UESPWiki:Featured Articles

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995

Jump to: navigation, search

Featured articles are articles the site's editors deem to be of the highest quality and should be held up as an example for other articles. Articles are nominated for this status below. The site's editors then review the nominees for content, style, completeness, and overall quality and place their vote.

[edit] Featured Article Process

[edit] Nomination

Any registered member can nominate any article at any time. Nominated articles should be of high quality and meet the site's style guidelines. They will frequently be recently completed articles or articles that have just undergone a substantial rewrite, but older articles are also suitable candidates.

To nominate an article, list it on the bottom of this page with a three-tier heading, (===Example===), and briefly explain why you think the article should be given featured status.

[edit] Voting

After an article has been nominated, any registered member can vote to support or oppose each nomination. Each member can only vote once for a given article, but a member may change his/her vote by striking out the original vote and replacing it with the revised vote.

To vote on an article, state whether you support or oppose the article for featured article status. A vote should be in bold, and all votes must be signed. For example:
* '''Support''': [Comment] --~~~~ or
* '''Oppose''': [Comment] --~~~~

Commenting with your vote is optional, but if you oppose a nomination, please state how the article must be improved to get your support for featured status.

If you are not yet ready to vote but would still like to add your thoughts, you may use:

*'''Comment''': <Comment> --~~~~ or
*'''Question''': <Question> --~~~~

And fill in your concerns or questions.

[edit] Decisions

UESP Administrators will periodically make decisions on article nominations. Decisions will only be made if:

  • The article has been nominated for more than seven days.
  • Five or more votes have been placed.
  • A clear consensus has been reached (either supported or opposed for featured status).


Nominations not meeting these criteria will be left open until a decision can be reached.

Article nominations with a consensus opposed to featured status will be deleted.

Articles whose nominations pass will receive featured article status on the front page for at least one month. If an article achieves featured status before the present featured article's month expires, it must wait its turn.

[edit] Recently Featured Articles

The nomination processes for these articles are archived at Past Nominations.

