Notice: We are aware that many of the Chewiki’s images are still broken. We promise: we will try our best to fix it, but we don't guarantee that the fix will be trivial.
Editing Category talk:Featured Articles
From Chewiki Archive - YouChew:
1% Funny, 99% Hot Gas
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Furthermore, I feel that we should have written standards for what is to be featured, so that we do not have articles nominated and featured for the [[wrong]] reasons. -[[User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] 19:44, 20 June 2010 (CDT) | Furthermore, I feel that we should have written standards for what is to be featured, so that we do not have articles nominated and featured for the [[wrong]] reasons. -[[User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] 19:44, 20 June 2010 (CDT) | ||
− | |||
:But... it really is of good quality. Not to mention, I got positive feedback from others. | :But... it really is of good quality. Not to mention, I got positive feedback from others. | ||
− | + | If anything, I agree with some points. For example, I actually felt that with some of them (like "[[Mario]]") that I was just doing it so people would be happy, rather than that they are actually good. Similarly, I wouldn't say "[[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]" and "[[TV Tropes]]" are good nominees either, since they are mostly irrelevant to the scope of this wiki and not very well-written. I've actually been considering ''de-''featuring some of them but it kept slipping my mind. And as for the standards? I can just bring those up when someone wants to feature an article for the hell of it. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 20:08, 20 June 2010 (CDT) | |
− | |||
− |