Alternative History:Featured alternate history

Nominations for Featured Alternate Histories are the proper way of nominating the best alternate histories that we have here at the Alternate History Wiki. These alternate histories must meet the following criteria:
 * Well-written: the prose of the alternate history is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * Comprehensive: the alternate history neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; more then one article is used to convey the alternate history
 * Plausible: the POD and the altered events following the POD are logically what would happen if history was changed
 * Neutral: the alternate history does its best to give an objective view of the altered history without being overly influenced by politics, religion, nationalism, etc.; it is not a "wankfest"
 * Peaceful collaboration: the alternate history is not subject to ongoing edit wars.
 * Portal Page: the alternate history has a portal page that summarizes the work and prepares the reader for the detail in the connected articles;
 * Appropriate structure: the majority of articles in the alternate history have a system of hierarchical section headings, a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents and a lead section to describe the article
 * External sources: the alternate history provides OTL sources to support the events after the POD either on the portal page or a separate article
 * Supplements: the alternate history makes use of pictures, flags, maps, tables, videos, etc.

ANY REGISTERED USER can nominate a timeline (except its creator). You may nominate an article by yourself, or with other users. You will need to sign the nomination, so a confirmation can be completed. IMPORTANT: only registered users with 100 or more edits will be allowed to vote in the featured TL nominations or to nominate candidates.

If an alternate history receives a nomination, the  template will be placed on the portal page until a decision is reached.

If an alternate history becomes a featured timeline, the  template will be placed on the portal page and the alternate history will be added to the list. The nomination discussion will be moved to the archive.

Nomination Process

 * 1) First chose an alternate history, and explain why the alternate history would be a good candidate. Also, you can explain what needs to be improved on the article.
 * 2) You cannot nominate your own timelines.
 * 3) Failure to follow the correct format and positioning will result in the nomination being removed.
 * 4) Add the  template to the article.
 * 5) The alternate history should be adjusted if anyone opposes it.
 * 6) Objectors must explain why they are objecting to be valid.
 * 7) The alternate history will be added to the list if 2/3 of the votes are cast in support after two weeks since it was nominated.

Sample Nomination
Please copy and paste this format for your own nomination.

===Portal Page of alternate history===

Enter your reason. Sign it.

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

This is what it should look like:

Portal Page of alternate history
I like this, because it is good. (sample, not intended for copying!) signed: wiki signature


 * Supporters


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Note: Please put new nominations at the bottom of the page.

February's Legacy
February's Legacy is a nicely written TL and is also quite thought provoking.

Yours in Alternate History,

Bobalugee1940


 * Supporters


 * Objectors
 * All it is is a bunch of shell articles, with only a partial timeline going up to the 1940s that doesn't actually explain a thing going on in the nation articles. Lordganon 17:54, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have much of anything of a backbone for the timeline, and the articles that exist are quite lacking. Ownerzmcown 23:47, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * A good idea, but not ready for prime time. If the creator wishes for it to be a collaborative effort, perhaps it could become something. Or if he builds it up with some substantive content, it could be considered at a later date. SouthWriter 02:15, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * What LG said. --XterrorX 03:19, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Venusian Haven
This Timeline is very interesting revolving a around a terraformed world, and explores what may have occurred if Venus had been inhabitable by humans. Best part is that more parts are being added and quality is improving daily. Has more content and quality than February's Legacy in my opinion.

