It's just my opinion but time and effort is better spent on actual mod development than wiki pages
Certainly. But it doesn't need to be the team itself who improve the wiki page. One of my points was actually that whoever was going to complain about it not being featured should be the one to do it, since complaining that a page is 'deserving' of a feature is so very wrong when said page is just a bare-bones blurb.
And the thing is, we already have the forum highlights for advertising excellent releases. But people don't go to the wiki for advertisement, they go there for information. So anything featured on the wiki should be chosen based on whether the article is up to par in that respect. What I don't like is seeing features which, after you've clicked them to read all about this snazzy campaign they're telling you about, leave you thinking they wasted their time because the article didn't tell you what you wanted to know, and still in the dark about whether you'd actually like to play the campaign.
My idea is to keep a campaign feature cue. Each released campaign that has a wiki page can stay featured for a x amount of time (I'm thinking three weeks).
This is a good idea, but in my opinion some degree of effort put into in the article should still be required. Again, people go to the wiki mainly for information, so when they read a featured campaign's article they should at least have some idea afterwards about what that campaign is actually about.
I wouldn't mandate a good wiki page, as the community mostly simply neglects the wiki, and thus their articles are mainly a staff list, an introduction to the campaign's story, and a collection of links.
Indeed they are. And I simply don't think such an article warrants a feature, regardless of how awesome a campaign it may belong to. If the community neglects the wiki, the wiki should be perfectly well allowed to neglect them
I certainly wouldn't require every article to be as good as FoTG's, but even a little effort can go a long way towards getting there. A few screenshots, some info about the difference between the factions (if any), maybe some user comments... or whatever. There are many ways to improve an article, and as long as it gets done I don't care about the details.
An example of a decent article for a released campaign would be
Silent Threat: Reborn - It has a link to a walkthrough, comments from players, developer notes and even a feature list. In short, it is informative. And while a walkthrough might take a long time to write, the other things do not. For that matter,
The Second Great War Part II is a good campaing article, despite the questionable quality of the campaign itself, because it is well laid out and gives you an excellent idea about what the campaign is actually about. Despite the campaign author having had nothing to do with the article.
As for unreleased projects (thinking specifically of FotG): I'd rather give them the opportunity to feature their work on release.
No argument there. I simply picked FotG as an example because their article is a good one - Possibly even the best. Released campagins or mods should be what's featured, not ones that are in the pipeline.
