UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations/Archive 2

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

This is an archive of past nominations for Featured Articles from 2008.

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)

Support: 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)

Support: 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 Lord^{Talk|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)

Consensus: Support. Selected as Featured Article on 1 November –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

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." --GuildKnight^Talk2me 18:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT) (changed to a full support GuildKnight^Talk2me 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)

Consensus: Support. Selected as Featured Article on 1 September –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:31, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

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! --GuildKnight^Talk2me 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. — Unsigned comment 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 Lord^{Talk|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)

Consensus: Support. Selected as Featured Article on 16 July –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 01:49, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Oblivion:Artifacts

Nomination: Nice bright, simple page. Could possibly benefit from an introductory paragraph explaining what an artifact actually is --Rpeh^Talk 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.

Comment: 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? --Nephele^Talk 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 ;) --Nephele^Talk 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. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 14:13, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Consensus: Support. Selected as Featured Article on 10 June 2008 –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:39, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Lore:Black_Marsh

Nomination: One of the more detailed Tamriel pages, full of interesting information with some well-chosen pictures. --Rpeh^Talk 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)
Oppose: 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. --Nephele^Talk 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)

Consensus: Nomination withdrawn by nominee; should be reinstated once it is ready for nomination again. --Nephele^Talk 23:48, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

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. --Nephele^Talk 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. --HMSVictory^Talk 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)

Consensus: Oppose. Nomination deleted: not supported. --Nephele^Talk 23:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

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 Lord^{Talk|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 Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 12:29, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Comment: 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. --Nephele^Talk 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)

Comment: 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)

Comment: 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 ;) --Nephele^Talk 23:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Consensus: Support. Selected as Featured Article on May 3, 2008

Prev: Archive 1

Up: Featured Articles/Past Nominations

Next: Archive 3

UESPWiki β