FANDOM



This is archive for all votes for the featured articles:

Votes ending after 1/1/07Edit

CataduanesEdit

  • Yes Problems were fixed. J Andres 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Sexlanta Edit

  • Yes Alot of content, didn't notice anything wrong with it, maybe you guys will. J Andres 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Perhaps a little too long? Maybe split some of that out. Til then (and after then) it's still a great article. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes It is, right now, a great article. Aido2002((talk)) 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Soviet Narodnik Edit

  • No Contains a wealth of information, but not quite yet. Maybe in another month. J Andres 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I think it's quite good, and I think a no vote would need more reasoning then a compliment to the article, then "not quite yet". -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Doesn't seem quite there. For one thing, I don't like how the flag protrudes the nation infobox. Aido2002((talk)) 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    I think that's a personal style choice and doesn't really detract from the article itself. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Templuria Edit

  • No - This article has blank sections, not great formatting, and is lacking compared to others on this list J Andres 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No - Per J Andres -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Needs cleanup, I agree. Aido2002((talk)) 23:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Politics of Templuria Edit

  • No Some blank sections, Templuria is a better article than this and I said no to that J Andres 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No - Per J Andres -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Per J Andres/Mason. Aido2002((talk)) 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Templurian Military History Edit

  • No To short to be considered great. Lack of information, bad formatting as well. J Andres 16:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No - Per J Andres -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Per J Andres/Mason. Aido2002((talk)) 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Pacific Assistance Network Edit

  • No I think the author here went image happy. Although some of the images are useful in full size, most of them are not. J Andres 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not yet I also think there are too many images, specifically too many full size ones, they are bigger then the page and I'm using a 1024 resolution. I don't think images should assume the reader has a bigger res then that. That being said there isn't a lot of information, and I think the images need to have some purpose on the page and should probably be used as thumbnails with captions explaining why they need to be there. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Not only is there too many images, but too many images that don't use thumbnails. Aido2002((talk)) 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Srbija Edit

  • Yes This is one of the best articles on this Wiki. J Andres 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes could use some cleanup (I'll give it a go) on some parts, but even before that is a good goal for other articles to reach. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes It is one of the only articles to be written as well as we want them all to be. Aido2002((talk)) 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Wars of J Andres Edit

  • Abstain Although I do like my article, I feel it is inappropriate for me to vote either way for it. J Andres 16:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Name changed J Andres 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Great use of the infoboxes in the sections, concise and interesting. All war articles should be like this. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Great, but one th9ing bugs me: the name doesn't seem, in lack of a better word, proper enough. I'm not going to change it right now, but I think it should be something like Wars of J Andres. Aido2002((talk)) 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Grand Global Alliance Edit

  • No This article is comprised of the charter and images. There needs to be more content for me to vote yes. J Andres 16:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Per J Andres (History? Actions?) -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No per J Andres and Mason. Aido2002((talk)) 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

International Communist Party Edit

  • Maybe I think this alliance article is good, and I will change my vote to "yes" if the charter is added. J Andres 16:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe per J Andres. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No It just doesn't seem there yet, it could be made better. Aido2002((talk)) 23:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Serbian Knights Alliance Edit

  • No Although this article has content, some of the sections are extremly short, which makes it look wierd. J Andres 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No One sentence does not make a section, feel free to clean up then re-nominate. 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Ghostovian Football Association Edit

  • No Very little content, consists of players names and other teams. J Andres 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Per J Andres, plus images with captions without using the thumb function. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Isn't visually or content wise too great. Aido2002((talk)) 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

Pilar Edit

  • Yes This article is close to Srbija J Andres 16:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Great use of images and formatting as well. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Ghostovia Edit

  • Yes Ghostovia is lacking in the amount of content. It is very close to achieving this status, though and maybe in the future it will. (Vote changed to yes on 1/1 in response to below comment)J Andres 16:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Ghostovia was broken up into several articles (so it wasn't too long) and as is, it is quite informative, and nicely provides links to the rest of the information easily. I think you should possibly reevaluate your vote Andres. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Good Cause, or NPO slanderer? Edit

  • No It doesn't even cover the event well. J Andres 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No Per J Andres, and bad formatting. I don't really approve of interview style, seems unwiki-like and POV-ish to me, unless the article is about an interview, then the interview shoudl appear unaltered. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong No Well, this is why I want a "News:" namespace. I agree with Mason, it is un-wiki-like, etc. In fact, I would go so far to say that it should be deleted for these reasons. Aido2002((talk)) 00:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    Eh, contact the writer and suggest a change to the style of *insert similar event-related article here*. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: No Support

WyfindEdit

  • No Similar to Ghostovia not yet, but maybe in a few months. Although this have formating problems too. J Andres 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I think the style and content are good targets for other articles to go for. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes Seems ready. Aido2002((talk)) 00:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Nova Rio Edit

  • Adding here for discussion, holding out on voting til I can get a chance to read it. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be pushy, but it's been almost a week... I'm just anxious. MTTezla 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lots of great content on the page, and the stuff that would have made the article too bulky is on separate pages which are linked to easily. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E -CN) 15:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes After finally getting around to reading it, I support this article. J Andres 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... again, I hate to be pushy, but do I get a banner or something now? Or are we waiting for another vote? Sorry, again. MTTezla 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Voting Period has ended. Result: Support

Pre Defenition of Great Article VotesEdit

PilarEdit

  • pro - think of it as featured article worthy. Good written nicely formatted. I agree with proposal. Whisperer 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • pro - I proposed it, so I agree with it... J Andres 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Pro - Simply great. You can see some hard work in there *applauds* stefanmg 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GhostoviaEdit

  • pro - Well isn't it obvious why. Whisperer 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • pro - Lots of decent updates recently J Andres 12:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • pro - I agree with Andres and I know how hard Ghost worked on it. stefanmg 13:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SexlantaEdit

  • pro This article is very well written, the pictures should be made into thumbs so the text is aligned better, but this can easily be fixed. Full Support J Andres 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • pro Well it is now OK. Whisperer 13:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(So what do we have to wait on here, because I think I posted this like two weeks ago?...)

  • pro Very good article. When will we add it? stefanmg 14:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Soviet NarodnikEdit

  • pro I think this article is well done. I think it still has room for expansion, but it compares to others on the list. J Andres 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.