UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations/Archive 5

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.

Lore:Khajiit

I know there is a big hype about Skyrim and everyone wants to see lots of SR articles for FA's, but in truth there aren't many that exist and won't for a while. To fill in the space between them, I want to nominate this article to be featured. It was revoked a few months ago, because back in 2006 it was nominated and added as a FA without ever receiving a vote. This is certainly a very high quality article that does a very good job of detailing the Khajiit. I believe this is a worthy Featured Article, and I want it to get the votes it deserves and truly earn its place alongside the rest. Can we get this article back its featured status?

Support: as nominator Eric Snowmane^Questions?_{Send an Email} 04:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Support: The fixes by ~~Manic~~ Minor Edits have given the page something it has been lacking. elliot (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Support: The problems with the article have been corrected. However, I believe that it was Minor Edits who fixed the major errors with the article. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I get them mixed up more than I would like to admit. elliot (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: That's cool, my own dad mixes me up with the dog. Anyway, I just ironed out a few wrinkles. Seems like the guy who did the bulk of the work was "Booyah Boy". In case it matters to anyone's consideration, there are a couple direct references to the games in the sub-species section, which is typically not appropriate in lorespace. The note mentioning Daggerfall in the Ohmes-Raht section has been around for a really long time (which is why I didn't feel right removing it unilaterally), and apparently a few more have cropped up recently. I'll leave you all to decide; the article has my support either way. Minor Edits 03:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Support: Very thorough. I am personally OK with the direct references to the games, but that is not really for me to decide. This would be a great FA, especially to bridge the gap between now and when we get FA-worthy Skyrim articles. Jak Atackka 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: This is not a bad article at all – granted, it’s really good. Still, I’d rather see some more Skyrim articles created and perfected for this status than just sit back and think: we may as well feature this oldie while we wait for worthy Skyrim articles to be created. Truth is, we have plenty of good SR articles at the moment (not an awful lot, but plenty) and all it takes is for someone to take up the challenge and get one of them 100% ‘right’ – which is exactly how we should take on all Skyrim articles at the moment. So this is an oppose, simply because we really should make an effort to create SR content, especially now, when everybody is searching the UESP for exactly that. --Krusty 23:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I really dislike this argument. We don't have to feature it again (it has already been featured) if you want more Skyrim articles; but saying "this article isn't good because it's not Skyrim" is kind of odd. elliot (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment:With the exception of SR:The Only Cure, which has earned its status, out of hundreds of articles I have read, I have never seen another FA quality article. Yes, this article is not Skyrim, but a month after release it is unreasonable to say the next several need to be Skyrim. At this stage of the game, I don't see any valid logic for a string of Skyrim articles. And if we show off non-Skyrim articles, people may actually look at our Lore section or any other games, and immerse themselves into the world and series rather than just Skyrim. Maybe I am speaking for just myself, but our high quality sections prompted me to fully explore rather than center around MW and OB in my anon days, leading to my passion for TES and UESP. Eric Snowmane^{Talk•Email•Contributions} 03:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There's undeniably a preference for certain kinds of articles at this time, but I think saying that preference is merely for articles in the Skyrim namespace is too narrow a view. Rather, the preference should be for articles that could be of interest to Skyrim players, and what namespace an article appears in is not the categorical determination for what may be of interest to Skyrim players. This article would be suitable in my opinion, while the Oblivion Linux article, for example, would not, which is why I abstained from voting on it. Minor Edits 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Just to address the expected complaints: I’m definitely not trying to undermine anyone’s work here, I’m just saying that the site gets a whopping 5-6 million hits a day, not because of our Khajiit articles but because we are handling the biggest game of 2011 (probably 2012 as well). I never said the cat article was bad because it isn’t Skyrim – in fact, I said it was really good – and I definitely disagree about that trendy “we-don’t-have-any-worthwhile-Skyrim-articles-at-the-moment”-reasoning for nominating a page about the people of sunny Elsweyr. I’m saying we have plenty of worthwhile Skyrim articles that just need a tiny bit of work before they can be taken into consideration. This tiny bit of work doesn’t equal the “months of waiting” described in the nomination, it merely takes a few days of focus from the Community (or just a single editor). After surviving what was admittedly an edit-wave from hell, I think it is time to relax and focus on optimizing the articles one by one, not trying to be everywhere at once. That way, a lot of the almost completed Skyrim articles would easily qualify. --Krusty 06:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Support:Remember, featured is supossed to mean perfect, but it really means best on the site at this moment. Skyrim articles aren't all up to best on the site at this moment. This article is.--Br3admax 19:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: Not certain the full status of the revocation or the exact situation, but as a neutral party here's my question - Since this article has already been featured in the past, what makes it so good that it should be featured again over every other article on the site? Has it really been developed further since 2006 into something worth featuring again or simply refined? A follow-up question being, couldn't the support here be used to undo the revocation status and remove this asterisk of an event?--Bwross 08:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment:When this article was put up for nomination, it sat there for a while not voted on, and someone just posted it as FA without it getting a vote. That's why the article was revoked as a Featured Article. And this was my idea: This is a very detailed, article, personally one of the most detailed and well written of all the articles I have read. I posted it as a nomination so that the article could earn the status the right way, and be a real FA. Posted as a current or asterisk removed and it relabeled as FA, it doesn't make a difference to me personally. I just wanted to see this article get its star the right way, because if any article deserves that star, this one does. ES^T•E•C 18:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Support --GK^talk2me 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oblivion:Linux