Yours truly in Alternate History

LxCaucassus


 * Supporters
 * This TL is amazing and although it has a few holes needing to be filled, it is still pretty good. its just such an interesting TL you know. :D Imperium Guy 22:09, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really enjoy this alternate history and think it deserves its title, despite being ASB. It is cleverly designed, well written, and is very enjoyable to read. I give my full support! Roguejedi 02:32, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice like how its built and formated. Very neat. Bobalugee1940 02:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Objectors
 * There's just so much about this timeline that is not done, or even started. Adding to that, it is ASB. Lordganon 23:06, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. ChrisL123 02:45, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I go with ASB and something about making fantastical space colonies doesn't sound like althistory to me. --XterrorX 03:19, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Is there a rule against a featured article being ASB? If so then this totally 100% disqualifies it. Bobalugee1940 02:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not specifically. But that fact alone means it fails to meet the criteria given at the top of the page that we are supposed to judge by, and is why several timelines that were nominated in the past failed to pass. Correctly, may I add. Lordganon 03:36, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * This TL is very detailed and the fact that the timeline is ASB does not mean it can't technically make sense or be logical. Having a living breathing Venus is a big thing and famous scientists like Galileo who observed most of the night sky to his ability wouldn't have ignored it. It is one thing for it to have water but another thing for it to have vegetation. The only reason that America did not go to mars (amongst other things) is because the Americans dumped the moon for the shuttle because it was too expensive (hypocritical as the shuttle cost more than the Saturn V rocket per blast). With a living Venus it may have had more initiative to travel to other planets than in OTL because things like this don't go unnoticed(not to mention Venus is INHABITABLE (instead of a wasteland that melted all probes that entered its atmosphere of doom) and closer than Mars(therefore less time to travel therefore less expensive). I want it to be a featured althist.LxCaucassus 01:22, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's two problems with the timeline, though. One is the science of it. There are some cases where the science of it is questionable. But if you want to put that aside, the biggest problem is the quantity. Much of the timeline consists of proposals, the colonies on Venus don't seem to be completed, the timeline isn't up to date, and there isn't a lot of information. A featured timeline needs to have had fleshed out information. While it may be thought provoking and interesting, it just isn't ready to be nominated. Sure, it will be in a few months when all the nations are made and given details, it should be fine. ChrisL123 01:50, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'science' of the alternate universe would probably need to move the planet a little further out in order to put the planet in a better place for it to thrive. This might be as 'simple' as having it in a balanced orbit with the earth. It's moon could actually be "Mercury" captured sometime in its history (as is one of the theories for earth's Luna. With this sister planet on the 'far side of the sun,' it may not be discovered until probes are sent into orbit around the sun. This would, of course, change the ALT as it now appears (not to mention ancient Greek and Roman mythology!) but it would present a viable planet the right distance from the sun. SouthWriter 02:40, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most of us have disregard the fact that Venus, being 43 156 123 km closer to the sun than Earth, would mean temperatures would be so hot it'd be catastrophic to human life. If it was moved even farther it would be much worse. --ChrisL123 02:59, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on earth would be around -20 degrees centigrade. if the right atmosphere is there, it could sustain life and humans.
 * Yes, but with the amount of volcanoes on Venus, greenhouse gasses would amount to around the same. Even if you ignore the greenhouse gasses, the planet is just too close to the sun to avoid a surface that hot (I don't know the exact amount so I can't say, and that's another science problem about this TL; we don't know.)
 * This TL is very detailed and the fact that the timeline is ASB does not mean it can't technically make sense or be logical. Having a living breathing Venus is a big thing and famous scientists like Galileo who observed most of the night sky to his ability wouldn't have ignored it. It is one thing for it to have water but another thing for it to have vegetation. The only reason that America did not go to mars (amongst other things) is because the Americans dumped the moon for the shuttle because it was too expensive (hypocritical as the shuttle cost more than the Saturn V rocket per blast). With a living Venus it may have had more initiative to travel to other planets than in OTL because things like this don't go unnoticed(not to mention Venus is INHABITABLE (instead of a wasteland that melted all probes that entered its atmosphere of doom) and closer than Mars(therefore less time to travel therefore less expensive). I want it to be a featured althist (more detailed explanation) and hopefully i explained how this is logical and somewhat plausible despite ASB.LxCaucassus 01:22, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Review Process
Sometimes timelines are elevated to featured status when they should not be. Also sometimes a good featured timeline is elevated, but later changes make it uworthy of being a featured timeline. If you think this has happened, you can put the timeline under review by following these steps:


 * 1) Use the nomination template above and explain why the timeline should no longer be featured.
 * 2) Add the  template to the article.
 * 3) If 3 editors support removing it's featured status, it will no longer be considered a featured TL.

IMPORTANT: By putting yourself down as a supporter, you are supporting the nomination to remove the timeline's featured status.