Forum:Good Articles

While very few of our articles are good enough to be featured, I believe we have a great deal of what Wikipedia calls Good Articles. Good articles are ones that do not go above and beyond the way featured ones do, but are:
 * well written
 * accurate
 * complete
 * stable
 * given pictures
 * properly cited

I think this is a good way to show off some of our second best work, as well as honour the major contributors. The system would work similar to voting for featured articles. Let me know what you think. -- Jaz talk |undefined 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What is listed above seems to be 95% of what is necessary for an article to become "featured" here - so I don't know if we really need to have yet another message box to slap on an article. That is, unless we also want to handle FAs the way Wikipedia does, where FA status is much harder to achieve. -- Cid Highwind 10:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Suits me. Also would be a good way to start over fresh with FA's like you've teased us with the past year or two. Move all our current FA's to GA's and hash things out from there. --Alan 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that Wookieepedia seems to have been doing this too. Its useful for more than just articles that are not "FA worthy" yet, but ones that due to not enough canon content never will be "FA worthy". It allows for recognition of what is still good work on the part of the archivists. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)