[edit] Nominations and Votes

[edit] Oblivion:Artifacts

Nomination
Nice bright, simple page. Could possibly benefit from an introductory paragraph explaining what an artifact actually is --RpehTalk 03:31, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Support: This page is very well constructed and features many high-quality images. The Morrowind:Artifacts page is also exceptional. Full support for me. I can also see the "Did You Know?" section of the Main Page benefiting from this. --HMSVictory 06:34, 3 February 2008 (EST).
  • Support: Very well done. Great pictures, nice set-up. It's great to see a nice page on a WIKI, that's well constructed and doesn't lack in the field of style and layout. --Brandol 14:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
  • Comment: Unfortunately there are a couple of problems with this article and I'm worried that if I proceed to fix the problems, the article may no longer be considered appropriate for a Featured Article.
    • My primary concern is that the article is currently incomplete. For quite some time now, there have been plans to add another 20-odd items that qualify as artifacts to the page. I don't want to make this into a featured article without those additions: the higher profile will just invite readers to ask why those artifacts are missing, so this issue needs to fixed beforehand. I'm assuming the lack of response to my latest suggestions means that everyone finds them acceptable, so I could fairly quickly get all the missing items added to the page. But...
    • The second issue is the size/complexity of the page. Right now the page is already at the borderline of being too large. Adding the missing items will almost inevitably push it past what's acceptable. In other words, the same problems that forced the Morrowind Artifacts page to be split up/revamped will crop up on this article. And I don't think we should be making a page a featured article highlighted on the main page if it is very likely that readers will only see a blank page when they try to access it. Which leads to two possible fixes:
      • Split the page up into "Weapon Artifacts", "Armor Artifacts", etc. as has been done for the Morrowind page. But will the resulting Artifacts page then be feature-worthy?
      • It is possible that when Daveh implements Tidy, revamping the key template used on the article will be enough to make the complete article non-buggy. The necessary changes can not be done right now. There's also no guarantee that those changes will be enough and no way to know when the features will be implemented.
Right now I'm inclined to proceed to add the missing artifacts and then split the page up. It's definitely what I would do if this nomination was not a factor because it seems like what is best overall for the wiki. But given that this nomination is sitting here, I don't know whether it's appropriate to essentially invalidate all of the existing votes. Any thoughts? --NepheleTalk 17:29, 11 February 2008 (EST)
  • Question: Have the problems Nephele raised been addressed? If so, shouldn't we either restart the featured status voting or delete this nomination? After all, this has been here for eight months! I highly doubt the article that was nominated and then voted on above is the same article that it is now. --Enterprise2001 15:29, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: Yes, the issues I brought up before have now been addressed. The article contains a complete list of artifacts. And I was able to (hopefully) revamp some of the templates on the page so that the page size is no longer likely to cause glitchiness. It's not altogether clear what the procedure is with an article that's been under nomination for so long. But I don't think anything has been done to reduce the worthiness of the article or cause support votes to be taken any way (if those who have voted disagree, feel free to say so!) Also, I don't see that any other articles are close to getting approved in the immediate future. So if we want to update the featured article more than once a year, I don't think we should throw up additional roadblocks to prevent an article from getting approved. Now if there are just a couple other editors who want to vote, so we can make a final decision one way or another ;) --NepheleTalk 01:13, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support For such a monster page, it flows very nicely. The writing is clear, without too much fluff. The only thing that stands out is the centered text in the tables, where lines w/o an icon jump left, i.e. Speed and Reach with Weapons. I don't know if we have icons for those or some kind of tabbed anchoring can be done here? There are general issues with the size of tables, and size and weight of Headlines and Sub-headlines, icon size vs. text size, but those are site issues, not issues with the article. With all that said, the article is probably as well controlled as CSS can be in wiki, so in the interest of moving a new article to the sacred status of Featured, I vote yes. --Benould•T•C 02:15, 24 April 2008 (EDT)


[edit] Oblivion:Houses

Nomination
Though I may be prejudiced as this is sort of my "pet page," I believe that it is very well organized and helpful to readers. It's also very pretty! --GuildKnightTalk2me 21:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)
  • Support: Looks quite nice. A welcome improvement over the previous incarnation of this beauty of a page. Though, it still needs a slight bit of work to make it more appealing, it is consistent and everything is placed in easy to find places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandol (talk • contribs).
  • Oppose: I can understand why Guildknight nominated this page, as it is very descriptive and useful, but alas, I do not believe that this article is quite ready to become a featured article. Its context is certainly appropriate for a featured article, but the language used and the lengthy descriptions could use a little work. If the page was checked over and thoroughly edited for coherency and cohesion then, yes, this would be a good choice for a featured article. --HMSVictory 13:02, 12 February 2008 (EST)
  • Support: Helped me, and about three other people that I know, that play the game out a ton. MadeMan21021 20:30, 17 February 2008 (EST)MadeMan21021
  • Oppose: The page is certainly informative, but when opened, it greets you with a large block of text. Seeing this could put some viewers off reading the whole thing. A picture at the top of the page (of a warm bed?) would add a bit of colour, and make the page appear more friendly. Although I agree that this page has potential, for now I would say it is not of "Featured Article" quality. Game LordTalk|Contribs 09:52, 29 February 2008 (EST)
  • Oppose: For pretty much the same reasons above: This new version is an improvement over the previous one cited above, but mostly in terms of organization. A bold copy-editor (or two, three...) should go over this page to improve clarity and favor brief and concise encyclopedic-style prose. At present, they are overly verbose and too choppy. After that is done (well), I would gladly reconsider my vote. --Enterprise2001 17:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: Decent pictures and pretty tables, I'd say this is one of the better collection articles UESP has to offer. This will do nicely as a Featured Article to serve as a proof example that tables and plain text can be mixed. --Timenn < talk > 10:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Featured_Articles"
Sponsored Links
Personal tools