FANDOM


Shortcut:
Nuvola apps mozilla
Featured articles showcase the very best work of the Clannad Wiki's numerous editors. In general, featured articles are well-written, comprehensive, and unbiased. A list of featured articles can be found here.

Articles are designated as featured after being nominated and reviewed by the community at large. Nominated articles undergoing the review process are evaluated against the following criteria:

  • It is well-written: its prose is engaging, and even of a professional standard.
  • It is comprehensive, neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
  • It is well-researched and gives thorough information on the subject the article discusses. Claims made are verifiable against valid sources such as Key or the Clannad visual novel, anime, manga, et cetera.
  • It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.
  • It is neutral, presenting views fairly and without bias.
  • It is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  • It has a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.
  • It has appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • It has images and other media where appropriate, with concise captions. Images and media used must have their correct copyright template in their own pages.
  • It has formatting consistent with other articles within the same category it is in and the wiki as a whole.

Wikipedians may notice that the Clannad Wiki's criteria is nearly identical to Wikipedia's own criteria for featured articles. It should be noted that the criteria used in this wiki may be interpreted more liberally compared to Wikipedia. Furthermore, original research is generally accepted in the Clannad Wiki. Fan speculation is generally accepted as well, provided that it is marked as such.

The following rubric, based on the above criteria, is used during the review process:

Criterion Incomplete (0) Poor (1) Acceptable (2) Excellent (3)
Prose Article contains an amount of prose too insignificant to grade; or prose contains numerous orthographic or grammatic errors, or is otherwise incomprehensible. Article contains multiple grammatic errors or awkward syntax which interrupts the flow of text. Article contains no errors of orthography, grammar, or syntax; the flow of text is continuous and the prose is easy to read. Article exceeds acceptable standards; prose is engaging and of publishable quality.
Comprehensiveness and Length Article provides few if any facts relevant to the topic. Article provides numerous relevant facts, but neglects significant information; or article provides unnecessary detail which causes the article to be of an unreasonable length. Article covers most major relevant facts and maintains a length reasonable to the importance of the subject. Article provides all major relevant facts and maintains a reasonable length by organizing its content into concise and engaging paragraphs.
Neutrality and Broadness of Scope Article is biased in its entirety, or is written as an advertisement or argument; or article does not include a broad enough survey of available information to ascertain neutrality. Article does not consistently maintain a neutral point of view; or article contains only a narrow survey of available information. Article maintains a neutral point of view and contains a broad survey of available information. Article exceeds acceptable standards by ensuring that any and all significant conflicting views are represented, providing primary sources to verify information that is not conjectural.
Structure Article does not contain a lead or introduction; or article does not employ headings when they would be useful and appropriate. Lead section of article does not adequately introduce or summarize its contents; or article employs an amount of headings disproportionate to the article size. Article contains an introduction which adequately summarizes the article's contents; article makes use of headings where they are appropriate. Article contains an engaging introduction and employs headings in a manner which enhances the text of the article, making it more accessible to the reader.
Media Article contains no images or other media, or contains media irrelevant to the topic. Article contains at least one relevant image or other media item. Article contains one or more relevant media items which contain appropriate and succinct captions. Article exceeds acceptable standards by including media which enhances the content of the article and appropriately illustrates the article's topic.
Consistency Article does not maintain a style consistent with other articles of comparable topics. Article maintains minimal consistency with comparable articles by including a relevant infobox or navigational template. Article maintains consistency with comparable articles in both structure and appearance, through use of an infobox or navigational template and other general templates. Article exceeds acceptable standards by being properly categorized and allowing for the seamless integration of the article with related articles, providing links to other relevant pages and ensuring smooth user navigation.

The wiki's editors may comment on the article's quality using the above rubric. Nominations that are deemed to meet each criterion excellently will be granted featured status by an admin. Once a nominated article is granted featured status, it will be added to Category:Featured articles and labelled with {{Featured article}}. A featured article's status may be challenged by editors if they believe that the article's quality has fallen since it became featured. In that case, the article will once again go through the review process and, if sufficient evidence is found that it no longer meets the criteria, its featured status will be revoked.

Lock Red   This is a high-risk page which can only be edited by administrators.
General information
  • Only users who meet the following requirements may nominate or vote:
    • User has made at least 100 edits.
    • User has been editing the Clannad Wiki for at least one week.
  • CL:RV applies here as well. Users who disrupt the review process will have their comments struck out and blocked from editing the wiki for at least three days.
  • Users must be respectful and assume good faith during the review process.
  • Users may not edit closed nominations, except for archiving purposes.
Information for nominators

If you meet the requirements listed above, and would like to nominate an article for featured status, click here to begin the nomination process.

