UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of past nominations for Featured Articles.

Contents

[edit] Whodunit?

I believe that Whodunit should recieve the featured article next month because it has a good summary, good guest descriptions, good guide, and some useful notes--Arch-Mage Matt 01:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The article currently holds various bug notes and claims that have not been verified. While the article contains a great deal of info, it is not known what part of it is really true, and what part has never been tested and is just there because no one took the time to evaluate them. --Timenn-<talk> 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's a good article, but there are a couple of messy areas. As Timenn pointed out, there are still some things that need to be tested and verified. Also, the "Guide" section is a bit choppy and only offers one method for completing the quest. I'd like to see some decent rewriting/reorganization before I'd feel comfortable featuring this one. –Eshetalk 02:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The article gets the job done, no doubt about that, but some sections feel like they need a rewrite. For instance, "Playing with your Victims" is a collection of useful strategies, tips and notes that should instead be in the tips/notes section (go figure), and somewhat useless information ("Snipe from across the room with your bow"). That's just one example, but suffice to say, I feel it needs more cleanup to be FA worthy. Dlarsh(Talk,Contribs,E-mail) 03:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Same reasons as above. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The Detailed Walkthrough seems to contain a lot of what would be better considered Notes or Strategies, in other words a bit one-sided. The article would need to be re-written with this in mind for me to agree to FA status. - Daniellibus 18:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: To be honest, I think the page needs a cleanup-tag - it seems to be full of theories and unexplained strategies as it is. But if we can get it cleaned up and get all the strategies explained properly, it would be a winner - just like the quest itself. Krusty 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Decision
  • Oppose: No support besides nominator--Ratwar 04:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oblivion:Rosethorn Hall

This article is one of many "building" pages that have undergone some serious reworking lately, and I think it showcases these efforts beautifully. It is highly descriptive, visually interesting, and maintains ease of use. The work that has gone into articles like this has really paid off and deserves to be recognized; featuring this article would be a great way to highlight all that hard work! –Eshetalk 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Support I agree with Eshe's assessment of the article completely. It's very concise and detailed, and shows the desired final product for one of the site's biggest ongoing projects. It's certainly worthy of being a featured article. Dlarsh(Talk,Contribs,E-mail) 03:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Fabulous job, I can tell a lot of work went to polishing it, as it's complete in information and also clear to read and use. The format and standard of this page will save a lot of work for editors in the future. This site keeps getting better (like the games), and articles like this are what we strive to achieve. I'm proud of everyone involved in this project. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed per above. Falling in Reverse 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support of course. I think it's a great article, and the images make it stand out, giving it a polished feel. --GKTalk2me 03:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: We haven't got a new Featured Article in while, and now there is a good candidate for the next FA. --Timenn-<talk> 12:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: No doubt, this article is good enough for the FA section. --Krusty 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on 14 Oct 2009 –Eshetalk 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yashazmus

This is one of the most complete pages of the Tamriel Rebuilt section of the wiki. It looks good, it contains all the information available of Yashazmus, which is a magnificent place within the Telvanni Isles. This page was mainly created by CAGE, although I started it. Because of the high quality and because it is a great example of what we are trying to produce with the Tamriel Rebuilt wiki, I nominate this article to be the site's Featured Article.Theviking 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This page is very good, but I think it needs more polish before it can be truly great. With consistent looking maps and clearer screenshots, we could probably feature this. --Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Good page, and shows off some of the best features of Tamriel Rebuilt. –rpeh•T•C•E• 08:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I like the page overall, good descriptions and nice research. Nevertheless, I think the screenshots could be much better, as I’m having a hard time figuring out exactly what is going on - even when I look at them in full resolution. If they can be improved, I will definitely support this page. Krusty 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: I think Yashazmus is good enough for a featured article. The page looks very neat and is nice to read and look over. Talk Wolok gro-Barok Contributions 15:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This isn't one of the better articles on the wiki, and it has multiple issues. The masses of paragraphs, the massive space in the middle, the extremely dark images, etc. –Elliot talk 15:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Masses of paragraphs? Since when is it a bad idea to have content? Calliope 15:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Unigraphs. They are bad. –Elliot talk 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a great page. Well-structured and very readable. The lower two images could be a little better but I think it's ready now. Calliope 15:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Removing vote of suspected sockpuppet –Eshetalk 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Grudging opposition: While I agree the screenshots suffer from... er... sameness, I'm not sure how much can be done about that, since this is an article for a dungeon. The maps, though, really should conform to the Morrowind map guidelines (ie. black background), and I can't support the nomination for this article until that's fixed, because the water backgrounds are very obvious, and the maps are thus internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with the Morrowind map guidlines. Regardless, the quality of the article itself is quite high; if the three maps were fixed I would have no objections. JKing 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think it's pretty good for a mod article, but I'd agree that the images and maps need improving before I'd be willing to feature the page. –Eshetalk 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Decision

