Welcome to the Lylat Wiki, all about the Star Fox series! If you'd like to help out, please take a look at our community portal.

Our 2nd election for the Editor-in-Chief position is open for Nominations.

Lylat Wiki:Quality Standards

From Lylat Wiki, your source on Star Fox information. By Fans, for Fans.
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: LW:QS
General Pepper.png

General Pepper:

Peppy, When you have a chance, please look at this policy. I would like your opinion on it.

Peppy Hare:

Right, I will place my feedback on the talk page.
Peppy Hare.png
This draft policy is recommend by a member in accordance with LW:Draft. You are free to make small changes, so long as the original purpose of the policy is preserved. Please also provide any feedback on this talk page.

What makes a good article? When it is edited by many editors? When it contains information that is accurate, verifiable and relevant? When it links to and is linked by other atricles?....

How about all of those! Welcome to Lylat Wiki's Guide to producing good articles (stage 4 of LW:5StFA). On this page, you will find almost every topic on how to make a decent article, and how to make a good article from a decent one. This is not for starting a new article, or for expanding a stub. Those are LW:SAA and LW:Stubs.

  • A good article - is considered to be among the best of the wiki, but has not been selected, or at one time was selected, to be a featured article.
  • A decent article - is considered to be on it's way to being good, but still requires fixing and expanding before being so.

We thank the contributors of the following pages as they were a big help in creating the topics covered here.


inappropriate tone or style

Articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone. Any of the following tones should be considered in appropriate unless there is a specific reason why it is that way, and the reason is clearly marked or visible. Feel free to mark it with {{inappropriate-tone-or-style}} or a more specific template bellow, when you see an article be more less encyclopedic

  1. advertisement - {{like-a-advertisement}}
  2. biased - {{biased}}
  3. biography - auto, unreliable citations - {{like-a-biography}}, {{like-an-autobiography}}
  4. written like a travel guide - {{like-a-travel-guide}}
  5. like a resume - {{like-a-resume}}
  6. a howto - {{like-a-how-to}}
  7. essay - {{like-a-essay}}
  8. reads like a story - {{like-a-story}}

word usage

Articles should use the correct words. Which means no or little of:

  1. colloquial terms or jargon - including gaming terms, scientific, or slang, without an appropriate link to explain the meaning. - {{colloquial}}, {{jargon}}
  2. containing weasel words - Words that appear to be specific, but aren't. - {{weasel-words}}
  3. wording promotes subject - is written in such a way that it promotes the subject, rather than inform about it. - {{promotes-subject}}
  4. unencyclopedic - {{unencyclopedic}}

Point of View

Articles need to be written in a 3rd Person Point-of-View. They need to be written in a in-universe.

  1. first-person or second-person - {{wrong-narative}}
  2. fiction vs. fact - {{fiction-v-fact}}
  3. in-universe - {{in-universe}}, {{out-of-universe}}
  4. globalize - {{globalize}}
  5. not neutral - {{not-neutral}}

conflict of interest

Articles need to be written in such away that doesn't cause it to conflict with itself. It should also not be written by the person it is written on. Please mark {{conflict-of-interest}} on articles you see having this problem


Articles should be written in a clear and precise manner. - {{confusing}}


Articles need to contain only the information related to the title, and nothing outside of the articles context. A problem with the contect, can be marked with {{context-problem}} and then discussed on the related talk page.


An article should not say one thing in part, and then say the opposite in another. Should this happen, please put {{contradiction}} on the article, possible in the section where the contradiction is.

example farm

Unless there is a good reason, an article should not exist to simply be an example of something. This means no:

  1. Demonstrating of Templates,
  2. Filling up Random Categories
  3. Using Random Files.

If you are trying to do an experiment, please keep it to a subpage of your userpage, or Lylat Wiki:Sandbox. If you see a page exisitng for no other reason than being an example farm, then please mark it with {{example-farm}}.

clean up

Because an article can be written by anyone, and since we are all individuals, Not every article will be up to someone's spelling and/or grammar. If you find an article that needs some linguistic love, please either edit it yourself or mark it with {{SandG}}. If the clean-up needed is more general, please mark it with {{clean-up}}


Due to Lylat Wiki being an encyclopedia, and since no one has any clue when an article will be read, it is considered best to write in the past tense, unless there is a very good reason why it should be otherwise. Please be wary of the following:

Writing an article to with the preference towards current events, helps understand what's going on write now, but what happens when the event is over?
is the events in i timeline, that are better in a prose-form?
an event is going on, or has gone on, in which details of the article are no longer accurate. This is not for current events, where infromation is coming in for rapidly.
{{current events}}
Event(s) are happening, that causes an article to repeatedly be out-of-date, and thus, will be changed many times over its course.


