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 an article. You may nominate an article by yourself, or with other users. You will need to sign the nomination, so a confirmation can be completed.

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 article, 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) Add the  template to the article.
 * 3) The alternate history should be adjusted if anyone opposes it.
 * 4) The alternate history will be added to the list if there is no more opposition and at least three (3) editors (other then the nominator) support its nomination.

Sample Nomination
Please copy and past this format for your own nomination. ===Portal Page of alternate history===

*Supporters

*Objectors

*Discussion

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

Viva California
It's been featured before, it's largely well written and, I feel, could use the featuring as it would draw interest of like-minded contributors, something to which I'm not averse. Louisiannan 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro - some of the articles need to be expanded, but otherwise an enjoyable TL.
 * Well written TL. Worth featuring. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors

The TL as a whole seems alright, but there are a few questions on plausibility I need to ask:
 * Discussion

Mitro 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Even though we don't have a third vote, since no one has objected yet and we need a new TL to showcase for next month, I see no reason why this shouldn't be promoted to featured status unless someone has any objections. Mitro 14:28, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If Mexico won the Mexican-American War, why did California secede? Generally, with a few historical exceptions, a victorious nation doesn’t suffer independence movements shortly after being victorious. :Mexico had been in a state of revolution and unrest since around 1830 -- the Yucatan and Tejas had pushed for independence from the central government which was seen as (and was) corrupt.  I posit that since Tejas gained independence the land-owners of California thought to secede themselves and be free of Mexico City.
 * 2) Do you mean the Monterrey in Mexico, the one just south of Texas? If Texas is not in the war wouldn’t the US have to go the long way around Texas to attack that town? :Yes, Monterrey in Mexico.  The timeline (if I haven't written it down, I apologize) is that Texas was considering joining the US, and winning the Mexican American War is what cemented the unity.  In OTL the US traversed Texas to fight that very battle, and Texas was more or less letting the US fight the war for it.
 * 3) The Confederates are victorious at Gettysburg but are still driven out of most of Virginia? It seems unlikely for the CSA to do so well and yet be driven out of the North and Virginia. :I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it, but I remember as I searched through the annals of the Civil War, it seemed that one of the plans was a push toward Richmond.
 * 4) When did Canada become a kingdom? Canada was always a kingdom -- under England.  It was not named the Kingdom of Canada when it was granted self-rule in the 1860's *here*, but I posit it did, *there*.  In this TL do they have their own separate royal family, I believe that was one proposition concerning the future of Canada, or are the British monarchs their monarchs?  Mitro 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)  The royals were the British Monarchs, yes.  I figured the Canadians would have home rule -- but all the same, they and Australia are constitutional monarchies under Queen Elizabeth, *here* and *there*. Louisiannan 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) How did the American forces sent to Europe to aide the Kaiser get past the British/French fleets that would be likely blockading the area? :The U.S. was building its own navy at the time. With collaboration with the Germans, the US could've turned out several Bismarck-style ships and easily taken on the British/French fleets, IMHO.
 * 6) Why did Texas attack the US in 1931? It really does seem like a dumb move considering that the US is larger then Texas in both area and population, and probably has a larger industrial base. :Because they're Texans?  Texas was always somewhat bellicose.  They had easily taken Arkansas and Louisiana in the Great War -- they were headstrong and thought they could "liberate" more southern States.  (A bit like our attempt to "liberate" Canada during the Revolutionary war.
 * 7) After only 10 years since being annexed by the US the Texans are happy citizens? Seems unlikely since Texas has almost a century of independent existence at this point. :They were ruled by a ruling aristocracy who was both Bellicose and punitive.  The government of the United States was a breath of fresh air.
 * 8) Forced relocation? How did this happen without rebellions and death? :Didn't say it didn't happen without rebellions and death.  By the time this was happening, the US resembled a fascist state, and we didn't hear much of the forced relocations the Nazis did, either. Granted I'll give you that, but the article reads like things are going good for the US and sometimes not mentioning the details will get people thinking it happened another way.  Mitro 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) The available info on Sherman in this TL seems contradictory. According to the TL page after Bull Run he requested not to be given independent command and later committed suicide in Louisville.  However on the Civil War article he leads an army, an independent command apparently, that conquers Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. :Good Catch.  I've fixed that one.
 * 10) Can a solar flare really knock out a satellite network for that long? :I've been looking for that just now -- spent about 20 minutes trying to find it -- I'd based that on the strengths of satellites and the effects of a later (or earlier) solar flare on satellites.
 * 1) Just one insignificant detail that I'd like to see explained. More out of curiosity really. How did the nation that spans the Low Countries come to bear the name 'Flanders'. Did the habit to refer to the whole of the area by that name resurface somehow? --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Given that for most of the 20th century the Netherlands as we know it were part of Germany. I think they were casting about for a name for themselves following the Spasm, and settled on that. Louisiannan 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Toyotomi Japan
It's been featured before, it's well written and well thought out with maps and other extras. Louisiannan 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro 15:10, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Not very plausible and lots of spelling mistakes User:Emperorjames 21:01, 30 August 2009 (GMT/UTC)
 * Spelling mistakes are easily correctable and not really grounds for objection, IMO -- please list in the discussion section why you don't feel it's a very plausible timeline, James. Louisiannan 15:23, September 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Some of the TL articles have the incomplete template on them. Are they really incomplete?  Mitro 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'll have to look at them.  Could you link the template here? Louisiannan 16:11, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:Work in progress, that template appears on some pages. Mitro 01:42, September 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * It is highly unlikely that Japan would have expanded into North America, and it is even more unlikely that the Japanese would explore south of Indonesia! User:Emperorjames 16:40, 15 September 2009 (GMT/UTC)


