Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022/Horrible article criteria
Appearance
(Redirected from User:Mooshberry/sandbox/Horrible Articles/Criteria)
This page was created in the spirit of April Fool's Day and is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Discussion |
The horrible article criteria are the six standard or tests by which a horrible article nomination (HAN) may be compared and judged against to ensure it is a horrible article (HA). A horrible article has met (and does not exceed) the horrible article criteria, and may not have been deleted.
Criteria
[edit]The six horrible article criteria are not the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail an article. However, it is essential that a 'pass' is applied only to an undeniably awful, terrible, or completely unreadable article.
Immediate passes
[edit]An article can, but by no means must, pass without further consideration if it meets the following criteria:
- 1. SEO farming:
- a. The page is clearly used to bump the page rating of other sites as part of a SEO farm service.
- b. The page contains entirely of external links
- 1. SEO farming:
The six horrible article criteria
[edit]A horrible article is:
- 1. Terribly written:
- a. The prose is unclear, self-contradicting, and contains verses written in the first or second person;
- d. Deceptive in wording or formatting;
- c. It's grammar and spelling does not exceed elementary or middle-school expectations; and
- b. It is difficult to discern useful or encyclopedic content from the text within the article.
- 2. Unverifiable or Original:
- a. It is a complete work of fiction or difficult to verify in any sense;
- b. Citations are either unreliable or cite other horrible articles; and
- c. It has notable or obvious plagiarism.
- 3. Biased or a WP:BLP violation
- a. If it is a biography of a living person, it must contain libelous, false, or otherwise 'dirty' information on the subject;
- Tip: A good sign of a BLP violation is frequent edit-warring over an
{{Unbalanced}}
template.
- Tip: A good sign of a BLP violation is frequent edit-warring over an
- b. It clearly contains personal agendas or beliefs of the editors involved in the article; and
- c. One or more of it's editors should actively be breaching the WP:PAID or WP:COI guidelines.
- a. If it is a biography of a living person, it must contain libelous, false, or otherwise 'dirty' information on the subject;
- 4. Terrible aggregations
- a. If the page is an aggregation, it should be considered a bad or useless aggregation;
- b. It should contain comparatively few entries, or none at all; and
- c. The topic the aggregation is performed upon should be trivial, useless, or completely inappropriate.
- 5. Unstable
- a. It must have major layout, formatting, or information changes within a considerably short span of time; and
- b. Information is updated without regards to citations.
- 5. Illustrated, if possible, by crayons.
- a. It must illuminate the topic in a confusing, confounding, or irrelevant manner; and
- b. It should contain works in a subpar quality, such as screenshots.
- 1. Terribly written:
What should I nominate as a horrible article?
[edit]- Disambiguation pages, stand-alone lists, and portals may be nominated if you believe they meet criteria 4,
- Wikiproject pages if you disagree with the Wikiproject's motive, goal, or members,
- Stubs, especially if their topic is nonsensical or ridiculous.
What cannot be a horrible article?
[edit]- Featured articles, good articles, and deleted articles: These inherently, simply by their nature, violate the principles that a horrible article is based on, and cannot be nominated or accepted for horrible article status.
- Redirects: All redirects are protected by and under the jurisdiction of the Redirects for Discussion page.
- Drafts: As drafts must be reviewed for quality issues before they are accepted into Mainspace, drafts cannot qualify for horrible article status.