Talk:Danaan Monarchy
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Danaan Monarchy FAC Vote (6/1/1)
Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.
Support
- I feel this article offers something in its subject matter and depth that makes it unique amongst other FACs. It is an excellent example article, and anybody writing articles about NS monarchies would do well to treat the topic with this sort of depth. --Pantocratoria 18:30, 4 February 2006 (GMT)
- And yet an other fine example of what happens when a player decides to dedicate time and effort to NationStates - magnificent and thorough articles on matters many (including myself) sort of tend to... uhm... leave aside. This one definetely deserves to be Featured. Jester 18:46, 4 February 2006 (GMT)
- Looks good. → Ceo \ squawk 20:17, 4 February 2006 (GMT)
- Well written article. Support. Jey 07:09 13 Februaru 2006 (GMT)
- Support. Gruen2alk 14:28, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
- Support --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 18:34, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
Oppose
- I am certainly appreciative of the time spent on this article, but frankly, the layout of it is nothing special, and the image at the end is not placed in the best position (that on top of its enormous size). I recommend you decrease the image resolution, remove those dead links unless you're planning to create those pages anytime in the next four months, and possibly consider adding new pictures into the article body to, er, jazz up the article's look. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 04:54, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
Neutral
- It is a good page, but all of the dead links bother me a tad. Valori 02:24, 14 February 2006 (GMT)
Comments/Questions
- I am of the opinion that an article like this not only doesn't need many pictures, but that adding pictures would be inappropriate. "Jazzing up the article's look" with more pictures would only add some superficial visual excitement to people who don't want to actually read the article at the expense of the actual content, which is in depth and thorough, in the text of the article itself. I agree about the deadlinks though, and have made a smaller version of the arms of dominion to be uploaded soon. --Pantocratoria 06:34, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
- Point taken, but I don't mean ten pictures. I mean, at the most, two. A picture of one of the members of the royal family, for example. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 08:03, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
- It can be tricky coming up with a picture for a person you've only seen in your head as opposed to a character whose appearance you have based on a real-life person; I don't know about Owain but I would personally find it more difficult to come up with a picture for the members of my own royal family who don't already have one than I would just about anything else. Damn not having artistic talent! In any event, I don't think asking for only two pictures makes my point any less valid. I didn't nominate this article because it did or didn't have pictures, I nominated it because I think it represents the sort of thing which is best about NSwiki - thorough, well-written, and interesting information. Featured article candidates should and I quote, "Be comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written". This article is all of these things. The perfect article "...includes informative, relevant images", "sufficient images to add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but few enough images that they do not distract from the article". I believe that an actual rendering of the blazon described for the arms of dominion qualifies as an image which adds to the understanding of the text (ie the text based blazon). I do not feel that it adds significantly to the article's interest, since I created that image for this article only because the article interested me so much already. Surely images of members of the royal family are informative and relevant on the character pages about those members of the royal family as opposed to an article discussing the institution of the monarchy itself. When I read this article, there is nothing which stands out to me as something which could really use an image to help me to understand. This is really the core of my objection to this idea that a featured article must have images in it - the featured article candidates article emphasises writing, and doesn't discuss images at all. Images are discussed in wikipedia:the perfect article and wikipedia:how to write a great article, where the need for an image to be informative and relevant to the article in question is emphasised. It is the image which needs to be related to the article, not the article which needs to have images. If featured article candidates must have images, then the article should say so. It doesn't, so I don't see why featured article candidates must have a certain threshold of images. --Pantocratoria 13:21, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
- Again, point taken. And, no, I don't mean to say an FAC must have images, I just say, like the Perfect Article article states, images are a plus, but formatting and content is more important. And while this article has great depth, it just doesn't give me the "special" feeling, however gross that may sound. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 21:28, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
- And pictures would give you that "special" feeling? What part of the article do you think needs a picture to "add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text"? I agree with you about the dead links and think that the author should remove them, but I must admit that I really can't follow the argument that the article must have pictures in order to give you that special feeling for the reasons I've previously discussed at length. --Pantocratoria 07:45, 20 February 2006 (GMT)