  • Nomination deleted: not supported. –Eshetalk 23:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oblivion:Adanrel

This is the first article to be "finished" by the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project. It's a perfect example of what the project was intended to achieve: multiple editor input (this one has project-specific input from me, Timenn and Krusty), and has all the details necessary to fully describe this NPC. The project has been - and still is - a difficult one, but I think we should celebrate the first results. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 14:17, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Support: I agree, this shows exactly what we want to do with the project and it might attract more project members. I, myself would like to help, but I don't have oblivion right now. When I do get it back, I would be glad to help. (Gryphon553 20:26, 13 April 2009 (EDT))
  • Support: This article proves what a difference this project has made to the Oblivion namespace. If I were to need information on Adanrel, I'm sure I'd find everything I need to know here. Great work guys! --Matthewest•T•C•E• 22:01, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Support: Aye, per above. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Support: Nicely done! I hope other NPC-articles are soon finished! :D --Neekerisanni123 07:54, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Support: Yup. A good example for the results of the project. --Timenn < talk > 08:28, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
  • Support: Looking good although it would be a bit better if it was organised under headings -- Reigning Dragon 06:33, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
Decision

[edit] Oblivion:Creatures

One of our larger articles. It contains a lot of well categorised information, with an easy-to-use TOC, nicely layed out descriptions and images. It's also well linked, and, overall, is very pleasing to the eye. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 11:36, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

  • Support: Yes - it's a good page and offers a good summary of the enemies a player will face. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Tentatively support: The content of the article is indeed excellent, providing pertinent information, cross-references to variants, etc. and also some excellent screenshots showing off the creatures in question. My only problem with the article is with the index table at the top. On narrow display canvases like mine, it tends to look rather bad. This can be easily solved by using multiple tbodys instead of column groups for the creature types, but I expect this is a wiki-wide table style, so it doesn't affect my support of this article as such. JKing 15:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: An excellent page to refer to when discovering your advantages with the boots of the crusader. --M'aiq the Liar Talk 14:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: Packed with useful information and easy on the eye. Dr Jones 08:36, 9 November 2008 (EST)
  • Support: Mainly adding my vote so that it meets the "five votes" criterion, but this nomination has been up for a long time, and the article is good enough by my book, so might as well move the process along and encourage future nominations. --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:18, 22 January 2009 (EST)
Decision
  • Support: Mainly adding my vote so that it meets the "five votes" criterion, but this nomination has been up for a long time, and the article is good enough by my book, so might as well move the process along and encourage future nominations. --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:18, 22 January 2009 (EST)
  • Selected as Featured Article on 22 January --TheRealLurlock Talk 18:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] General:Playing DOS Installments under DOSBox

This is perhaps not what most people would expect for a featured article, but it has been of immense value to me, personally, in getting the earlier games to work on later operating systems. The article isn't pretty but it serves as a good example of a text-only page that offers incredibly valuable information not available elsewhere. In addition, the article offers us the chance to improve our own Battlespire and Redguard pages - something that has been necessary for some time. We have had all kinds of articles voted as FA's and the fact that this isn't a typical page shouldn't stop it getting the nod. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

At the very least the nomination process will hopefully provide hints as to how the article can be improved. As I practically wrote the whole article single-handedly I'd be lying if I said I didn't support this nomination since I am very proud of my work, but if it is deemed inappropriate for whatever reason, I can certainly understand: pretty or not, there is always room for improvement. :) JKing 15:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Before nominating this article I had considered what could/should be added to make it better. Quite simply, it works. I don't think it needs screenshots or anything else to make the grade: rather, the idea that a text-only article can still be useful is one of the reasons I nominated it. Maybe sshots can be added to "finish" the article, but I speak from personal experience that it works as-is. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 16:21, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: I've just gone through the pain and hassle of trying to set up DOSBox correctly. Only now have I really realised how useful and informative an article this is. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 15:46, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: This article is concise and readable. I know I saved at least four hours of hassle and headache when I set up Daggerfall on my new machine because of it. This article made the installation sail through, even though I didn't follow the instructions exactly. There was information here which is hard if not impossible to find elsewhere. It's a great compliment to the generic resources. Since this site is dedicated to TES, and the article will generate a lot of interest in previous Elder Scrolls games, this seems like a good nomination and I support it. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 03:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Total Agreement: I used this article to get Arena to work on my computer and it didn't take very long. --Timmeh Talk 12:30, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: This article helped me get Arena working on my computer and it helped me get Daggerfall running as well.--penguin0719 13:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on 1 November –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Morrowind:Armor Artifacts

