Editing Forum:Featured Sources: Standards of Excellence

{{Forum Helping Hand header}}

{{Forum post
|A long-neglected feature of the Front Page has been the Featured Sources. So far there are only 9 that cycle through. We need more!

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what standards would a source need to qualify as a Featured Source, nomination process, and anything that you might suggest. 

A Featured Source could be a sourcebook, adventure, novel, comic, magazine issue, video game, or anything official release (cards, board games, etc). 

A Featured Source should have, when applicable, a full index and infobox, contents, credits, and either a plot summary or a detailed one. It should also be properly formatted with an appendix section with, if applicable, gallery, further reading, external links and references.

Featured Sources would be nominated in the same fashion as Featured Articles. 

And a new Featured Sources would be scheduled to post on our Twitter account as part of our throwbackthursdays series!

Thanks! 
|[[User:Regis87|Regis87]] ([[User talk:Regis87|talk]]) 22:26, May 7, 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|
I think that I agree with all of that.

I would add that we need to decide on a role about sourcing information.

Also, I feel like we need some standards about section headings, index format, ''etc.''

Random thoughts in no particular order:
* Lead paragraphs, like any other article, should include the significance of the work, which may be a super-quick summary of key events. The blurb itself is not enough.
* The so-called blurb, does not need a section heading.
** It is a rare case where it ''should'' be a direct quote from the back of the book.
** It should have wiki links.
* A Summary section is a short over-view.
* A Synopsis section is a detailed plot overview.
* There is no need for us to hide spoilers.
* To be a featured source, does the article have to include page numbers in its index with the {{Tl|P}} template?
* Since the whole article is out-of-universe anyhow, any Credits section does not need to go in the Appendix; it's a core part of the content of the article.
** If we are going to start including detailed credits beyond what is already in our infobox, I think that we should make a template or decide on a format for it.

That's all I have for now, I think.
|~ ''[[User:Lhynard|Lhynard]]'' ([[User talk:Lhynard|talk]]) 00:48, May 8, 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|
I agree with much of the above. Some comments:
* A very large amount of sources on the wiki would pass the criteria in the original post, and many of which that are on the Featured Sources list would not. Are most sources going to end up featured? If so, should the criteria be '''stricter'''?
** What makes ''[[The Gathering]]'' featured, whilst other comics of that series are not? All of them are very similar in content and completeness.
** What makes ''[[The Twilight Tomb]]'' featured, whilst several other adventures are not, such as ''[[Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave]]''. Almost all of the 5th edition adventure articles are far superior in indexing and content than the prior.
** Why is ''[[Dungeon magazine 75]]'' featured at all? The first article has only [[Chauntea]] in its index, though there is much more content within.
** ''[[Realms of Valor]]'' is full of inconsistent formatting and has many completely empty sections and indexes. Same with ''[[Realms of the Dead]]'', as within is not a single index, and some sections are a single line long.

* How "complete" should the ''content'' of the source be?
** Fully complete content: All topics about the source have their own page (no red links). Example: ''[[Menzoberranzan (game)]]''
** Complete content: The main/important topics about the source have their own page. Example: ''[[The Halfling's Gem]]''
** Not complete content: Some or no topics about the source have their own page (lots of red links).

Other general comments:
* Should articles about '''collections''' or '''series''' of sources (such as the ''[[Dragon (magazine)]]'' article) be considered as featured, even though it is not about a single source? The criteria will have to be vastly different to accommodate for this. For that reason, I don't think collections should be considered.

* I don't think its necessary for the article to have page numbers in its index. If I want to read about a character (especially a source-specific character), I will go to its own page and find out where it is referenced. Furthermore, in this modern era, there are many different formats. Take a novel: there are hardbacks, softbacks, omnibuses, collector's editions, epubs, pdfs, audiobooks, tablets and, so many more (Kindle, Android, iOS readers). There are also many other editions and re-releases of each. This is much better organized in references on the appropriate page where the format can be specified, rather than in a generic index.

Cheers.
|[[User:Possessed Priest|Possessed Priest]] ([[User talk:Possessed Priest|talk]]) 13:45, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
}}

{{Forum post|I propose this checklist be used for nomination. Placed in talk page like Good Article nominations.

; Lead paragraph and blurb
: yes
; Infobox Complete
: yes
; Formatted
: yes
; Summary/Synopsis
: yes
; Indexed/Table of Contents
: yes
; Credits
: yes
; Cover Image page formatted, sourced and credited
: yes
; Nearly complete
: yes
; Policy-adherent/Demonstrative
: yes

|[[User:Regis87|Regis87]] ([[User talk:Regis87|talk]]) 18:02, May 22, 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post
|Hi, Regis. This checklist looks incredibly broad, and the individual criteria are without definition. Perhaps you could address some of the above issues raised above by [[User:Lhynard|Lhynard]] and myself, and provide some definitions? The [[Forgotten_Realms_Wiki:Featured_articles|featured articles]] page does this nicely. Also, the process of nomination seems to mimic Good Articles, not Featured Articles. If these sources are to be "featured", they should follow the same nomination process as Featured Articles, as these articles are meant to represent some of the best articles on the wiki.
|[[User:Possessed Priest|Possessed Priest]] ([[User talk:Possessed Priest|talk]]) 18:50, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
}}

