Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

Uncyclopedia[edit]

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - 1c. Some of my comments from the previous nom were addressed, but a major concern remains that many of the statements in the article use primary or unreliable sources. Uncyclopedia, its variants, Wikia, and any other wiki should not be used as reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We use corporate literature and web page to describe companies; we use Wikipedia a source to describe Wikipedia; I don't see why we cannot consider Uncyclopedia a reliable source for describing itself. Raul654 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, please see WP:SELFPUB. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must respectfully disagree. Looking at WP:SELFPUB, at the very least we have problems with the last two bullets. Since all of these sources are wikis we haven't the faintest clue who authored them, if the content is a gag, or if the content will even be there an hour from now. Additionally, around 2/3 of the total sources on this page are primary. I would consider that fact a full violation of the last bullet of WP:SELFPUB. I don't consider wikis, community forums, blogs, and other self-published sources to be reliable in the slightest except for extremely basic facts. However, this article relies on these sources for the majority of its content. --Laser brain (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Normally, I’d entirely agree with Raul and Nishkid, but I think the “appropriateness of any source always depends on the context” phrasing of WP:V is important here. Unlike “normal” organizations or companies, which release information that can’t be altered by the public and even may be subject to federal scrutiny (e.g. SEC filings), this article is relying heavily on wikis, which hold little to no water. Exacerbating the problem is the parody focus, which casts substantial doubt on the earnestness of the information. The print version of The Onion, for example, lists “Herman Ulysses Zweibel” (Zwiebel being German for onion) as the founder. How do we know that something similar isn’t happening here? There’s nothing wrong with parody and humor, but, for serious critical commentary, we need to find sources of information for which we can be reasonably certain the comedy shtick has been put aside. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As said in the previous nom, I've watched it grow for some time now, and would very much like to see it featured. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but watching it grow and wanting it to be featured don't seem to match any of the criteria. This is not a valid declaration of support. Tony (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fixes still needed: I fixed some of this myself, but there are 1a, prose issues. I haven't taken a close look yet to re-evaluate progress, but I still see WP:MOSNUM issues (in the lead and elsewhere, spelling out numbers vs. use of digits), endashes needed in place of WP:HYPHENs, and the Other languages section still contains a collection of external jumps. External jumps go in External links or citations; Wiki isn't a MySpace or Blog page or an indiscriminate collection of links (WP:NOT). That's just a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another quick sample: ref 37, about The Lake District, doesn't verify the text supported. This is an important 1c, factual accuracy issue. Linking to a current article page on Uncyclopedia isn't the correct way to source that cited text; perhaps linking to the main page of that date would solve the problem. Other statments need to be analyzed to make sure the source supplied actually verifies the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will it do? Nomination of The Lake District? --Drhlajos (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since I can't figure out what this is trying to say, I can't figure out how to fix it.
          • One feature of Uncyclopedia's articles is the presence of quotes, which are often attributed to a person or other entity. Some of these individuals have gained an in-joke status with a reference to at least one of them on almost every page.[20]
        • That entire paragraph may be understandable to Uncyclopedia regulars, but I'm getting nothing from it. The prose needs to be tightened up, the concept better explained, and perhaps an example would help. And why (weeks after first commenting) am I still finding basic textual redundancies like "of Uncyclopedia face is the constant steady flow"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another example of where the article fails to be brilliant, comprehensive and compelling:
          • In 2005, the Flying Spaghetti Monster entry from Uncyclopedia was mentioned in a New York Times column reporting the spread of so-called "Pastafarianism".[1]
        • This may be interesting to Uncyclopedia insiders, but I have no idea what pastafarisanism is, and I shouldn't have to click on the link to get the context of why this is interesting or funny or why it's mentioned; it should be explained to me here, the context should be developed. The article fails to engage the uninitiated or explain the humor, concepts and basic terms. I've made several corrections as I've read; that's as far as I'm going for now. In addition to reducing the MOSNUM, textual redundancy and other issues, please work on explaining terms and concepts to the uninitiated and adding content that will engage the reader's interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • One more piece of "so what?" content, which isn't compelling, doesn't provide context, doesn't tell me why I care:
          • In addition to articles about specific entries on the wiki, several papers speak of the website in general—usually in a section devoted to technology or the Internet. This was the case when Uncyclopedia was referenced in the Boston Herald and The Guardian.[28][29]
        • Do I have to go read the Boston Herald or Guardian article to find out why I care about this, or is this article going to tell me something compelling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ack, it keeps going. I will wait a few days for these issues to be addressed, otherwise I'll be an Oppose. A choppy, two-sentence paragraph that is a snake for chopping (see the text exercises on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s userpage.