Nomination
This is a clean and informative page that also brings the artifacts into context of the myths surrounding them. Some of the content stems back from the original UESP site, it is safe to say that many had an influence on the article. A good example of a list-like page that is more than that, and I think it holds up well against other such articles previously featured. --Benould•T•C 00:49, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Oppose:This article is informative, and the lore is a nice tidbit, but I'm afraid this article still feels like a list, instead of an article, and doesn't seem to hold much interest besides looking up your new piece of loot. This article definitely has potential, but I feel it just isn't ready for featured status.-Puddle Talk•Contribs. 00:04, 18 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Almost Support: It's a list, true, but then a large number of the articles on the site are lists. This one has some particularly nice images (we ought to look at using the CS-image-on-a-different-background option elsewhere), the snippets of information from in-game sources are a fine touch, the infoboxes are useful and the icons add a nice finish too. I'd also like to showcase a Morrowind article and this one would be a good start. My one reservation is the VN tag; I don't think it's appropriate for featured articles to have "is that what we use here?" on them. On that score, I'd say it would be more useful if the cost/use listed the values at an enchant of both 1 and 100, but that would be a big change with all the other pages involved. In any case, once the tag comes off this page gets my support. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 15:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Support: Changing vote to support now the question has been answered. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 00:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: Ditto to Rpeh; as soon as the VN has been addressed, I will change this to a full support. It's a very informative page, well thought-out, and has many nice "touches." --GuildKnightTalk2me 18:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT) (changed to a full support GuildKnightTalk2me 19:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT))
  • Support: I think this page is really good, as you said: Informative and thought-out. And it have helped me to find the Boots of the apostel, good artifact if you ask me. So this page have my support. -Goblin lair 18:17, 29 July 2008
  • Support: Best Morrowind page I've ever seen--Albinobear43 17:00, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: While I agree it is a list, it's a good list, and I don't really see how else one would organise the information. The subsections on the given artifacts are thorough, legible, employ many links, and are even nicely beautified. Coupled with the appropriate preamble, I would suggest that this article is of considerable quality for its scope and deserves recognition for this. JKing 06:47, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on 1 September –Rpeh•T•C•E• 08:31, 1 September 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)
  • Support: It's not the prettiest page but it has all the information one could ever want while steering clear of unnecessary personal opinion. Timenn is right - this is a good example of a "list" page and should be showcased as an example of what can be achieved. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 17:20, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: It has great pictures, great information and great tables. I have referred to this page many times and it has always proved helpful. The fact that it displays Official Mods is also helpful as it shows the costs for upgrades in an organized manner. --Matthewest •T•C•E• 06:29, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on 16 July –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:49, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

[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: Coming up to a year after the nomination! Just to make it clear I like the changes and think it's even better than it was when I first nominated it. Full support from me. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 17:20, 28 May 2008 (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)
  • Support Exellent page and very helpful. I vote yes.--MonsterSlayer 11:48, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: Good page; showcases the standard for UESP articles. I think this article is ready for a consensus, and it's turn as "Featured Article" once Oblivion:Traps' turn is over. --GuildKnightTalk2me 14:13, 28 May 2008 (EDT)


Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on 10 June 2008 –Rpeh•T•C•E• 12:39, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