The following instructions are for source mode. If you are in visual mode, switch to source mode for now.
  1. In the Add the section headline box at the top, type [[<Article Name>]], where <Article Name> is the exact name of the article that you wish to nominate. (For example, [[Nagisa Furukawa]] if you are nominating Nagisa's article.) Pay attention to the brackets on either side of the name.
  2. You will now fill in {{Featured Article Criteria Rating}}. Fill in the username field with your exact username, and the date with the current date. Do not link your username.
  3. Click on the "more +" button on top of the page to display the featured article criteria rubric.
  4. Add ratings to prose_rating, comprehensiveness_rating, neutrality_rating, structure_rating, media_rating, and consistency_rating based on the rubric. Each row corresponds with one of the fields. Use the scroll bar to go through each criterion. Use 0 for incomplete, 1 for poor, 2 for acceptable, and 3 for excellent.
  5. If you wish, you may comment on your ratings using the next six fields. Each field corresponds with one of your ratings.
  6. You may add additional comments below the template.
  7. Replace <Your Signature Here> with your signature (~~~~).
  8. Click on the "Publish" button in the upper right corner.

A properly-filled nomination will look something like this:

{{nominate
|username                   = Wikia
|date                       = 1 January 2011
|prose_rating               = 1
|comprehensiveness_rating   = 2
|neutrality_rating          = 3
|structure_rating           = 2
|media_rating               = 1
|consistency_rating         = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
|prose_comment              = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
|comprehensiveness_comment  = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
|neutrality_comment         = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
|structure_comment          = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
|media_comment              = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
|consistency_comment        = Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
}}
<!-- Other comments can be added below this line. -->
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
~~~~
=== Editor Reviews ===
<!-- Add your reviews below this line. Don't forget to add your signature below the template. -->

Once you click on "Publish", your nomination will be added to this page's talk page, and will be seen by the wiki's editors. Editors may now add their own reviews to your nomination.

You may comment on other users' reviews to your nominated article. To do this, edit the "Editor Reviews" section under your nomination and locate the user review that you wish to comment on. Create a new line under that user's signature, add a colon (:) and add your comment. Don't forget to sign it.

Your nomination will be open for one week. Once that time passes, it will either be accepted or rejected by an administrator based on other users' input.

Information for voters

Only users who meet the above requirements may vote (submit reviews) during the review process. Furthermore, the following rules also apply:

  • Double voting is not allowed. Users also cannot use multiple accounts (whether registered or anonymous) to submit multiple votes.
  • Voting by proxy is not allowed, regardless of whether or not the other party has given you consent to vote on their behalf.
The following instructions are for source mode. If you are in visual mode, switch to source mode for now.

To begin the voting process, click on the "Talk" link on top of this page, and locate the nomination that you wish to vote on. You should find a header labelled "Editor Reviews" under the nomination. Click on the "Edit" link beside it, and copy-paste the following code at the bottom:

{{Featured Article Criteria Rating
|username                   = 
|date                       = 
|prose_rating               = 
|comprehensiveness_rating   = 
|neutrality_rating          = 
|structure_rating           = 
|media_rating               = 
|consistency_rating         = 
|prose_comment              = 
|comprehensiveness_comment  = 
|neutrality_comment         = 
|structure_comment          = 
|media_comment              = 
|consistency_comment        = 
}}
~~~~

Next, click on the "more +" button on the upper-right corner of the page to show the featured article criteria rubric.

Return to the template and add your username in the username field (do not link it), and add the current date to the date field. Then, add ratings to prose_rating, comprehensiveness_rating, neutrality_rating, structure_rating, media_rating, and consistency_rating based on the rubric. Each row corresponds with one of the fields. Use the scroll bar to go through each criterion. Use 0 for incomplete, 1 for poor, 2 for acceptable, and 3 for excellent. You may also comment on your ratings using the next six fields. Each field corresponds with one of your ratings. Click on the "Publish" button once you're done.

You may also comment on other users' reviews. To do this, edit the "Editor Reviews" section again and locate the user review that you wish to comment on. Create a new line under that user's signature, add a colon (:) and add your comment. Don't forget to sign it. You may also respond to other users' comments on your reviews. In order to keep track of which comments are directed to whom, please ensure that you are adding colons (:) where needed.

Information for administrators

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.