          • The Spanish language version, Inciclopedia was set up in February 2006[54] after a sudden increase in the number of incoming articles in Spanish at the English Uncyclopedia, following the closure of the Spanish humor wiki Frikipedia due to legal issues with the Sociedad General de Autores y Editores,[55] a Spanish organization for the rights of authors, who were angered by Frikipedia's entry on them.[54] Frikipedia was eventually relaunched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to oppose, in spite of three weeks to work on the article, and lots of tips given for how to bring it to featured status, no improvement in the deficiencies mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per previous nom and as the person who promoted the article to GA. ISD (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: still, i think its a good one to feature. I agree with TLB. --Drhlajos (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: people says, there are bad external links, and stuff. Why don't you remove them on sight, if you see any of it? If it's really link to blogs and so on, it will only help WP. --Drhlajos (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because to "remove them on sight", it helps to know what to replace them with, and that is best left to the nominators and other editors who know the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry. The sourcing and flow is good but the content is very fanlike and it is lacking something that I can't quite tell. I think it is because it is very short compared to other articles on websites. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've read through, this oppose seems valid; context is just not developed for a lot of the text, as in the examples I gave above. Hopefully this will be addressed by the regular editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was the original nominator and feel that everything falls into place. For those who have been addressing the external links, I saw we ignore those regulations. Having those links gives users easy access to the projects, and to remove them would decrease the value. Teh Rote (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what stops every other Wiki article from making the same argument, rendering Wiki a blogspace and collection of links to other sites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that what you seriously believe will happen? I'm saying this rule should be ignored because having instant access to the projects improves flexibility. Without those links, the table would only take up space. Besides, I'm not saying that should happen to every article. I'm saying ignore the rule, not abolish it. Teh Rote (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about the table; I'm talking about the text in the Other languages section. There's no need or reason to send Wiki readers out to non-English other sites, in any article. Further, we have inter-Wiki's for a reason. When people go to Uncyclopedia, they should be able to access the other languages from there. More importantly, WP:NOT: Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of links. There are reliable sources covering Uncyclopedia. Rather than filling up the article with indiscriminate links to other sites that aren't even in English, the article editors should focus on beefing up some meaningful, interesting and compelling prose and content from reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that section. I was thinking of a different one. Those external links are still relevant to the content, and if you check, the links directly in the article have been removed. I see no reason to remove the references; they are still relevant. Teh Rote (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, they have at last been removed; I struck that above. While I was there, I noted that the basic WP:MOSNUM issues had not been addressed, there were still textual redundancies in the lead (different languages = languages), and there are still basic copyedit issues, like no spaces between sentences, and by the way is it Jonathan or Johnathan? More importantly, there is still a lack of any compelling, interesting, brilliant, punny or funny content, and this article is supposed to be about a site that is supposed to be funny. Why not get busy fixing the issues raised and adding something fun and interesting to the article? Again, there are reliable source mentions of Uncyclopedia that appear to be underutilized, and if y'all want this to be a candidate for the mainpage on April Fools, 1) it needs to meet WP:WIAFA and 2) it needs to be interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must be my eyesight; those external jumps are still there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who put those back? Well, they're gone now. Teh Rote (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1A and 1C:
    • 1A: “In other languages” section is choppy and far from “brilliant prose”. Such detail for various versions seems to violate summary style. The information could easily be reworked into a concise paragraph or two discussing, for example, technical information (hosting, article count, etc.) and language-specific information (puns and icon changes). External links therein are unnecessary and their exclusion would not be a detriment to the article or our understanding.