[edit] Lore:Black_Marsh

Nomination
One of the more detailed Tamriel pages, full of interesting information with some well-chosen pictures. --RpehTalk 06:41, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Support : Well written article, excellent background information, good placement of pictures. I support this nomination. Stormscape 00:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)
  • I believe the article needs to be wikified before it can be good FA material. For example, use the cite template for all the references and add more cross-links to other wiki articles. If someone wanted to undertake that cleanup, then I'd be willing to vote for it. Until then, I really can't see highlighting it on our main page. --NepheleTalk 00:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)
  • Support: This is a very detailed and informative article, with information covering the entire series and references to the Black Marsh. My full support is given, but Nephele has a valid point. Linking this page to a further extent would raise its appeal even more. --HMSVictory 12:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)
  • Temporary Oppose: Wow. Opposing my own nomination. Nephele's right. Since I proposed this, the site has moved on. We can do better. Now the cite extension is in place we can get better links to other information (there are several references that aren't used in the text), plus there are several immersion-breaking references to articles outside the game that probably should come out. I've WIPped this to myself for the moment as I've already done most of the internal citations - I just need to work on the external ones. This article will be back for re-nomination but it's not right yet. If I can't get this fixed in a week I'll pass it on to somebody else because it is basically a good article. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 18:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Decision
  • Nomination withdrawn by nominee; should be reinstated once it is ready for nomination again. --NepheleTalk 23:48, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Oblivion:Making Money

Nomination
I have recently completed a complete rewrite of this page to address all the issues presented in its clean-up tag and believe it is now worthy of featured status. (Compare and contrast the previous version with the current version, if you wish.) Worst case scenario is I get all opposed votes and suggestions to further improve my skills and the page. --Enterprise2001 15:24, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support - This seems like a good page for new visitors to the site, as they need good ways to make money. This page helped me when I first came here, so I vote for this. --RynoIV 20:08, 23 April, 2008 (Central Time)
  • Oppose - Although the article is a basically good article, it seems to me that it has too little real substance to qualify as a featured article. Most of the article contents are covered in more detail elsewhere. The one section of the article that is unique (on the value ratio) is somewhat self-evident; although I'm sure there are readers who appreciate having the formula spelled out, it doesn't quite add up to featured-article-quality information. Finally, the article's only images don't really contribute to the article (see my other comments). Without those images, the article's appearance would be somewhat bland. --NepheleTalk 02:01, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Oppose - This article has little informative merit, and is in many ways akin to the Roleplaying articles (which are just too hideous to even contemplate discussing here). Visitors will come here looking for accurate guides, informative descriptions and little-known or interesting lore. What's more is that many of the points made in the article are subject to opinion or personal playing style; any competent player would have no need of this article in the first place. --HMSVictoryTalk 14:20, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Oppose - This article has merit as a guide for new players and provides an overview for others. It does well under Hints, yet falls short content-wise as a Featured Article. The massive white-spaces have improved, yet still are bothersome. Not sure a half-page, written article wouldn't serve the same function, but it is pretty. --Benould•T•C 20:34, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Oppose: While the article notes a few useful ways to Make Money, I feel it repeats alot of information already covered by other articles, especially the Dungeons sections. It also suffers from the use of self invented concepts and bold statements that are actually writer opinions. --Timenn < talk > 10:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Decision
  • Nomination deleted: not supported. --NepheleTalk 23:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Oblivion:Traps

Nomination
I should have nominated this one long ago. This page looks good, with a clean layout and some excellent images, but more importantly it is full of well-researched information and details about all the traps in the game. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:28, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Oppose: Good information, well organized, BUT the near perfect uniform sentence structures (especially towards the upper half of the article) gives the article a dull, monotonous, and nearly unbearable (IMO) drone. The second half of the article isn't as bad, either that part has been edited and/or the writer was becoming more skilled with practice, BUT again, it could still benefit from some copy-editing to achieve the brief and concise prose worthy of featured article status. --Enterprise2001 12:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: Very well designed page with comprehensive information and detailed accompanying images. This would be an excellent article to be greeted with whenever accessing the Main Page. --HMSVictory 14:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

