D&D Wiki:Featured Articles

D&D Wiki Help Portal

Joining
About
FAQ
Logging In
Mission Statement

Community
Community Portal
DnD Discussion
Featured Articles
Glossary of Jargon
News
Social Media
Talk Pages
Whacking with a Wet Trout

Editing
Article Naming
Campaign Settings
Constructive Editing
D&D Guidelines
D&D Links
Helpers Page
Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates
Meta Pages
Sandbox
Standards and Formatting
Table
Table/Examples
When to Italicize and Capitalize

Using D&D wiki
Browsing

Policies
A Good DM
Attribution Policy
Behavioral Policy
Deletion Policy
Legal
Mature Content Policy
Page Protection
Precedent
Rating Policy
Spirit and Intent
Warning Policy

Administration
List of Administrators
Request for Moderation
Requests for Adminship
Talk to the Administration

This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.

Featured articles are considered to be the best articles within D&D Wiki, as determined by the D&D Wiki community. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed on their talk pages to see if they meet the featured article criteria (see below).

Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal on their talk pages by nominating them for review (see below).

Template:Featured Article symbolizes featured content within D&D Wiki; this template can be found on the top right corner of an article's page, if it is a featured article.

Featured Article Criteria

  1. It is eloquent, comprehensive and stable.
    1. "Eloquent" means that the prose is succinct, engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard.
      1. Thus, pages that are in effect "options", (equipment, feats, skills, etc) of DMs and player characters cannot normally become featured articles, as they are typically lacking in total content. A rule of thumb for a bare minimum from any page is 3 paragraphs containing three complete sentences apiece, plus listed mechanical properties, (Weight, price, prerequisites, etc.) containing both mechanics/rules and descriptive/flavor text.
    2. "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details, and it means that the article is not subject to any improving, reviewing, and removing article template's meta.
    3. "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured article process. A rule of thumb for this criteria is about 3 weeks to a month without any major changes or debate regarding page content.
  2. It follows the articles related preload (with referenced source material), it follows Standards and Formatting, and grammar conventions including, but not limited to, When to Italicize and Capitalize.
  3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Externally hosted images need to be sourced, with adequate attribution to their authors. The images should be relevant and high quality thumbnails sized 300px, 600px, or 750px for very short horizontal images.
  4. Where it makes reference to pre-existing rules, they are referenced via a link to the relevant SRD or Homebrew page, or otherwise by a correct book/page/section citation, (IE: PHB pp. 222, under "Example Citations").
  5. Variant rules should be beneficial, understandable and elegant.
    1. "Beneficial" means that the variant rule should be useful to the D&D game. (For example, a variant rule which adds a drinking game on top of play would have no direct impact on the game, has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons itself, and so would be a poor candidate.)
    2. "Understandable" means that the variant rule is written in such a way that it can be comprehended by the average player by utilizing conventions including, but not limited to, When to Italicize and Capitalize.
    3. "Elegant" means that the variant rule should not be more complicated than is absolutely necessary, preferably as efficient as possible, and should be in its most understandable state. It should enhance game play and not slow it down.
  6. A nomination must reach a consensus within a six-month duration.
    1. A nomination that hasn't reached a consensus after six months of being nominated will automatically fail.
      1. An administrator can elect to extend this period for an appropriate duration.
    2. A previously failed nomination may not be renominated for another six months.

Featured Article Nominees

These are all the articles that are nominees for featured article status. To become featured articles they must be reviewed, meet all the featured article criteria (see above), and a positive consensus about the nomination must be reached for it to become a featured article.

To nominate an article for featured status
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the featured article criteria (see above).
  2. Place {{Featured Article Nominee|~~~~~}} on the very top of the articles talk page.
  3. Create a new section on the talk page of the article called "Featured Article Nomination" under which write a reason for nomination. Don't forget to sign your post using --~~~~.
To support or object a nomination or review

Please read a nominated article fully, and understand any guidelines covering its content, before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''' , followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''' , followed by the reason(s). Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it.
    • If one feels that an "Oppose" has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. One should not alter, strike, or break up comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
    • An administrator should be involved in this process in order to complete the process, as it involves writing a page summary and editing several administrator-locked pages. If no administrators have become involved by the time a vote has been closed, one should be contacted to complete the process.
Current Featured Article Nominees

These are all the featured articles that have been nominated for review. Sometimes articles may change dramatically or the criteria for featured status may be changed, articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be listed for review.

To nominate a featured article for review
  1. Place {{Featured Article Under Review}} on the very top of the articles talk page.
  2. Create a new section on the talk page of the article called "Featured Article Review" under which write a reason for the review. Don't forget to sign your post using --~~~~.
Review Process
  • A support vote indicates that the review nominator agrees with the review nomination, and feels that the article should no longer be featured.
  • An oppose vote indicates that the review nominator either disagrees with the review, or that an issue has been resolved, and that the article should continue to be featured.
Current Featured Articles Being Reviewed


Quality Articles

D&D Wiki's Quality Articles

Quality articles are pages that are:

  • Not extensive enough to be a Featured Article. Complex pages like classes and races are excluded from QAs as they require more work.
  • Well written. Free from problems that would qualify it for a maintenance template.
  • Non-contentious. Suitable to be dropped into most campaigns, balanced, comparable and compatible with the source books.

To nominate a page for Quality Article status, use the process at Featured Articles. Determining if it qualifies as a QA or FA can be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Only an admin should add or remove this category from a page.

Current Quality Article Nominees

To nominate a page for QA, place {{Quality Article Nominee|~~~~~}} on the article's talk page.


gollark: Hide extra potatOS computers in the tower and cable ducts.
gollark: PotatOS shall dominate all.
gollark: The war rages on.
gollark: Yes.
gollark: Potatoplex deliberately colours it.
This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.
https://a.osmarks.net/content/dandwiki_en_all_maxi_2021-03/A/D%26D_Wiki%3AFeatured_Articles
a.osmarks.net
CC-MAIN-2024-30
34266
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:M2ERL3X7YLKYXLMJI6OYBH6ZHOOITSF3
<urn:uuid:2670d82e-8012-42e2-be4b-64a8b728b576>
2024-07-25T14:06:17Z
140.238.85.193
text/html
sha1:2Z7DTZRCANUKT435LYCB4QJT6ZKQND7I
<urn:uuid:75169881-2c39-4f46-a726-ff3a9f66e675>
https://a.osmarks.net/content/dandwiki_en_all_maxi_2021-03/A/D%26D_Wiki%3AFeatured_Articles
response
<urn:uuid:bdd95f79-5aa0-46b4-8a95-5df743b20e20>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-168
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/