Very detailed article and shows how to play Oblivion on PC without Windows.

Support: From MH, as nominator. - Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: While the article seems interesting for PC users, it's for PC users only. Also, the next FA should (and will) be an article from Skyrim. --Krusty 00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: I agree it is helpful, however when compared with previous FA's it seems so bland. It would be good to have a Skyrim page lined up next, the question is how soon will one be completed? --Manic 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Same reasons as those above. Very detailed and comprehensive page, but it's not Skyrim and it's only of interest to a very small number of visitors. -- Hargrimm | ^Θ 19:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: The page is a list of outdated bug reports with their solutions. It's a compliment to the appDB support thread, and it's helpful for people suffering these bugs in their very rare cases, but most of these things have been fixed upstream already. Linux comes in many flavors, and designing a guide to be general enough to cover all the bases also makes it incredibly vague and unhelpful, or incredibly complex and hard to use. I suggest forking this page to cover all the most popular distros and giving simple, illustrated guides for installing wine and the game. That would include each of the latest GUI package managers, file managers and image ripping/mounting utilities. Then we should compile all of the information on the web for driver or wine-related bugs with the game and make a truly definitive troubleshooting section which can be easily ignored by those without problems. This page also fails to list typical VM setups or how to use installed-with-windows copies in the wine directory. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 22:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree that a Skyrim article would be good for a featured article, but we are only a few weeks past the release date. My concern is that we do not have any FA quality SR articles, and all the edits being made to the SR namespace makes it hard to pull a high quality article. I personally think we should at least put off on a SR FA another few months and maybe take a look again in Feb-Apr or so. Eric Snowmane 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: OPPOSE --Krusty 23:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Skyrim:The Only Cure

About the first well structured and thought-out Skyrim Quest page, I can't see a better Skyrim article as of now (and trust me, i've read enough as-of-late).

Support: As nominator --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 20:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: Excellent; that's definitely the best Skyrim quest page I've seen, as well. It might be better if the picture of Bthardamz was set to the right of the page instead of the left; it's throwing the sub-headings awry in my view of the page. Regardless, it's worthy of FA status. Minor Edits 21:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: Definitely decent enough to get featured, especially considering where it's a Skyrim article. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: This article looks like the best quest guide for Skyrim so far. — Unsigned comment by MH (talk • contribs) at 00:46 on 30 November 2011

Comment: A bit of polish wouldn't hurt, the prose is a bit stilted at times and the capitalization is very inconsistent. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 10:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Hopefully your concerns have now been addressed.Minor Edits 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I did as much as I could, looks pretty good now. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: A well-rounded Skyrim quest page. --Alfwyn 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: A good role model for Skyrim content as we get started on more intensive things like quest walkthroughs, etc. -- Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: I stated above that I was concerned about whether or not we had a FA quality Skyrim aarticle, but this one is certainly a very well done page. I have to give my support to this one. Eric Snowmane 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: Yup, it's a good one. Not wild about the "icon" or the two "There is a glitch where" glitches, but otherwise it's very good. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I addressed all the bugs and got rid of them. The remaining one, however, I cannot really fathom - it seems like I can only trigger the quest if I have the "Find Kesh" objective given by the Afflicted Refugees. Rpeh, if you still have the saves (without the objective), maybe you can take another look? Could be a PS3-bug only... --Krusty 22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  - Comment: I couldn't trigger the quest with a level 10 character by just speaking with Kesh. I think this is not a bug but the intended behaviour and changed the article accordingly. It is really easy to overlook the "Find Kesh" quest, but there may be other triggers of course. See the talk page to the quest article for a few details. --Alfwyn 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: An immediate support from me. Compared to the majority of Skyrim quest pages, this is of immensely superior quality. --Legoless 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment:The one thing I am curious about is the image at the top. IS there a way it could be moved to maybe above or below the bolded quest description? It ruins the flow of the quest header in my opinion because of how wide it makes that line. Eric Snowmane 23:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support:This article has a superior walkthrough with superior imaging and an appropriate length. Of all the Skyrim articles this is one of very,very,verrrry few that can compete with the older, more edited pages.--Br3admax 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: Currently the best quest article for Skyrim. elliot (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: SUPPORT. --Krusty 14:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lore:Vivec (god)