In the event an article is largely one-sided, and can not easily be fixed by one editor, place {{unbalanced}} on it, and work on fixing it with other on the relevant discussion page.


Any information can be put on a wiki, and Just as easily removed. With that kind of inconsistency and questionable reliability, it is best to verify something you put on the wiki with a reputable outside source. Just the same, if you see something on the wiki, you believe would be better said if it could be verified, please mark it so, or find a way to verify it yourself and post the link on the article. See LW:CP and Help:Citing Sources for more info.

The following are possible situations related to citing sources, and how to handle them.

Missing citations

In the event an article has little to no citations, please put {{Missing Citations}} at the top of the article, and {{Citation Needed}} near any statement that you believe needs citing. This should be done, even if the entire article is to your knowledge of the truth, since it may not be to someone else's.

wrong citation style

If one or more references in a #References section are of the wrong style (e.g. references an archived website, but instead is styled for a print article, or is even not styled at all), please place {{Wrong Citation Style}} along with the ref #'s, if available.

citations may not verify text

In the event a piece of text has a reference [number], but the supplemental information doesn't really verify the statement, please place {{cmnvt}} at the top of the article, and give more details as to why you believe this to be so on the article's respective talk page.


If an article presents the opinion of a critic, copies or features a criticism of the subject, then it must not be written to be a critic of the criticism, nor a critic of the subject matter itself. Presenting the criticism helps develop a fuller understanding of a topic, but it should not change the tone or point of view of the article. If you find a section that does so, please tag it with {{criticism-section}}

If you wish to provide a critical review of a subject, please do so at your user page or at a community page, which ever is more appropriate.


Our wiki can't predict the future. No should it be edited to make it seem like it does. Specuilating - i.e. predicting future events inside or outside the star fox universe, about the star fox franchise, etc. - without providing sources to prove that it is likely to happen, is not a good idea to have on the wiki. It violates the trust visitor's have in the wiki and forces us to remove information we may otherwise want.

In short:

  • Please do not use the wiki to try and predict the future - please use {{upcoming-event}} & {{future-events}} on something that contains information about an upcoming event.
  • Please do no edit the wiki to forecast future events - {{future-edited}}
  • Please only put information about planned future events (in universe or outside) when you have evidence to back it up - use {{speculation}} to mark an artilce with unverified perdicitions, and use {{future-events}} and {{upcoming-event}} to mark articles with perdicited events that can be verified.


  • {{future-events}} is to be used for marking articles with in-universe perdicted events.
  • {{upcoming-event}} is to be used for marking articles with out-of-universe perdicted events.

accuracy disputed

Think an article contains unlikely statements? Think it says something that needs needs more references, even if there are some already there? Calling the accuracy into question, for these or any other reason, happens when you place {{Accuracy Disputed}} on top of the article.

needs expert

Feel a page needs more verification? in doubt of an article's related scientific or game-play knowldge? Think we should bring an expert in on the subject? Then place {{Expert Needed}} on the article, and maybe a expert will get to it... if they aren't to busy be an expert :P.


When a visitor comes to our wiki, they are expecting us to be honest about the subject matter. Providing truthful information backed by reliable sources help us keep that trust. However, providing false information, truthful information with fictionalized sources, or anything similar compromise the integrity of the wiki.

  • If you see a page providing false information among true infomation, please tag it with {{info-maybe-false}} near the false information, and {{article-contains-false-info}} at the top.
  • If you see a page providing nothing but false information, please place {{hoax}} at the top of the page.
  • If any references you check out prove to be fictionalized (e.g. doesn't exist, from a april fool's website, etc.) please place {{references-fictionalized}}. Please do no put {{fictional-refernce}} as this may be a first party reference. For more, please see #Types of References.

written like a review

As tempting as it may be, please do not write an article to be a review of the subject matter. The wiki needs to present information as is, including all information without judgement. Sourcing outside reviews, from reputable authors and/or editors, helps develop an understanding of the subject matter, but the section or article should not be a review itself. If an article is written in such a way, please mark it with {{like a review}} at the top of the page or section.

original research

This is one of the biggest problems a wiki faces, mostly due to the nature of anyone being able to edit. There will be times where a use has put in something not that they found in an official publication, but something they came up with themselves. Unlike a piece of fanon, or fanfiction, this information looks highly reputable, as if it did come from a official publication. Please tag {{Original Reserch}} if you see anything.

please understand that fanon is a fan-held theroy that doesn't necessarily regard official publications. Original research does honor official publications, but tries to build upon them with original ideas that weren't found in those publications, and therefore can't be verified, only partially proven.