{{Forum post|For some background, when I first created Featured Articles and Featured Sources, there were ''no'' source pages that would've met ''any'' of the above criteria. Hence, the few I picked initially were examples that were fairly fleshed out in some way and that I was able work up; obviously not all would meet any updated criteria today. At the time, I didn't know if indexing would be the standard, or if plot summaries would be preferred. I also felt that a source would have an easier time reaching Featured standard: does it have a lead, a filled-in infobox, a blurb, a complete index, and a little background and summary? If so, then done. What else could one say about it? It just has to check some boxes. I figured that was sufficient for the time, but obviously there are more examples and more factors now, so I welcome an improvement.

On the specific Featured Sources mentioned above:
* ''[[The Gathering]]'': This is the very first FR comic and first of its series. It has a complete index and details. So I still think this is a worthy candidate.
* ''[[Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave]]'': I haven't finished indexing it yet, so it is not a candidate.
* [[Dungeon magazine 75]]: This is one of the few I picked initially, just to have ''one'' completely indexed FS (the first on the wiki to be fully indexed). The first adventure only has one suggested FR connection, only the second is properly set in the Realms. I still think it's a decent candidate. A ''Dungeon'' magazine should be featured, but by their nature, they're not especially Realms-focused.
* ''[[Realms of Valor]]'': The other one I picked initially, just because it was the only one with some information, and the two stories I index. I don't think this should be an FS these days, and now it no longer is.

I agree with all the criteria above. However, I don't believe page numbers should be required, or even used. They are just so time-consuming and tedious to fill out that's in impediment indexing (I never did finish indexing ''[[Darkwalker on Moonshae]]'' because of this). I also feel most or all topics indexed should link to decent articles, with few if any red links. What's the point of featuring a source if we can't tell the reader anything about what's in it? Finally, the Featured Source should have at least a cover image, to have something to show on the Main Page and Twitter post, though this excludes RPGA, Living, and Adventurers League pages.|[[User:BadCatMan|— BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 09:17, May 23, 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|
I think we are gaining some consensus here. Here is the checklist from Regis but with descriptions below them instead, on which we seem to be in agreement so far:

; Lead Paragraph & Blurb :
:* Lead paragraph must include significance of the work, which may be a super-quick summary of key events. The blurb itself is not enough.
:* The blurb comes second, is a wiki-linked quote, and does not need a section heading.
; Complete Infobox :
:* Must include cover art with caption, if available.
; Formatted
; Nearly Complete :
:* Includes a full summary and/or synopsis. (See below.)
:* Includes a full index. (See below.)
; Summary/Synopsis :
:* A Summary section is a short over-view.
:* A Synopsis section is a detailed plot overview.
:* Do not hide spoilers.
:* There may be other headers, such as Campaigns or Gameplay, that may better work for a given source.
; Index/Table of Contents :
:* Do not need to use the optional {{Tl|P}} template.
:* Should have minimal red links.
; Credits :
:* ''No consensus yet''
:* Optional/encouraged, but if present, how should they be presented?
; Policy-adherent/Demonstrative :
:* Shows off various features of the wiki.

I think this is all correct, except that I am not sure where we are on a Credits section. I personally see little use for them. We are a lore wiki, and we already have a lot of credits in the infobox. I don't see much benefit for a credits section. However, if we do include one, here are two questions I have:
# Does it belong in the main body or the Appendix?
#* I would argue for the former, actually. If we are going to require it, how is that Appendix material? An Appendix is for sources and ''extra'' information, but if we are saying that they are key to something being a complete article, it is not extra.
#* Also, the Appendix is also used for out-of-universe material. Since a source is entirely out-of-universe anyhow, I don't see how the Credits section should be treated differently.
# What is the format? What is needed for it?
#* If we are going to start expecting these in source articles, what do we include? I feel that we need a standard template for them.
#* Do we really need to include, for example, the Interplay Productions team for ''[[Blood & Magic]]''. I don't really see how that is relevant to the Realms. Yes, the core development team influenced the Realms in a very significant way, but did the Quality Assurance people? I don't think so. Do we also need to add the book binders of the novels or the page setters? I don't see how that makes sense or is needed.

As far as a process goes, because the majority of our Featured Sources fail, I am happy with skipping a vote for now just to replace them with better ones now. I think that we all agree on that also. Once we have a core set though, I agree with Priest that we should probably go through a voting process for ones beyond that. I also agree with Regis that placing a "checklist" on the Talk pages is a good thing in any case, so that users have another way to see the process.

|~ ''[[User:Lhynard|Lhynard]]'' ([[User talk:Lhynard|talk]]) 15:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|
This all looks good to me. I would add Regis' other suggestions of being ''complete'' and ''indexed'', otherwise a really high amount of sources will become Featured. And of course, we only want our highest quality (and absolutely complete) sources to be Featured Sources. Having "minimal red links" work for me as a criterion (though having no red links is ''strongly'' recommended for completeness).