* Temporary Oppose: I agree with Enterprise, the table gives it that "boring" look. My suggestion would be that instead of having a standard, brown/grey wikitable, we try and make the table more suited to the page. For example: The tables for the houses on Oblivion:Houses are nice and friendly looking. If and after the top of the article is made to look less monotone, I will change my vote to support. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 16:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Support After the top of the page being formatted to be more pleasing to the eye (i.e. not a huge lump of text), I'd be happy to support this page's nomination. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 12:29, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Good point Game Lord, the page isn't very pleasing to the eye, but I didn't get past the words to consider their presentation. Though, personally, I'm not exactly clear what you mean with the tables. I think less use of the horizontal rule would be an improvement—it doesn't need divided up that much... --Enterprise2001 00:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: I think the article is well-researched, well-illustrated, and well-linked to other wiki articles. I just tried to tweak the contents table somewhat. Perhaps some copy-editing would further improve the article, but I don't see that the specifics of writing preferences are a major obstacle. We all have different writing styles so I doubt that it's possible to have an article that everyone feels is "perfectly" written. What's most important is that the writing meets the Style Guide. --NepheleTalk 01:46, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: This page has potential, as it is generally well written and informative. I replaced the hideous table with a TOCright, see if that looks better. I did copy-edit it one pass, a second set of eyes would be helpful to be check for repeated phrases and clarity and even spelling. As it stands, it is a Temporary Oppose that will be a Strong Support, now that Timenn has changed the perspective of the article to a consistent "you" instead of "the player, the addition of an "Operating Mode" has helped as well. --Updated Benould•T•C 18:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
  • Support: :-) I know I'm biased, but I like how a large collection of information, that was gathered by player experience and testing, still fits into a organized article. --Timenn < talk > 10:44, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Isn't it time to conclude the process and bless this page? Looks like all concerns were addressed...--Benould•T•C 17:33, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd been hoping to get feedback on whether all those who originally opposed the article agree that the concerns were addressed... but maybe that's asking too much ;) --NepheleTalk 23:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on May 3, 2008

[edit] Oblivion:Classes

Comments
Very good-looking page (IMHO) with some good introductory information. --RpehTalk 06:24, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Full Vote --Eshe 13:29, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Full Vote --Hargrimm 19:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on October 14, 2007

[edit] Lore:Daedric Alphabet

A new detailed article showing off the Daedric template, with several good pictures

  • Full Vote --Aristeo 01:21, 3 November 2006 (EST)
  • Full Vote --Timmeh 23:54, 3 November 2006 (EST)
  • Full Vote --Hoggwild5 14:12, 8 November 2006 (EST)
  • Full Vote Verin Sedai 19:05, 13 November 2006 (EST)
Comments
I like the page. I like the link to download the cool Daedric font and its set up well. --Timmeh 23:54, 3 November 2006 (EST)
That would be really cool, a font on a computer titled "Daedric. Oooh. Verin Sedai 19:05, 13 November 2006 (EST)
Decision
  • Selected as Featured Article on November 14, 2006

[edit] General:Fishy Stick

Very well written article, I nominate it as the next featured article. Of course, I'm a little biased ;). What do you all think? --Aristeo 12:17, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I would vote for it, but there are no bread crumbs at the top :-p --Lorenz03Tx 22 July 06
The fishy stick article is a miscellaneous page; no bread crumbs needed. --Aristeo 20:56, 22 July 2006 (EDT)
I enjoyed reading it, having never known what the deal was with fishy sticks before. And it is more colorful than the current feature.--Nephele 19:54, 22 July 2006 (EDT)
Decision
Good enough for me. I promoted this article to featured status, and removed the other article since we now have an article that we all agreed upon. --Aristeo 22:25, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Early Discussions

Nominate and vote for articles for featured status, or vote to have the featured status removed.

I'd like to see a few more pages as featured, perhaps a couple in each namespace. I'll keep my eyes open for good ones but suggestions definitely welcome. -- DaveH 13:08, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
I would like to propose that the following be considered as additions to "Featured Articles" status...
  • General:Bethesda - Relatively complete, and soon to acquire the addition of an employee roster (see the articles talk page for the current roster and news of such), this article is both clean, easy to navigate, and chock-full of pertinent and valuable information.
  • Lore:Khajiit - A complete look at the Khajiit as a species (insofar as currently released lore allows), the article is quite new (posted yesterday), but well-researched (yes, I wrote it, so take my word for it...) and informative. While it needs some cleaning up, I would be remiss were I to say it is anything other than the most complete Tamrielic race page...at least, for the moment.
  • Arena:Buying and Selling Guide - The article could use some cleaning up (namely for style), however, apart from such, it is well-written and quite helpful.
Admittedly, I did pen - in greater part - two of the articles I am proposing, and thus, am slightly biased in my opinion of their quality, however, when you come right down to it, each article is in need of some work (aren't they all?) but still superb examples. -- Booyah boy 06:13, 28 August 2006 (EDT)
You have my support for General:Bethesda and Lore:Khajiit, but the last of the three still needs to be cleaned up a bit. --Aristeo 12:52, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Featured_Articles/Past_Nominations"
Sponsored Links
Personal tools