Although they overlap, fanon and original reserch has some key differences:

fanon original reserch
backed by third-party sources, but little second or first. little to no references of any type.
does not have to care about what official publications say. cares about official publications, and tries to build upon them
can be considered reputable to the untrained eye. perceived to be reputable, even to a trained eye, as if it was by a reliable source, if any existed.

needs more references

An article has at least three references? good. Does it need more? if so, attach {{needs-more-resources}} at the top of the article and encourage others to add them.

If it has 3 of less citations, then please place {{Missing Citations}} on top instead.


external links conflict guidelines

External links that are part of an Article, or in a #External Links section, need to be related to the subject of the article. In the event that they don't, please mark it with {{elcg}} if you feel this is so, but wish to see if others agree.


Fanon is a fan-made theory to cover a gap in the plot, missing detail in game design/development, or something similar, but lacks concrete evidence to prove it. We want to be there to support the starfox community(ies), but fanon can detract from quality of the wiki. Please follow LW:Fanon if you believe you have found a piece of fanon on the wiki. We do not wish to insult anyone, but if a theory is not supported by official evidence, we will need to question it.


An article needs to insure it doesn't overwhelm the reader with details. If there are too many of them, some will need to be taken out in order to be easier on the reader.

If you find an article that that does have too many details, please mark it {{over-detailed}} and/or reduce the details yourself. If you are removing them yourself, please do not mass edit the article. Instead, edit in a incremental or iterative fashion, taking time to make sure the article still has its key information, and that the quality of the article is improving with each step.

Too Narrow of Audience for Details

Is an article written too technical? or too in-depth? will only one-type of audience benefit from it, at the expense of many others? if so, please place one of the following on the article, too bring this to others attention.


wikipedia:prose is the form language people are most familiar with when communicating. Unlike poetry, bulleted or numbered lists, tables, and other forms of displaying information, prose requires full sentences, placed into paragraphs.

Sometimes, a section in a wiki is currently in something other than prose, but an editor thinks it would be better in a prose form.

For example, take the following bulleted list,

  • Fox McCloud is James McCloud's Son
  • He leads Star Fox
  • He is friends with Falco Lombardi

and make a paragraph out of it,

Fox McCloud is James McCloud's Son. He leads Star Fox and is friends with Falco Lombardi.

Just the same, there will be times to where things that are in prose would be better in something else.

Here are the typical situations:

Types Of References

In order to make sure we show an unbaised point of view, it is often best to resources from at least 3 different sources. Depending on your situation, any or all of the sources needs to comes from one of three locations.

  1. First-party - is something that said or when on in the games themselves.
  2. Second Party - is something found on an official publication, website or archive there of.
  3. third Party - is a reputable source created by a fan of the series, an expert in a scientific field, a game review site, etc.

A "good" article is one that features a decent blend of all three. In the event you believe an article needs more of a specific type of reference, then please more it with one of the following:

  1. {{first-party-sources-missing}}
  2. {{second-party-sources-missing}}
  3. {{third-party-sources-missing}}

relies too much on one source

An article has one or more resources, but predominantly relies on one of those resources for all its citations. As each statement becomes strong with each verification, an article becomes stronger with a mixture of different sources, each being used appropriately. if an article comes appears to use the s\ame source too often, please mark it with {{r.t. m.o.o.s.e.}}


Style & Content Guide

Articles need to be designed with 2 things in mind: wikipedia:accessibility and wikipedia:findability. Everything on the article, and often in other pages too, needs to be easily findable through search engines (google included) and through the browser.

  • To be accessible: Means not to be available to even those with impairments on their hearing or seeing, or other limited sense.
  • to be findable: Means it is easy to find the information on a given page.

How an article accomplished is as follows:

  1. sectionalized: using === header tags, a section is carved out of the page for a specific area of content. The section title needs to be coherent and accurate reflection of the content bellow.
  2. multiple ways of displaying info: There are multiple ways people observe, learn, and understand information. This also means, that if information is stored in an image, there needs to be a text base equivalent for those who are hard of seeing, have reduced bandwidth, images disabled, etc.

