Zelda Wiki:Failed Disqualifications

It's gotten kind of messed up and low-quality. Where's the ciatation (excuse my spelling), and it's under the category "Articles lacking sources". I don't think it should be featured anymore.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

Keep

1. Yeah, I don't really see what you mean? Looking at the edits made since it was featured, I can only see a few main changes. One was the rewriting (improvement?) of a few sections, and the other was the addition of various new sections, particularly Toon Link and the Relationships section. I can't see how new information can possibly be detrimental to the article quality (providing that it's well written and presented, which this is) --Adam 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
2. WHOA! WHOA! Hold your horses, man! I was sure i'd never see this happen! Just look at the article, there is no way it is low quality! Is it me, or is the world going crazy? --Seablue254 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Agreed. I can't see how the quality has gotten worse. Looking back in the history, the only things that actually diminished it are acts of vandalism. UPDATE: I realized what you meant about the citation. I have dealt with the citation issue. The article is no longer in "Articles lacking sources". I added several references as well. It is now a much better article.--Matt 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
4. I was thinking of agreeing with you, however Matt's improvements have certainly made the page much more appealing. So I believe it should remain a featured article.--Steven 14:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is really well done but I just don't think it is really relevant at this point in time. It was nominated and featured awhile back when it was still a relatively new game, much like how the Twilight Princess article was also featured. Now that the game is no longer new and it has died down a bit, I think it is time for this article to be removed as well. Still a great article, but other more interesting articles should be featured instead. Mases 07:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. This is a tough call. But in the end, no game should get the special treatment of being featured. Besides, the stages section makes the article seem more like a guide for the game. That is not exactly what we want on a game's summary page. Discounting the stages section, it is a very short article, not worthy of being featured.Matt ^(Talk) 17:47, July 13, 2008 (UTC)

Keep

1. Um, what? I'm not sure what it being a not-so-new-anymore game has to do with anything. The Twilight Princess article was rather poor, hence its removal. But if this is indeed a "great article", and given that we don't need to remove Featured Articles to make room for new ones anymore... Why remove it at all? —Ando (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't see a strong reason for this to be removed. The article is well written, and the unique nature of the game makes it interesting and original. Like Mases said, great article ;) —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 20:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Who cares if it's new or not! It's a great article! You can tell a huge ammount of work went into it.--Link hero of light 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
4. That's a bad reason to remove a page. Now if it had been thrown together quickly in order to feature it while the game was new, then yes, but the purpose of the articles is display our best works, not to advertise. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:56, January 2, 2010 (UTC) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Newness =/= quality. Minda ^of Darkness
6. Really, its worthy. Recently, its seen a revamp in many of its sections, and if its the "stages" section we're worrying about, it can easily be rewritten to seem more encyclopedic. "Newness" is not much of an argument, as the Bomb article was recently featured, and that is hardly "new". — cipriano^talk 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has a template on it saying that it needs to cits its references and sources. This is not the type of article that should be featured. In addition to this, most of the images are not cited properly at all. This article needs a lot of work. I'm ashamed to have this as a featured article. Mases 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. No sources = No feature. Its all-around arrangement and phrasing isn't quite up to par for a feature either. --Douken 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this was one which definitely slipped through the net, and got featured based on the subject matter rather than the article itself. Looking at the voting history here, at least half of the supporting votes would be completely invalid under the forthcoming stricter guidelines. —Adam ^{[ talk ]} 09:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Extremely poor article. In fact, I'm fairly certain that few, if any, sources even exist for this enemy. There is so little to write about them anyway. It will never be anything exemplary.Matt ^(Talk) 00:28, June 12, 2009 (UTC)
4. There's little references, and as Matt has said, there really cannot be for such a minor enemy who has only appeared in a few of the games. Furthermore, the layout was, and still is in a bad shape, and really needs a serious overhaul for me to even think about keeping it featured.— Steve 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
5. References are a big thing now, and this article barely has any. It hasn't made enough appearances throughout the series to even write too much about it. The layout could use some work, too. Dany36 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. I looked it over hoping to save it, but I think it's in Din's hands now. Axiomist (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Sorry, Mr. Dodongo. I'm afraid that you're going to have to go. Having two templates on a page saying that it needs work pretty much answers the question. —Alter  ^{{T C B H }} 23:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep

I do believe that its recent reorganization saved this article from disqualification. While it may look as if there is less information on the page now, it was always that much, as the page was EXTREMELY redundant when it came down to content in its earlier form, making the page "look" longer. It still carries the style, punctuality, and readability of its previous organization, so I see no reason to disqualify it at this point. — cipriano^talk 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After checking this article's previous revisions compared to after it was reorganized, I'm going to say that it's quite improved seeing as it's no longer redundant, is organized nicely, reads great. I honestly don't see a reason to disqualify it now.Mandi ^Talk 15:20, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

As per the Failed Article Disqualification rules, an article that has been sufficiently edited in order to supersede a Disqualification nomination may overturn its nomination if its original cause is unfounded. In this case, the Dodongo article is allowed to retain Featured status.

I'm surprised this has remained featured for so long. I would hardly call this article good by any stretch of the imagination. It is mostly theory and strategy guide and doesn't cite sources. I hardly think it could ever be worked up to a good quality article. It is just too small of a subject. Even if it is a boss.Matt ^(Talk) 01:04, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. I'm also going with the disqualification of this article. It has plenty of information, but no references to back it up. As Matt has said, the theory section takes up half the article, and the rest is mostly walkthrough. Quite frankly, these issues need to be resolved, or the mask and Boss need to have seprate pages.— Steve 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this article is rather poorly written as well. Not enough references. Most of it is theory as well. It needs disqualified.Mandi ^Talk 02:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3. This article disgusts me. How did it ever make featured status? The quality and organization is poor and it is written like a narrative, not to mention the MASSIVE theory sections. Gross. Kill.
4. Uhm. Yeah. This article shouldn't be Featured. The bulk of the content is in the theory section and it's currently nominated for a merger? Not to mention that the "Fierce Deity and the Moon Dungeons" section has nothing to do with the Mask in itself. Time to trim it from the list. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 21:18, 15 February 2011 (EST)

Keep

As per the Failed Article Disqualification rules, an article that has been sufficiently edited in order to supersede a Disqualification nomination may overturn its nomination if its original cause is unfounded. In this case, the Majora's Mask (Object) article is allowed to retain Featured status.

This image is rather small. The quality is not up to par with the other featured pictures. The source is also unknown.--Matt 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disqualify

1. That is all correct, and then some. also, i just don't like the picture :P --Seablue254 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep

1. You know what, I actually really like this one. Not only is it the only LA image to be featured (and likely the only one available which could ever qualify to be featured), but I think it's pretty cool in a retro/cheesy kinda way ;P It does worry me that there's no source, but surely a bit of searching could turn up another copy that we could replace and add source info? I'll get on it now. --Adam 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Yeah, I agree, this is practically the only LA featurable image, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a bigger version!--Magnus orion 22:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
3. If it matters anymore I found the source: [1]-- Green_Tunic (Talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
4. And I've found a larger version!: [2] • Pete ♪