WikiFur:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2005
Being the first furry conference, one might have expected ConFurence to be the first to be featured as well, but as it happened Feral! beat it to the mark. This might be due to the sheer size of the topic - a conference spanning 15 years takes some time to write about. I figured that since people were already well on their way to breaking out the article into a set of subarticles by year, the main article was probably overdue for featuring. The article was a little fragmented in places, but it gave a good idea of the topic.
The only real problem was a lack of a picture, but fortunately the old website was still up, and I found a conveniently-shaped logo on the issue of InFurNation announcing events of 1996 (I think the logo itself was more the 2002 era :-). --GreenReaper(talk) 05:17, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think this would be great . . . except that it has no picture. Anyone know any dragon-artists that might be willing to donte some art, or some public-domain dragons? Preferably more than one, as there's plenty of room in the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:12, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- What size would be preferred min/max for an image/images? I have several pieces that would be appropriate that I can crop and edit. --ToyDragon(talk)
- Probably anywhere from 100 to 250 or maybe 300 in width? Height is more flexible because the page will scroll down anyway, we just don't want it too squashed. Perhaps more if you have a particularly wide but short one that would be good as a divider somewhere.
- Note that MediaWiki has a variety of image tags (somewhat described in our help and further in the guide linked from there) that can be used to make thumbnails and the like, so full artwork can be uploaded for viewing if desired while still remaining reasonable in size on the page (cropping is appropriate if you want to show a detail of a larger piece inline). --GreenReaper(talk) 04:32, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
This one popped up while I was at the PDC and somewhat pressed for time. I needed a featured article quickly while I was dealing with other matters, so I took a look at the new articles, and sure enough, there was one there. A little bland, but certainly informative. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:12, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Number of relevant categories, well-linked, pretty peekshur at the top. I think it's pretty good. Almafeta 14:05, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Support - it's well laid out and flows well, although I think more could be said on the topic. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:16, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- What article couldn't that be said about? ;) Almafeta 17:53, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
A little short, but contained good link-ins to other featured articles. Somehow it managed to cover the topic of both comics and online communities and role-playing games in one fell swoop, which I thought was something of an achievement. It even inspired me to edit Wikipedia's powergaming article! A good thing it was featured before it grew yet more powerful. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:25, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What could be more furry than a long-running television show about a group of pawpets, especially when you consider it's for charity? It was topical, and the article had a cute logo, too. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:34, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What with one thing and another (or come to think of it, maybe just one thing), I was looking for an article which could be undeniably viewed as appropriate for featuring. The number-one comic on the Belfry WebComics Index seemed like a good plan. This one had mostly been copied from Wikipedia, but that didn't make it any less appropriate, although I did give it a few touch-ups. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:30, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Did you know? This article was actually selected after Funday Pawpet Show, but moved up because it was a bit silly to feature that on a Saturday rather than a Sunday.
Whew. Now, this was a contentious one. I've said most of what I wanted to say over there, but I'll also say that, amazingly enough, no troll invasions or mass tragedy resulted from it remaining the featured article for the day. People take this stuff too seriously sometimes (me included! :-). --GreenReaper(talk) 07:08, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
A useful article full of pointers to some of the best anthropomorphic works out there. Admittedly, it was a little low on body text, but for some topics lists are always going to dominate. It's nice to see many of the featured artists and topics already have articles, although it could always do with improvement.
As for the image, I've not said it before, but I'll say it again - official logos are an ever-useful source of images for articles that have none. I did actually spend some time making one that was more transparent so it would show up better, but it ended up just looking washed out. Sometimes the quickest mods are the best. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:58, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
CSI and PafCon (CSI)
I decided to feature these two together because they were closely-related articles - PafCon had some nice images while CSI had the majority of the text. Together, they give a good picture of the show and the issues surroinding it, and perhaps more importantly the response from the community. Obviously it's also an important topic to the fandom in terms of media relations, although people tend to overestimate the effect it has, and media coverage has been worse. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:49, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Not one of the usual articles we have, this summary article covers a wide range of topic, and manages to be highly informative while remaining interesting to read. The link section is the best part, with many useful resources for those wanting to learn more. I wish we had more articles like this. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:37, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The first convention to be mentioned, Feral! definitely has some dedicated members judging by the quality of the article written for it (and by reading the linked pages!) - detailed history for each year, good links, and even a few pictures. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:28, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I found this topic rather intruiging, but aside from that, it had a picture, was well laid-out and well-written, had appropriate internal and external links, and was of a significant length. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:14, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
This was one of those convenient featured articles, showing up a few days beforehand with copious detail on the subject and a suitable picture. It got even better a few days afterwards, which was nice to see - a few featured articles have ended up stagnating, which is a shame. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:55, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)