Sections that are often found on


An introduction needs to be a summary of the article, as well as a paragraph giving general information that is relevant, but does not necessarily fit into any of the lower sections exclusively.

An introduction can be marked with the following:

  1. {{intro-too-short}}
  2. {{intro-too-long}}
  3. {{intro-missing}}
  4. {{intro-rewrite}}

lacks historical info

In order to get a better understanding of a subject, it is sometimes best to see how they got there. For us, this manifest itself in two ways:

  1. {{OOUHI|Out of Universe}} - What was the creator thinking when he came up with a character?
  2. {{IUHI|In-Universe Info}} - how did a character get to where they are? how did a ship get designed? how did the item bomb come into existence?


Quotes are always fun to throw around, but how do you know when there is enough? well, put one of the following down, and discuss it with your fellow editors.

  1. {{too many quotes}}
  2. {{too little quotes}}


We all like to know generally what happened in a game, but what if you are in the middle of playing you look up how to do something, and by accident, you read to much. When this happens, the plot has been spoiled for you.

including the plot is important for an article - we need to know what when on, in order to get a full understanding of the subject.

  1. {{too much info}} - in the event too many details are given, and it detracts from the quality of the article.
  2. {{too little info}} - if there is little to know information of the plot, and it is important to the article.
  3. {{spoiler}} - a template to hide important plot details you don't want people to know, should they care for something like this.
    • If it is needed, one could mark {{unmarked spoiler}} to a page that needs edited to either hide or remove the spoiler information. Please discuss on the related talk page after a marking, to see how and what should be hidden and what should be removed.

rewrite entirely

If an article is really, really bad, please put {{rewrite entirely}} on it. this will prompt users (hopefully) to rush in, trying to edit the article to make it better.

If you have vollunteered to mass rewrite an article, first THANK YOU, from the entire LW:Admin. You have no idea how much work you are saving us, and we probably we'll never get to properly show you gratification. Second, please post {{mass rewrite}} on top of the article, in order to give notice to other that a mass edit is going on, and in order to prevent edit wars, they may wish to wait on their contributions. But please remove the notice when you are done.


A trivia section should contain

  • bulleted lists of little tidbits of information. These each should still follow our spelling and grammar rules. There is just no need to put it in prose, unless it really does work out better that way.
  • {{prose}} - to recommend it be prose.
  • {{bulleted list}} - to recommend it be a bulleted list

needs reorganized

Think an article needs to be reorganized? is it missing sections that you know should be there? Then mark it with one of the following templates:

  1. {{sectionalized}}

list of non-notable stuff

In the event an article has decrease in quality to the point of not containing anything notable and being no more than a list, please place {{list-of-non-notable-stuff}} on it.


One of the beautiful things about wikis, are there ability to wikipedia:hot-link to other articles. But how often should something be hot-linked? and how many links should an article have?

  • Well, first, if you are linking to a word multiple times in an article, please only do so once per scroll-height - i.e. the amount you can see on a page without scrolling up or down.
  • Second, only link words that are not commonly used. So, no "is", "as", "of", etc.
  • Third, if you wish to link outside of the wiki, please link in accordance with LW:IWP.


In the event you find a page that needs some linking help,

  • A page without links going to out to other pages is known as a dead-end. Please mark it with {{deadend}}.
  • A page without linking going into it is know as a Orphan. Please Mark {{Orphan}} on any page you find that you believe needs more links towards it.

to disambiguation pages

A disambiguation page exists to guide visitors of the wiki to specific articles, that have similar titles to other articles. Disambiguation pages aren't meant to be the receiving end of a link from another page. If you find a page that has one or more links to a disambiguation page, please place {{Links-to-disambig}} on the page or fix the links to the proper page yourself.


If a page needs some help linking to others, please place {{wikiy}} on it.


These are some other things that can come up about an article. If these questions are raised, an the article survives, then it is a testament to it's quality and the efforts of those who helped make it.


An article is missing a rather large piece, or maybe many small ones. this could be Walthough missing a stage, a gallery missing screenshots, whatever. If feel this is so, then please, place {{incomplete}} on the article, and place why it is so on the talk page of the

notability questioned

Should an article be part of the wiki? place {{notability questioned}} and find out....*evil laugh*

Multiple issues

Should it be, that an article has multiple issues within it, that placing all the templates would take up to much content space, please remove all addition maintance templates, and place {{Multiple issues}} on it, and be sure to preserve the dates the article was originally marked for each marking.