Wow... One of the amazing things about one of our editors, Minor Edits, is that if you want to find an amazingly well written article you just have to go through his contributions. Well researched, has plenty of images, the article is superbly written. To put it bluntly, you'll be hard pressed to find many articles better than this one. I'm going to nit pick here and say it focuses just a bit to much on the Tribunal in general, but then again Vivec always struck me as the most important member of ALMSIVI, writing about them is writing about him. Let's get this article featured.

Support: As nominator. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: A well structured article broken up by suitable headers and quotes, as well as a few brilliant pictures that aid the article well. Very well written and styled. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 17:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: Just had a read through it. A very well-written article, with extensive references. I'm not sure about the ending of The End of the Tribunal, as it seems a lot like speculation, but otherwise I have no further critique. --Legoless 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Upon further reflection, I think you're right. I had included it just to provide some closure to a long article, but a lore page isn't the place for that kind of musing. Minor Edits 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: This is more of an oppose on principle until the issues I brought up at UESPWiki:Community Portal#Quotations in Lore are addressed. elliot (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: Most of the problems have been addressed. elliot (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: This article is a shining example about how good a wiki can be and unlike some of the other dull articles, it is a enjoyable read Honda1996 10:22 September 30th 2011
Oppose: I think this may be the first time I've ever voted "oppose" on anything. :\ Though I like the article's writing (great job Minor Edits) there is one discrepancy. Basically, I agree with Elliot in that the exorbitant amount of quotes is simply a bit uncomfortable (to me anyways).--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 02:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Support: All of my major qualms with this article have been addressed.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 04:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment:if there was a lesser amount of quotes, would you support it?Honda1996 10:22 September 30th 2011

Comment: Not necessarily a "lesser" amount. If we could somehow integrate the quotes into the text, then I would give my support. See Elliots last response on the CP discussion (the end about Wikipedia's Abraham Lincoln article) which gives an example of the kind of writing we'd want from all our articles (again, not to undermine ME's additions to the page; I certainly couldn't have done better). But if all else fails, cutting down on the number of quotes would gain my support.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 02:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: A late (and what seems to be an unnecessary) support, but I just wanted to point out that this is the stuff that should serve as an example to other articles (whatever happens to it regarding the quotes). Made to be featured ~ Dwarfmp 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: Well written and very good example for other editors. --Arkhon 03:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. --GK^talk2me 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oblivion:The Path of Dawn

This is an extremely well written page, I believe. It has helped me through one of the quests I had the most trouble on, and because of its quality, I would like this page considered for nomination as a Featured Article.

Support:as nominator ~ Sn0L3prd 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: It's a little wordy and could use another image or two, but it's pretty good. The FA seems to have had very few quest pages. Minor Edits 00:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Nowhere near enough images accompanying this article. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: Image situation rectified. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: It could use more images but that is beside the point, it is a very helpful article and we need a article that is actually resourceful as the featured article Honda1996 12:05 am
Oppose: The lack of images is most certainly not beside the point. Seems to be suffering from the same problem as the last nomination. Needs more pictures. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 16:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: Looks much better now that Elliot added some pictures. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 20:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: A severe lack of images spoils an otherwise good, well structured article. For this reason alone its just not perfect enough to be our Featured Article. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 17:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Support: Much better now just for simple quick task, and sorry Elliot i've been trying to do two things at once tonight. --Kiz ^{·•· Talk ·•· Contribs ·•· Mail ·•·} 20:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: I find it pretty annoying that three editors didn't even try to add something to the article in order to spruce it up (something as simple as adding images) but were quick to disparage it. I'm not too sure I like replicating the use of some images on different pages, but it all blends together so I am not too sure it is a big deal. (Ideally, we would have unique images per instance, but I am unable to take pictures on a PS3, so I am forced to leave that to someone else.) elliot (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: A totally amazing article, i personally did not use it, but it certainly shows what uesp's standards are about.I could take pictures as i am currently using the pc to play it. Ziguildmaster 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support: I would have been lost in those annoying tunnels forever if I did not read about the hidden lever in this article. My support. --Manic 12:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: SUPPORT --Krusty 00:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oblivion:Vampirism