    • 1C: Article relies substantially on wikis (not SELFPUB, but “ALLPUB”, so to speak). Article does not have sufficient support from reliable, third party publications, as required by WP:V/WP:RS. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the main writer of this article for a few months, so my vote would hardly be unbiased. I'd just like to point out that Uncyclopedia was proposed to Raul654 to be a featured article on 4/1/2007, April Fools' Day. He accepted, but only if the article was feature-quality by that time. It wasn't, and instead George Washington (inventor) was featured. It was earlier proposed that 4/1/2008 feature this article, as April Fools' day has traditionally featured odd articles.--Jedravent (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, please get busy fixing the issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my comment from last year - it would be acceptable to me featuring this on April Fools provided it's an FA by April Fools and it's the best hoax-ish article we have at that time. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent article with great depth into the subject and related information. Hello32020 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - There are maany issues listed before the restart, but I will only remind a very obvious one: the lead does not summarize the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: i'd like to suggest, that we should make a seperate page, like Uncyclopedia/Things to do, to collect the problems, that prevent it from being featured, like a Subversion. It could log the corrected problems, and so on. Of course, its only concrete problems (I mean, no one disagrees with it). What do you think?--Drhlajos (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Uncyclopedia/Comments is already red-linked from the WikiProject Comedy banner, but you could just list problems on the talk page directly (which I think preferable). DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I don't find it amusing, so at that level it fails criterion 1a: "engaging". Apart from the press coverage and criticism sections (which should be combined into one section) the article is just a self-referential in-joke. BTW, I presume "Johnathan" should be "Jonathan". DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since my comment not even the extremely simple typo that I mentioned has been fixed. Clearly, no-one can be bothered to work on or improve this article, and it will just decay even further from the criteria if promoted. I suspect that this is a joke nomination. DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of the extremely clear roadmap that was left here, describing the work needed to bring the article to featured status, it does appear that neither the nominator nor any of the supporters are willing to do the bare minimum to have the article featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with the other opposes on this page, but here are the details anyway.

The prose needs a lot of work, there are MOS issues, and too many of the citations are primary sources. Here are a few examples of issues:

    • Try to clean up repetitive text (for example, "the prefix un-, a prefix that negates ")
    • Watch for pronoun agreement " Four months after its initial creation, the Uncyclopedia database took up 90 megabytes out of the 100 megabytes of disk space alloted by the original webhost, leading Huang to search for a new one" - does one mean megabytes or webhost?
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, in a single sentence don't mix numbers that are spelled out and numbers as numerals. (for example, "After four month, ...90 megabyes is not correct).
    • The prose in the history section is very colloquial, and it does not flow well
    • Why compare the two uncyclopedia rules specifically to NPOV? Wikipedia has lots of policies, and it's not necessary to focus on one.
    • There should not be external links in the body of the article per WP:EL
    • The other languages section has many short paragraphs and does not flow well.
    • The article relies far too heavily on primary sources. It should not contain this many citations to Uncyclyopedia, its derivations, or to Wikia.

Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As one of the users who helped to write this article, and as an abuser of Uncyclopedia, I admit that my opinion is just a wee bit biased. But hey, that's still allowed on Wikipedia right? -- Zombiebaron (shout) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same reasons as stated above. --HungryJacks (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mainly because of the quality of the writing, in particular the In other languages section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's as good as any article on websites. I wouldn't want to see this on the front page though, and does anyone see any issues with Raul "nominating" this article here when he is the one who decides whether to promote it in the end anyway? Why bother with the process at all? NTK (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not assessing any other article on web sites, we're assessing this one. I don't think the writing is good enough, no matter if God himself nominated it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Raul didn't nominate it, and "good enough" isn't a measure of featured articles. Teh Rote, many suggestions have been made of issues that could be resolved, but few fixes have been attempted. Do you plan to work on the issues raised or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truth is, I haven't had very much time. Been busy with Real Life and all that, but I've been trying. In particular, I can't seem to find very much information on the other language editions that I can understand. That's a bit beyond my capabilities. I'll get to working on the lead section later today. Teh Rote (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm, Strong Oppose- Does not meet standards required for FAs. The article needs more work, in my opinion, in order to address the issues that have been raised by others (which I will not repeat here). Also, I believe if this article achieves FA status, it would technically violate the spirit of WP:DENY, as this website harbors Wikipedia vandals,, Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Regarding your last statement, subject matter is NOT something that can affect an articles's status. As you may recall, exploding whale, Trapped in the Closet, Xenu, crushing by elephant, truthiness, and Manos: The Hands of Fate have all achieved featured status, some on their first try. 96.10.48.117 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, it does matter. We cannot allow Wikipedia vandals be glorified and legitimatized from this article being granted FA status. It would ruin the work of thousands of Wikipedia editors who fight vandalism. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're stating that every Wikipedia vandal who ever existed comes from Uncyclopedia and as their article gets better, they get stronger? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A single article's promotion will not increase or decrease the levels of vandalism. Would you have been opposed to featuring the article on Intelligent Design simply because it is creationsim in disguise? I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks on me and the thousands of other Uncyclopedia editors (I edit here more often)- do I look like a vandal to you? I have never vandalized a page in my life, and have done several reverts, reports, and warnings to vandals/vandalism, yet I am a prolific Uncyclopedia editor. Subject matter cannot, will not, and does not affect a page's status. It's just that simple. Teh Rote (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have dealt with Uncyclopedia editors engaging in massive vandalism over the past four to five months, and they have created, in total, over 30 sockpuppet accounts, spread their vandalism efforts, in the form of inserting blatantly fake contents, across 15+ pages, and in the process, severely compromised the integrity of those pages. It took me a while to fully restore those pages and check their truthfulness. These Uncyclopedia editors have done nothing but creating damage and destruction on Wikipedia, and they are based in Uncyclopedia (I have found articles on Uncyclopedia on the same topic that were the same as those vandalized pages, verbatim), and Uncyclopedia gladly took them in and created a refuge for them. Glorifying this page as the paragon of Wikipedia's best is not a way to reward us vandal fighters, who spend a lot of time trying to keep the pages free of vandalism. It defeats what I did, and defeats my purpose of doing so. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You haven't answered any of my comments. How would raising the status of their article reward them in any way? How does personal bias against an article's subject justify an oppose? How would your work be "ruined" simply by featuring a single article? Why are you launching a personal attack against Uncyclopedia editors, even though very few of them have actively vandalized Wikipedia (do I look like a vandal to you?)? Would you have been opposed to featuring Intelligent design simply because it is pseudoscience? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? This is sickening. Teh Rote (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Let's mention a few random glitches as representative of the whole:
    • English-language encyclopedia. Is it going to be hyphenated consistently?
    • "where Wikipedia's editors would catalog vandalism that they perceived as humorous"—Not wrong, but removing "that" would be nicer.
    • "resulted in it being voted"—Clumsy grammar. And again later in the same sentence: "despite it not actually being a Wikicity"—ouch. And what is a Wikicity?
    • "either as independent domains or as subdomains of Wikia"—No, I have to insist: "as either independent domains or subdomains of Wikia".
    • "It also has the most active users"—why not remove "also"?
    • a "neutral point of view," Uncyclopedia has ... [MOS breach and inconsistent with the other final dots, which are correct].
    • And lots more. Tony (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. All those errors have been fixed. Out of curiousity, if errors so minor are detected, why not remove them on sight? Teh Rote (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a again. Random pot-shots here indicate that the prose is not good enough for a FA.
  • "English language wiki" must be hyphenated to avoid ambiguity. Same for the many other analogous items further down. Pipe these links, please.