To summerize, please have a look at this table:

Type of Maintenance Specific Standards - Related Template Related Character
  1. inappropriate tone or style - {{inappropriate-tone-or-style}}
  2. word usage
  3. Point of View
  4. conflict of interest - {{conflict-of-interst}}
  5. confusing - {{confusing}}
  6. context - {{context-problem}}
  7. contradiction - {{contradiction}}
  8. example farm - {{example-farm}}
  9. clean up - {{clean-up}}
    • spelling and grammar - {{SandG}}
  10. Time
  11. unbalanced - {{unbalanced}}
  1. Missing citations - {{Missing Citations}}
  2. wrong citation style - {{Wrong Citation Style}}
  3. citations may not verify text - {{cmnvt}}
  4. criticism - {{criticism-section}}
  5. speculations - {{speculations}}, {{upcoming-event}}, {{future-events}}, {{future-edited}}, {{specualtations}}
  6. accuracy disputed - {{Accuracy Disputed}}
  7. needs expert - {{Expert Needed}}
  8. hoax - {{info-maybe-false}}, {{article-contains-false-info}}, {{hoax}}, {{references-fictionalized}}, {{ficitional-reference}}
  9. written like a review - {{like-a-review}}
  10. original research - {{Original Reserch}}
  11. needs more references - {{needs-more-resource}}
  1. external links conflict guidelines - {{elcg}}
  2. Fanon, over-detailed, too narrow of audience for details - LW:FANON
PeppyHeadshotAssault.png Peppy Hare:
Looks like this article doesn't meet our quality standards. An administrator will delete this article soon.
Reason: not needed; type in url instead?.

, {{over-detailed}}, {{too-narrow}}, {{too-technical}}, {{too-scientific}}

  1. prose
  2. needs references from first-party (in game), secondary-party (e.g. Nintendo) or third-party (fan site).
  3. relies too much on one source - {{r.t.m.o.o.s.e.}}
  4. unreferenced - {{unreferenced}}
Style & Content Guide
  1. introduction
  2. lacks historical info - {{Out of Universe}}, {{In-Universe Info}}
  4. plot
  5. rewrite entirely - {{rewrite entirely}}, {{mass rewrite}}
  6. trivia - {{prose}}, {{bullleted list}}
  7. needs reorganized
  8. list of non-notable stuff - {{list-of-non-notable-stuff}}
  1. Orphan - {{orphan}}
  2. Deadend - {{deadend}}
  3. to disambiguation pages - {{links-to-disambig}}
  4. wikify - {{wikify}}
Falco Lombardi.png
  1. incomplete - {{incomplete}}
  2. notability questioned - {{notability-question}}


Type of Maintenance Specific Standards - Related Template Related Character
  1. copied from another wiki - {{article-copied-from-another-wiki}}
  2. page too small (stub) - {{article-too-small}}
  3. page too big, needs splitting - {{article-too-big}}
  4. General
  1. unresolved talk pages - {{unresolved-discussion}}
  2. off topic discussion - {{OT}}
  1. "redirect to the corresponding main article on the topic it names, in order to preserve the page's edit history after its content was merged into the other article's content " - See [1], but we need original text. - {{redir-from-merge}}
  2. Redirect to a section - {{redir-to-sec}}
  3. Redirect to a list entry - {{redir-to-list}}
  4. Redirect to anchor - {{redir-to-anchor}}
  5. Merge
  6. split
  7. move

To Become a Good Article

To become a Good Article, and article first needs to of been certified as a decent artice, in recent times. If it has been too long since the last evaluation, and many changes have been made to the article over that time, it may need to be re-evaluated before

Second, the article needs to be thoroughly tested in each of the above topics. Only when an article:

  • has minimal error in grammar, spelling, verifiability, reliability,
  • statifies all applicable policy and guidelines at the current time, within reason, and
  • has a diverse use of internal-links going out and coming in,

Will the article become "good".

Once you have a decent-level article ready to be reviewed, seek out a good-level reviewer and ask them to review the page. If it passes, replace the article's -decent-level template with a -good-level one to show the article's promotion.

Once good, an article is eligible for being considered a featured article of the wiki.

Good Level Templates

Template:Good Level Templates

Stub Level Review Team

See Also: Lylat Wiki:Good Level Review Team

Related Pages

5 Stage to Become a Featured Article
Stage 5:To Become A Featured Article
Stage 4:To Become A Good Article
Stage 3:To Become A Decent Article
Stage 2:To Become A Stub Article
Stage 1:To Become A New Article