This Article is really helpful and i believe it should be featured. Ziguildmaster 15:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: From Ziguildmaster, as nominator ~ Dwarfmp 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Support: Very well written. Definitely up to standards. ~ Reptileman 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Interesting and rather usefulm but not my kind of read – unless I need something totally specific, and in that case, the page seems overlong. Also, this section is merely a cheaters guide for the PC owners and should be deleted. The Bugs Section looks like a mess also (what the hell is the so-called Vampire Race Disabler Plugin for OBSE anyway?) And do we need it? In short; a lot of work is needed before this page should be considered for FA-status. --Krusty 22:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: It could also benefit from more images. But the cheating section is very useful and has helped me several times, I wouldn't want it to be deleted ~ Dwarfmp 11:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Very useful, referred to it many times myself. However I do agree with Dwarfmp that it could do with a couple more images, it will make the long read more enjoyable ~ Medusa99 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Support: very resourceful,well maintained, and make it a featured article would provide it with easier access and enjoyable Honda1996
Oppose: Just not up to the standards of previous of featured articles (yet!). It needs more images, definitely. And long doesn't mean interesting, it's got a lot of information and it's very helpful but it's not FA material. Honda, I fixed your signature by the way. Kitkat1749 ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Nothing in this article is special enough to be considered "featured". Elliot (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Good article and helpful. However, it lacks image or construction. Also, the cheats section should not be included. As helpful as it is, one of the guidelines for adding information is to not write about cheats. Good, but not good enough, especially when compared with amazing articles such as Sheogorath. --Manic 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment: This article suffers from the same problem as several others in that it's potentially really useful, but in practice it gets filled with gibberish. The problem is that our popular articles aren't just popular for reading, they're popular for editing too. To be specific, this article is not bad at all. I read it through when it first got nominated and was pleasantly surprised. It's not FA quality but all it needs is for someone to take it by its metaphorical hand and guide it into the sunlit uplands. To summarise: I suppose I'm voting "Oppose", but it would be great if we could turn this into a Featured Article because of its popularity. Anyone up for the job? rpeh •T•C•E• 22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Im giving this page some TLC and adding images. Kitkat1749 ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 10:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Support: I'd say that the oblivion Vampirism page is popular, helpful and simple, a deserving article Andil the mage 21:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, simple? It's miles too long. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment:This article is cluttered with stuff not particularly important, such as the section directing how to use the console to become a vampire again. I personally believe that rather than having an "intentionally" and "unintentionally" it could be cleaned up and condensed into one article simply stating how to get it. I personally believe it to be pointless. I acknowledge this is not the place to point out flaws and what needs looking at, but this is my evidence to justify my position. Without a clean up, I belive this article is far from FA material. I guess my vote can effectively be considered "opposed."Sn0L3prd 03:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment:On the contrary, this is the perfect place to point out what needs looking at. Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 08:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment:Ok, I've started work on it here. Feel free to help out, everybody :). Kitkat xxx ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 11:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: OPPOSE. --Krusty 21:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Shivering:Syl

I nominated this page because it is very well written, extremely detailed, and includes all of Syl's information, including quests, unique dialogue, and schedual. It also lists a lot of information without being redundant or uninteresting. Kitkat1749 10:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: As nominator --Kitkat1749 10:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Support: I am new but her page is like the current featured article, like a story with helpful pictures!"There is always hope"-Aragorn 10:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Support: Thanks, I pretty much wrote this, and Krusty tweaked it into this great article. Although I support the nomination, once I'm done with working on Sheogorath (see User:Dwarfmp/Sandbox4), I think that page would be even better. Apparently policy is to feature articles only when that same section hasn't recently had an article featured, and when it is considered as a new approach or first of that kind (or at least, that's the impression I got). Perhaps when I'm done with working on Jyggalag (see User:Dwarfmp/Sandbox3), that one would be more fit to be featured than this one, as it would be the first creature page to be featured. Long story short: I would like to see this article featured, as long as it doesn't take away future feature status for similar pages (which are better in that case) ~ Dwarfmp 11:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Oh by the way, I've improved the layout of the nomination and such, and also, the article image captions aren't consequent (since there are no strict guidelines), the bold text to be precise. Just thought I should mention that ~ Dwarfmp 11:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Excellent VIP NPC article and basically what the OBNPCRP is all about. Brilliant images, attention to detail and the added madness and beauty of the Shivering Isles – it is clear that the author had FA-status in mind when writing this and I can only say that he achieved that goal. Supported all the way. --Krusty 19:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Support: Although I agree with Dwarfmp that Jyggalag's article would be a slightly better article to feature, Syl's is almost, if not just as, good as the Jyggalag article. I took the time to read through it before voting and it certainly covers every part of Syl's involvement in the SI plot and looks nice and neat at the same time.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 20:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Support: Although I sometimes wonder why these articles have gotten so huge, they are typically well written. Elliot (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Support: I was actually about to nominate this article myself, it is an excellent article. If I had to complain I'd say that the opening paragraphs to the quest related events seem to be a bit off (Most notably with The Lady of Paranoia, as the affair doesn't play any notable role on that quest as far as I can tell). I'd also prefer for Related Quests to be at the bottom, but I'm willing to say that that is simply a style choice that I can't really complain about. All and all this is a good bench mark for what we want our VIP NPC Pages to look like. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: SUPPORT --Krusty 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Journey to Aetherius