- I have to agree with the pesky Latinian on this one. Pictures and pretty infoboxes do not necessarily make a good article. Yes, they make it look fancy, but sometimes they take too much of the information that should be in the article proper and not in a table by the edge of the screen. I read that article, which is structured coherently and is read easily, and I liked it. Actually, the fact that a person would go to great depths to spell out things that many of us just leave in the dark corners of our mind makes this article unique and innovative, capable of contributing to the development of NSWiki by inspiring other authors to come up with even more interesting things to read. Jester 02:34, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
- And to add to my previous statement, we are all entitled to our tastes :D So some might like pictures and beautiful formatting, for others the depth and information contained is enough. Actually, it is good that we have diffirent opinions, since that means we can improve our works by listening to others. If not, Wiki would be a very dark, shady and bo-oring place :\ Jester 02:38, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
- Yes, it is a little plain. Yes, pictures can be nice. But a lot of work has gone into this article, it makes sense as it is, it is a good example of a developed non-nation article. I'm not going to vote against because there are no pictures of imaginary people. Gruen2alk 14:28, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
- OK, the author has added another image and fixed all the red links. Are you happy now, Pacitalia? --Pantocratoria 06:57, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
- I won't be for long if you keep acting like a smartarse. Otherwise, it looks much better now. And not because of the addition of one image. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 01:17, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
- Yes, it is a little plain. Yes, pictures can be nice. But a lot of work has gone into this article, it makes sense as it is, it is a good example of a developed non-nation article. I'm not going to vote against because there are no pictures of imaginary people. Gruen2alk 14:28, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
- And to add to my previous statement, we are all entitled to our tastes :D So some might like pictures and beautiful formatting, for others the depth and information contained is enough. Actually, it is good that we have diffirent opinions, since that means we can improve our works by listening to others. If not, Wiki would be a very dark, shady and bo-oring place :\ Jester 02:38, 23 February 2006 (GMT)
- Again, point taken. And, no, I don't mean to say an FAC must have images, I just say, like the Perfect Article article states, images are a plus, but formatting and content is more important. And while this article has great depth, it just doesn't give me the "special" feeling, however gross that may sound. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 21:28, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
- It can be tricky coming up with a picture for a person you've only seen in your head as opposed to a character whose appearance you have based on a real-life person; I don't know about Owain but I would personally find it more difficult to come up with a picture for the members of my own royal family who don't already have one than I would just about anything else. Damn not having artistic talent! In any event, I don't think asking for only two pictures makes my point any less valid. I didn't nominate this article because it did or didn't have pictures, I nominated it because I think it represents the sort of thing which is best about NSwiki - thorough, well-written, and interesting information. Featured article candidates should and I quote, "Be comprehensive, factually accurate, and well-written". This article is all of these things. The perfect article "...includes informative, relevant images", "sufficient images to add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but few enough images that they do not distract from the article". I believe that an actual rendering of the blazon described for the arms of dominion qualifies as an image which adds to the understanding of the text (ie the text based blazon). I do not feel that it adds significantly to the article's interest, since I created that image for this article only because the article interested me so much already. Surely images of members of the royal family are informative and relevant on the character pages about those members of the royal family as opposed to an article discussing the institution of the monarchy itself. When I read this article, there is nothing which stands out to me as something which could really use an image to help me to understand. This is really the core of my objection to this idea that a featured article must have images in it - the featured article candidates article emphasises writing, and doesn't discuss images at all. Images are discussed in wikipedia:the perfect article and wikipedia:how to write a great article, where the need for an image to be informative and relevant to the article in question is emphasised. It is the image which needs to be related to the article, not the article which needs to have images. If featured article candidates must have images, then the article should say so. It doesn't, so I don't see why featured article candidates must have a certain threshold of images. --Pantocratoria 13:21, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
- Point taken, but I don't mean ten pictures. I mean, at the most, two. A picture of one of the members of the royal family, for example. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 08:03, 19 February 2006 (GMT)
Don't forget to update the vote tally!