  • It's not hard to see other little glitches all over the place, such as "In fact" (everything should be facts, here); extremely poor sentence structure and punctuation "n a similar incident in November 2007, Uncyclopedia's article on Northern Ireland was criticised by Northern Irish politician James McCarry who branded the site "disgraceful" and vowed to, along with help from Moyle Council, "get it removed"." Redundancy: "Uncyclopedia has additional projects in over forty other languages.[8]" Remove "additional". Lots more. Tony (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick poke around, and I see things like: known as 'UnProjects'—See MOS about single quotes. This is all that's been done since my last entry here, five days ago. Tony (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is my first ever comment on a FA candidate, so qualify that as you will. While there are many criteria for FA status, the foremost way to sum it up, in my mind at least, is asking if this is a representative article of the best WP has to offer, and wonder of we would want it featured on the main page. When looking at it in that way, I think that we should want people to see this article. Not only is it very well done by our standards, but it is possibly the best serious analysis of uncyclopedia available, on or offline. Random89 06:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mega support squad. I was very much informed by this article. It's real good. --Savethemooses (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great article... I believe it...Sabri76message 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment! This is a good article. I can't find any significant problems. It seems short. Is this really one of Wikipedia's best articles? Sure, its funny and all, and people will laugh at it, but is it truly good enough to be an FA? Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 18:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose:
    • "Uncyclopedias in languages other than English were created, with the project eventually spanning over 50 languages. This totalled over 90,000 pages of content." When? "Totalled" is not a word. What totaled?
      • Fixed--Syndrome (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you fixed it, but you also updated it. That is a problem. Everything in the article should up-to-date now, until that is done the article is not ready to be a FA. KnightLago (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changing from "over 90,000" (that's just asking for vandalism) to "almost 100,000" isn't much of an update. The actual number is about 97,000. I'm not aware of any other time-sensitive numbers in the article, aside from "23,000 English articles", which is still accurate.--Syndrome (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this below, but how about the 'As of November 2007, the English language Uncyclopedia contains nearly 23,000 articles" part. How many today? How has article creation progressed? KnightLago (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, according to the main page, there are 22,927 articles. I could add something evaluating Uncyclopedia's growth if I could verify that there were roughly the same number in November, but I don't know how to do that. If the number really is stagnant it's because of Uncyclopedia's deletion policies and raised standards compared to at the time of creation. If not, well there's not a lot to be said about a rate that doesn't change.--Syndrome (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second paragraph of the lead could be fleshed out more.
    • Stillwaters in the lead should be in quotation marks.
    • Where was it originally hosted? More information on the sites intial creation should be added.
    • "As of November 2007, the English language Uncyclopedia contains nearly 23,000 articles, making it one of the largest Wikia-hosted wikis." Can we update the number of articles? And maybe discuss the growth?
    • Is the Press coverage section relevant? Why is it even included? So it has been mentioned in newspapers. This should be an encyclopedia article, not a list of press clippings.
    • These types of sections are usually included in articles to establish their notability, a similiar article section is also at YTMND#Media_exposure. But you are correct questioning the encyclopedic value of the section.--Otterathome (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you look at the article milestones, the article has been on AfD 7 times, more if you count the unlisted times that were denied per WP:SNOWBALL. One of the reasons is people doubting its notability. This section serves to put those doubts to rest. Also, when Uncyclopedia gets featured in the news, the event causes some change, whether it's a new policy or a parody. --Syndrome (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These articles should simply be sources and don't require their own section. If the article results in a change then it should be mentioned, but a paragraph of articles is unnecessary. KnightLago (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as a relic of the days when the article was on AfD all the time, but I suppose that section could use revising now that we're past that. (I apologize for whatever it is I did that ruined the formatting on this page.)--Syndrome (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am of the school of thought that you should have a citation immediately after a quote. Such as after "were "cyber bullying menace[s]"."
    • The criticism section paragraphs all begin In May 2006, In June 2007, In January 2008.
    • The "In other languages" section has this same problem. The paragraphs being 'The German Language, Japanese Language, Hebrew, Spanish, etc."
    • The other languages section could be improved over all into a few fleshed out paragraphs, instead of a number of 2 sentence paragraphs.
    • Citation 6 is incorrect.
    • 23 incorrect.
    • 37 the paper should be in italics.
    • 36 out of 60 sources either cite to Uncyclopedia or Wikia.