Journey to Aetherius is one of my favorite articles on the entire Wiki, for several reasons. Not only is it incredibly detailed, beautiful to look at, and provides a very good, in-depth read on how to solve the final, and probably hardest, quest of Daggerfalls main quest line. The numerous maps and screenshots helps it feel less like a walkthrough and more like a story, an adventure – and the written text contains such care and in-depth knowledge that 80% of our so-called “Detailed Walkthroughs” for the newer games pale in comparison.

This article is also a fascinating, and almost nostalgic, testimony to an era of games that disappeared a long time ago, a time where you often felt like the game designers and the game itself was pure evil, a time where games were filled with inhuman challenges, unfair traps, sudden deaths that you didn’t see coming, and where even saving was a challenge and a thing to consider carefully. A time where there were no internet-communities filled to the brink with cola and creative ideas, that the developers had to consider for the game to be a hit; a time for experimenting, regardless of how impossible the game turned out to be; a time for throwing your joystick through the air in anger and frustration. All in all, Journey to Aetherius is more than worthy for FA-status; not only is it brilliant and insanely interesting, even for us non-Daggerfall-players, it also deserves to be the very first Daggerfall-article to reach the FA-status.

Support: As nominator. --Krusty 04:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: Despite my non-existing knowledge on Daggerfall, and not bothering to read through this whole article, I think it looks great, and it seems to be a thorough walkthrough considering the length (though that's partially because of all the images, which is a good thing in the end). This definitely looks like a FA ~ Dwarfmp 10:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: Yes, I suppose so. It's probably too detailed in fact, but it's definitely well done and we could benefit from more editors in Daggerfall space. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: I actually read through the whole thing once when trying to expand Lore:Mantellan Crux. From my experiences in Privateer's Hold, these walkthroughs provide enough detail to cover almost everything. (I got completely stuck below the throne elevator room, because I couldn't look up and didn't notice the stairs.) For anyone who makes it to the final quest, I'm sure the article will help them out immensely. And that, in my mind, is the sole purpose for a quest article. Legoless 11:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: This article upholds the Wiki's high standards. It is very detailed and the information is valuable. It is very well documented and deserves a place among the featured articles. --Manic 18:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Support: That is truly an impressive quest page, it certainly deserves a spot a FA spot. Dlarsh^(T,C) 07:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. --GK^talk2me 21:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheogorath

Support: As nominator.JackTurbo95 14:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: It's still lacking a lot of the info from the Shivering Isles. You also haven't provided your reasoning behind nominating. The article is very good, but it isn't finished, so it's not FA material in my eyes (yet!). Legoless 16:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: I was working on it and it's near finished (here). AKB sort of surprised me with his update, and it can be fused together. Maybe then the article will be FA material. ~ Dwarfmp 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Just FYI, this is the lore page being nominated. :) Legoless 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, scratch that, I didn't realize it was the Lore page that was nominated. Anyway, I agree that there isn't enough info on the SI expansion on this page. ~ Dwarfmp 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Now can we PLEASE stop nominating stuff when we get bored - or at least think twice before nominating? I honestly feel like deleting this nom, simply because it lacks reasoning, seems rushed and wastes a lot of time. --Krusty 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I nominated this because I thought it was well written , and I was not bored. I just forgot to put why I did nominate this... you don't have to just go a bit mad if I forget , do you ? JackTurbo95 18:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Comment: Nothing personal, but this was a rushed nomination and it shows. It is not a problem with several nominations at the same time, but we already have Morrowind:Vivec pending, so there is absolutely no rush. But please dont take it personal - just think twice before nominating. We have 13000 articles, and a lot of well-written ones. --Krusty 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    - Reply: Yeah I know man , weren't really my best idea , I just thought that it was a good page. And Also sorry for sorta biting your head off , not in the best of places right now....JackTurbo95 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: I have to say that though Lore:Sheogorath is one of the more developed pages for the Daedra Princes, it is still lacking. Remember, we have never had so much information about any one Daedric Prince before. Though we have read and heard plenty about the more well known princes, like Azura, but we never got to visit any other Daedra's realm for an extended period. Also onto the earlier confusion about this being a nomination for Shivering:Sheogorath, I would wish to support that page as one of the primary contributors, but it is still not done under the eyes of the OBNPCRP. I could imagine that after Dwarfmp is done with his redesign that the page will be finished shortly afterwards and would be a fair contender for featured status. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I am afraid it's just not good enough, the page does not describe sheogorath enough as he is one of the daedric princes we know quite well--Candc4 22:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: OPPOSE --Krusty 10:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Vivec

I think this is a well written page , and if it hasn't already been nominated , then I nominate it. What do you lot think ?

Support: As nominator. JackTurbo95 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Support: If I had to nit pick I would suggest that someone go through and replace the current foggy pictures with more clear ones with the MGE program. But besides that is is quite a good article and it is always nice to give another Morrowind article a turn now and then. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Support: It looks nice enough to be on the main page; seems to be well-written and comprehensive. --GK^talk2me 02:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Support: It's a pretty good page, and might introduce new people to the incredible piece of design that is Vivec City. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Support: One little thing was bothering me, but it's okay now. Elliot (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. --GK^talk2me 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunmer

This page is well written and we need another Race article featured. I don't know if anyone can identify with me on this, but if people want to start playing TES, they're going to want to know what they can play as.— Unsigned comment by Savlen Maros (talk • contribs)

Oppose: I am basing my opposition of this on one sole page, Lore:Khajiit. We have just as much, if not more, information on the Dunmer compared to the Khajiit, and yet that article is longer, better written, and better sourced. I would most certainly support this nomination if the Lore:Dunmer articles were brought up or at least closer to the standards set by Lore:Khajiit. Until my concerns are met I doubt that it will be successfully featured. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Needs a lot more work before it's ready. There's a wealth of information missing from the article: there's nothing on ancestor worship or attitudes towards necromancy, for instance. The information that's on the page is almost entirely uncited. We can do much better than this. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: As said above by AKB and rpeh, this page is far from complete. The Dunmer have (had?) one of the richest culture and history in the ES universe. The current page doesn't do them justice. The page is also almost devoid of references. When the article is (at least!) brought up to par with the Khajiit page, then I will fully support its nomination for FA. Legoless 11:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Ditto everyone. --GK^talk2me 11:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Oppose. --74.176.12.16 03:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lore:Morag Tong

Ok, I understand why the Dunmer page can't be featured. I think I'll see what I can do for the page. But I did notice the Morag Tong page was well written. What do you guys think? Savlen Maros 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Again, it scarcely has any references. For a Lore article to reach featured status it has got to explore the subject fully and have all its salient points linked to citations. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: We can't hold this page up as an example when we would want things done differently on other pages. My suggestion would be to find an article you like, do everything you can to make it as good as it can be, and then nominate it. --GK^talk2me 12:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: See the above on the reasons why. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Oppose. --74.176.12.16 03:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Infernal City

This page would be an excellent choice for featured status. It would bring attention to the fact that we have extensive info on the first novel, it would bring attention to the next novel, and it would give us a little more variety in the types of articles that we feature.

Edit: The intent with this nomination is to paste a blurb from that individual page on the Main Page and in effect "feature" all of the TIC articles.