I don't mind either inclusion or exclusion of credits. I don't think they should be necessary, but perhaps encouraged. They aren't overall strictly lore-relevant to the Realms, true, but are probably quite useful for some wiki users. If I want to look up who created the music for the ''Menzoberranzan'' video game, I just have to go to the page and there I can easily find out that it was Jamie McMenamy. This makes the wiki an even greater resource, as I don't have to go and check my manual, etc. |[[User:Possessed Priest|Possessed Priest]] ([[User talk:Possessed Priest|talk]]) 17:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|Good points about the credits. I did not mean to imply that things did not need to be complete; I figured that that was implied in what I put for Summary and Index, but I just edited the post to make it more explicit.|~ ''[[User:Lhynard|Lhynard]]'' ([[User talk:Lhynard|talk]]) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|
As nobody has commented in over a month, this appears to be the agreed-upon criteria for ''Featured Sources'' ([[User:Regis87|Regis87]]'s original proposal expanded by [[User:Lhynard|Lhynard]], with comments from [[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] and myself):

; Lead Paragraph & Blurb :
:* Lead paragraph must include significance of the work, which may be a super-quick summary of key events. The blurb itself is not enough.
:* The blurb comes second, is a wiki-linked quote, and does not need a section heading.
; Complete Infobox :
:* Must include cover art with caption, if available.
; Formatted
; Nearly Complete :
:* Includes a full summary and/or synopsis. (See below.)
:* Includes a full and complete index. (See below.)
; Summary/Synopsis :
:* A Summary section is a short overview.
:* A Synopsis section is a detailed plot overview.
:* Do not hide spoilers.
:* There may be alternative headers, such as Campaigns or Gameplay, that may better work for a given source.
; Index/Table of Contents :
:* Do not need to use the optional {{Tl|P}} template.
:* Should have minimal red links (no red links highly recommended).
; Credits :
:* Optional but encouraged.
; Policy-adherent/Demonstrative :
:* Shows off various features of the wiki.

Two examples of articles that meet these criteria are the ''[[Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set]]'' and ''[[Blood & Magic]]''. I compiled a list of other sources that appear to meet the criteria as discussed in this thread [[Forum:Sourcebooks/Adventures as Featured Articles|here]]. If you have any qualms with the criteria (or wish to indiciate your approval), please comment, because I plan to implement this soon!
|[[User:Possessed Priest|Possessed Priest]] ([[User talk:Possessed Priest|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
}}
{{Forum post|
I approve. Standards are good things to have. Also, we need more featured sources.
|[[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]] ([[User talk:SilverTiger12|talk]]) 21:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)}}
{{Forum post|
Same here! This looks to be a great update and I look forward to seeing our source pages upgraded.
|[[User:Ruf67|Ruf]] ([[User talk:Ruf67|talk]]) 13:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)}}
{{Forum post|
Sounds good to me.
|[[User:SunderedShor|SunderedShor]] ([[User talk:SunderedShor|talk]]), 6 December 2020}}
{{Forum post|I was going to suggest something like "Must be properly formatted" for the index criteria, but then I realized we have no formalized format guidelines for indexes. Other than that the proposal looks good, so I approve.|[[User:Ir&#39;revrykal|Ir&#39;revrykal]] ([[User talk:Ir&#39;revrykal|talk]]) 23:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)}}
{{Forum post|I agree with Lhynard's modifications.|[[User:Regis87|Regis87]] ([[User talk:Regis87|talk]]) 00:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|I'm a bit late back to the discussion, sorry. Hmm, there's more here to consider than I thought there'd be.

Appendix: For source pages, I think the Appendix should be not about OOU information, but about meta information: Notes, See Also, References, inter-wiki and external links links, and connections/navigation templates.

Credits: Credits seem more applicable to video games and the upcoming movie, things with large numbers of people working on them. But no, they don't have to include every Tom, Dick, and Sally who worked in any role at the company. I'm not sure where to draw the line though, how to decide who's relevant and who's not, when I don't even know what half these jobs are. It should be all the creatives, in any case, people we'd have pages for normally. Otherwise, plenty of other sites document the Credits more fully than we need to. For novels, comics, and sourcebooks, the writers, designers, artists, mappers, and editors would all qualify, and the existing Book infobox adequately accounts for them.

The ''[[Blood & Magic]]'' page inherited its size and full Credits from when it was a Wikipedia clone. I tried to revise and condense the Credits, but yeah, it could be a lot shorter.

Anyway, I agree with all the above points and have no objections or issues, just those interpretations. Good job!|[[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 12:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post
|'''Featured sources are now included in an official wiki [[Forgotten Realms Wiki:Featured Sources|policy]]!''' 

You can nominate and vote for featured sources in [[Forum:Official Nominated Featured Sources|this thread]].

Note: For users with privileges, the featured sources queue template can be found [[Template:Featured source|here]], and the banner template can be found [[Template:FS|here]].
|[[User:Possessed Priest|Possessed Priest]] ([[User talk:Possessed Priest|talk]]) 02:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
}}