I think overall you have made progress, but there is work to be done. Content and Interior projects sections should be expanded. In other languages is a mess. The article also seems to be focused too in-universe with information that people familiar with Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia would find interesting or relevant, but people from the outside would not. KnightLago (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the citation issues you listed to the best of my knowledge. I don't see how it matters that most of the sources are Unycylopedia or Wikia, though. There are still 24 3rd-party sources, but what could be a better source of information than the subject itself? --Syndrome (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted Syndrome's edits, you are the second person to mistake the hindu article I added as the same as the one that is already in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject itself is the worst source of information. Please read Wikipedia's sourcing guideline. In a nutshell, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. KnightLago (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been mentioned by many users (including myself in the previous nom). Also take a look at my essay.--Otterathome (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, add my name to the list then. I didn't even consider the problems inherent with information on Uncyclopedia. I was just thinking in more general terms that relying on the subject itself is a bad thing. Thanks for the link. KnightLago (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only part of the essay is relevant to your point.--Otterathome (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, please unrevert my edits now. First, I fixed more things than that particular one citation, and second, look and look. Different articles, same name. See? --Syndrome (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in regard to your edit "reword over 90,000 pages", why would you do that? Either you have a strange fixation with reverting my edits or you don't understand that this is going to lead to repeated vandalism by a bunch of 12-year-olds. --Syndrome (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if that came off harsh. But I did state earlier that it would lead to vandalism. --Syndrome (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just put the correct number? The 97K one. KnightLago (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not... round. And will need updating sooner than if we only use generalizations, and I'm not going pull out my calculator and add up the article totals of all the Uncyclopedias every time I think the number might have changed. --Syndrome (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If it weren't for the fact that it's a wiki, I wouldn't have too much of an issue using self-published sources for so much content, since it is about the source and they aren't necessarily being used for questionable statements, but the fact is it's hardly reliable. If the concerns raised above get addressed, I will refactor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, where else are we going to find a definite guide to Uncyclopedia's content other than Uncyclopedia? What is expected, is some other reliable source going to create a directory of Uncyclopedia content? Even if that did happen, they'd just reference Uncyclopedia anyway. Teh Rote (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Uncyclopedia is by its own definition an unreliable source and this unreliable source is cited many times.--GrahamColmTalk 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE Just as an attempt to make this easier for Sandy and Raul, there are 11 supports and 16 opposes. Burningclean [speak] 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm coming late to this discussion, but after reading all the previous comments, and looking at the article in its present state, I would have to say that there are still several issues that have to be addressed before this article is anywhere near FA status. Some of these have been brought up above, but since they haven't yet been addressed in the article, I'll restate them here.
Criterion 1a) "Well-written": I really don't find the prose to be "engaging, even brilliant". I actually find it extremely dry. It is so detail-oriented and minutiae-filled that I found myself losing interest rather quickly. (This also ties into Criterion 4, see below)
Criterion 1c) "Factually Accurate": While all of the information in the article may be 100% factually accurate, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline states very clearly: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Relying so heavily on Uncyclopedia itself as a reference, when Uncyclopedia is the very antithesis of that, completely undermines the sort of reliability and verifiability that we are trying to attain on Wikipedia.
Criterion 4: This article is definitely not written in summary style. There are so many details inluded that the article sort of collapses under its own weight. While I applaud the authors for trying to satisfy criterion 1b ("comphrehensive"), there is way too much detail here. Of particular note is the "In Other Languages" section. It seriously needs to be pared down to a much smaller size. In its current form, it pretty much reads like a "Trivia" section: just a long list of otherwise unrelated items. It is definitely not necessary to go into such detail about each one, as well. This section could certainly be split off as its own page, or simply pared down into a section of links to those articles.
So, those are my objections. I hope they can be fixed!--Aervanath (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just not featured quality yet, the lead is too short, it uses Uncyclopedia as a reference way too much, it has formatting issues (like the dates in the refs) and nobody seems to be interested enough to fix any of this. The Dominator (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Discussion pertaining to April 1 suggestions moved to talk page; please keep discussion here germane to evaluation of the article against the FA criteria> ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Uncyclopedia/archive1&oldid=1136457743"