Support: As nominator --GK^talk2me 18:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Not sure about a page that has relatively nothing on it, it is just a bunch of links and some basic info about the book.--Catmaniac66 18:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Just about. I agree that featuring the TIC content is a good idea, and we certainly need to make it more prominent on the site before Lord of Souls appears, but I share Catmaniac's concerns that this particular page isn't really "best of UESP" material. I'm supporting the nomination because I think it's the best way of getting other people to pitch in and help make the pages better. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Even though being featured on the main page could help this page out a lot, that's the opposite of being featured in the first place. Why show off a page that needs a lot of work? Hell, there's barely anything on it. I think it wouldn't make sense at all making this page featured ~ Dwarfmp 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: What work does this article need? As it says at the top of this page, "The site's editors then review the nominees for content, style, completeness, and overall quality and place their vote." This article has all of the content that belongs on it, uses the style that the community decided on for novel front pages, is complete, and as far as I can tell is a good quality article. It will be "held up as an example" for other book front pages. An article doesn't need to be big to be featured. Being featured wouldn't help this article, but it would get more readers/editors into the other TIC pages. --GK^talk2me 19:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There are plenty of other complete articles out there that wouldn't get support for being featured. The only reason people seem to support this page is because it's the first of this kind and it could help out the other pages related to it. It's true that a big page isn't necessarily good at all, but you need some quantity to get quality in the first place. This page is an example for a basic article imo, not a brilliant one. All other section pages on the left (Oblivion, Morrowind, Redguard, ...) are better than this one, though none of them are featured. If it were up to me, I would feature more articles more frequently. But I guess there's a reason for the way things are now, I can imagine the feature status would require less as more pages would get that status. Anyway, if the other main pages aren't featured, what would make this one stand out? ~ Dwarfmp 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You still haven't answered my question; you said, "Why show off a page that needs a lot of work?" Well, again, what work does this article need? An FA doesn't have to be brilliant, just something that the community can be proud of. We are one of the few places on the internet that has extensive info on the novel, and it's well-written and easy to navigate. Why not feature it? The opposition to this nomination has caught me by surprise. --GK^talk2me 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't realize at first it's a general page with links to specific content. I guess that pretty much covers a general page then, I wouldn't exactly know what to add in that case. An example of something that would need improving would be the characters, they need a full description etc, like npc's detailed from the games. But well that would not apply to this page in particular. Maybe there are other links that could be added, like a biography of the writer or something, and I think there may be several more possibilities. But ok, let's say it is complete, what makes it stand out over the other general pages? As I said, the Oblivion page for example, seems a lot more detailed, more links. Of course it's has a lot more information that could be given in the first place, but my point is that it isn't featured. All in all, what I downright mean to say is: I don't think this page is special, though I wouldn't know what would make it "special", or if it could be made to look improved. I guess it makes sense there's not much to say compared to the game pages. ~ Dwarfmp 22:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You are comparing characters in a game that have predictable schedules (minus a few exceptions) to characters in a book who can be so complex at times (more human-like). You should take the page for what it is and stop trying to measure it up to pages in a different type of namespace. Elliot (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Most people here think the amount of information on the book is impressive, I'm not saying there isn't enough info on those pages. No it's THIS page I'm talking about. Why not feature one of the pages it links to instead? That's what you are getting at right? I don't think this page is impressive because of a short introduction and some links. Let me put it this way: I can make a page with 3 links to featured articles. So if I am to use your logic, that page would be a good nomination for a featured article. But that's just crazy, and that's the same way I feel about this page ~ Dwarfmp 02:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This is turning into a matter of principle, and I’m not even sure why. Dwarfmp, the idea is to feature the entire coverage of TIC, not just one page. I assume people can figure out how to click a link and learn more about the book and if not, then we can guide them from the main page. If we were going to feature the Travels games (in 100 years, when everything is finished), it would be the exact same procedure. --Krusty 06:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I wasn't going to vote, but I saw that many people were making the false assumption that quantity=quality. The article is essentially as long as it is going to get in the current format, and it covers everything that there is to cover. The details of the book are covered in the subpages, which adequately describe the events in the book. I agree that it isn't the best of the best; however, one has to write an article about a book differently than one about a character in Oblivion. I believe the format used here will more closely resemble the rule rather than the exception. Elliot (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I think GK is right; comparing our game namespaces to the TIC space is not really fair. We’re talking about a book, and the coverage is about as good and extensive as it gets. We can’t throw fancy images and logos around when covering a book and the fact that we have so many pages dedicated to ONE novel is impressive. Support from me. --Krusty 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: At first I was thinking about opposing this nomination, but reading the edit to the proposal I've decided to support it. The page itself is whatever, it's just a bunch of links and a nice table. But the collective coverage of the book is impressive. One reason why I've delayed voting was because many of the pages aren't finished. For example, the creature page has a grand total of three creatures on it. There are quite a few other named ones, and lots of unnamed creatures who need to be given some kind of semi-unofficial name (e.g. Umbriellian Larvae = those moth things). All of this considering, no other site on the web provides such a thorough examination of the novel, so for that reason it has my vote. Legoless 11:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Yes, this page need more attention. Many people who play Elder Scrolls games have no idea there is a novel, and this would make it more known, which would even help marketing, which, with more readers, would also help to improve the article itself. — Unsigned comment by BruteOfHell (talk • contribs) at 17:11 on 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. --Krusty 10:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Anvil Mages Guild

This was nominated a while ago, and was withdrawn to allow articles from different namespaces a chance to be featured. It has been a while since then and I think it is time to revisit it. I have to say this is one of the better pages I've seen in a while. The images are excellent, the description is superb, and it is a clear demonstration of what an article should be.

