear}}
==Dark Link Render==
==Dark Link Render==
Revision as of 20:17, 18 April 2011
Given that Zelda Wiki 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 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 {{disq}} or {{keep}} 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.
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!
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.User:Mandi/sig 20:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Disqualify
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. User:Matt/sig 03:36, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
Keep
Negated/Retracted Votes
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.User:Justin/sig 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.User:Justin/sig 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is rather small and the quality is far from impressive. It isn't nearly as nice as the other featured pictures we have now. Out with the old! —Embyr 75 --Talk-- 14:47, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
Disqualify
It's not as high res as you'd expect a featured picture to be. There are also very visible artifacts. It just doesn't have that crisp, clean look we want. User:Abdullah/sig 15:31, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
Disqualify
Keep
Negated/Retracted Votes