 * Have you read the timeline? The premise is that the Japanese government changed early on and that they chose to venture further afield.  One of the purposes of Alternate History is to see what would happen if key things changed.  While the Japanese *here* were not wide-ranging explorers, it's suggested that in Toyotomi they were. What specific points that changed from our timeline to Toyotomi do you object to?  If it's just your feeling that the Japanese wouldn't do it, it's not really sufficient, IMO, to block the timeline. Louisiannan 18:19, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian World
It's been featured before, it's well written and well thought out with maps and other extras. Louisiannan 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro - Though the idea of vegetarianism being so widespread seems a little odd, I can't think of a good argument to make it implausible. TL seems to be featured worthy to me.
 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Washington Shot at Murdering Town!
It's been featured before, it's well written and well thought out with maps and other extras. Louisiannan 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters
 * Mitro
 * Objectors


 * Discussion

British Louisiana
It's been featured before, and has maps and other extras. Louisiannan 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Cabotia and Brasil
It's been featured before, and has maps and other extras. Louisiannan 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Rebellion of 61
It's been featured before, and has maps and other extras. Louisiannan 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Supporters


 * Objectors


 * Discussion

Finland Superpower
Iamtheggman 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * User:Riley.Konner - Very enjoyable to read, could be expanded a little though. It is very original and very well written, also the editing for the images blew my mind.
 * Objectors
 * Mitro - The alternate history needs a lot more work done to it. It currently only has one article of actual content.  The history needs to be flushed out more.  Also plausibility needs to be looked at, Finland just seems to expand too quickly and easily in this TL.
 * Discussion

Erin Go Bragh
Know this time line is not yet complete. I'm just thinking I might get lucky. User:Riley.Konner
 * Supporters
 * Objectors
 * Sorry, but I have to object. The AH needs to be expanded on, currently only one article.  Mitro 18:36, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Well its not yet complete I just wanted to show the overall direction in which I am going in. So to any objectors just say what you do and don't like, and what should be expanded, I am always looking for new suggestions.

Chaos
I've read most of the timeline; I think it's really good. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet. --DarthEinstein 02:40, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporters
 * It has in the past, before the change to how featured TLs were selected. Mitro 12:45, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is well written and very detailed. User:Riley.Konner 9:47, September 25, 2009.
 * Agreed, Louisiannan 17:48, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectors
 * Discussion