Support: As Nominator --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Support --Daffe10 16:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Yes, it's a very fine page. Definitely deserves its month on the site cover. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Hmm, I’m not over-exited about this nomination as it resembles past FA’s like Archane University and Rosethorn Hall in almost every aspect. This is how we do building pages and yes, these pages are superb and incredibly detailed, but I can think of several pages I’d much rather see as an FA. --Krusty 13:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: While I share Krusty's feelings, I'm not opposed to this article being featured for a month so long as we don't have a series of similar articles being featured. --GK^talk2me 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't think there's anything about this page that stands out. It's simply not big or impressive enough. Featured articles are the best pages uespwiki has to offer, and as Krusty said, there are better pages out there. Can the page be improved? I don't know, I suppose not, there's nothing wrong with it. It's nice, but just not great. But that just me I suppose. ~ Dwarfmp 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The page doesn't just "feel" right. I can't see anything special in the page that renders it deserveable of being featured at the main page. I mean, it's small. There isn't much content there. You may say that there isn't anything more that can put into the page but still, I think the page does not deserve to be a Featured Article. --Rigas Papadopoulos • Talk • Deeds • 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I just don't think it should. I would prefer another race one. JackTurbo95 10:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: It's time for this to get its month. Other namespaces have had their time, for now, and it's a good article.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: No Clear Consensus (Support: 5, Oppose: 4); no action taken --GK^talk2me 15:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Shivering:Golden Saint

This article is a perfect example of how things should be done, from top to bottom. Text, TOC, place of images, diverse poses in pictures and their quality, sections, tables, accuracy of data, links... I could not find anything wrong about it. And by the way I think the 'peer review' tag can be removed already. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs)

Support: As nominator. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Watching the development of the page I saw a great deal of effort and time go into this. It showcases how good a page can be and it shows visitors the dedication of our editors. Good job Dwarfmp! - Emoboy64 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Looks good. Eh, why not? --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 15:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: A particularly fine example of the great pages we have here at UESP. --Rigas Papadopoulos • Talk • Deeds • 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'd like to vote "not yet", because I want to do what I said I'd do but I agree with the recent decision that anything other than "Support" or "Oppose" is bad. Instead, may I ask that the deciding admin holds off for a little while? I know this is awfully egotistical, but I think a second glance over all the stats would be a really good idea, along with the presentation tweak I suggested. I'll try to do this over the weekend. Although this could be done after FA status is granted, I think big changes to FA articles should be discouraged while they're linked from the front page. It's a marvelous piece of work, though. I remember saying somewhere that this was definite FA material, and I stand by that... I think it could use a little tweaking first though. rpeh •T•C•E• 04:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Profound apologies, but I haven't been able to to this over the weekend. I'll try to do it tomorrow... if not, then somebody else can take over. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'd forgotten about this, and I hate to say it - I can't be bothered. I've said what I think needs doing but that the article's good enough as it is. Somebody else can do the bloody work for once. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Although I agree with the suggestions rpeh makes.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 07:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support This is an excellent piece of work and definitely FA-material. If I should come up with one final suggestion, it would be to include the dialogue of the Golden Saint guards in the Greenmote Silo - and make a small correction, as the guards will throw you out even after the main quest is finished. Oh, and rpeh; Gotcha. --Krusty 07:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: (edit conflict × 2) I totally forgot about the changes rpeh proposed in Dwarfmp's talk page, otherwise I would have not nominated it (yet). Nonetheless the article still deserves the nomination, and I think it is ok if it is changed after, the community will not allow changes to worse anyway. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 07:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Wow, I just noticed this nomination today. I would be proud should the page get the feature tag. As rpeh mentioned, the page is too long because of all the similar stats. Otherwise I would've nominated it myself! I expected him to fix that, as that's what he implied when he left that message on my talk page. That's one of the reasons I haven't been working on the Dark Seducers since then. While waiting, I was thinking of doing it myself, seeing I've been dealing with it and have a better insight on it now, but I trusted rpeh's way of dealing with it would be the best way to do it. Of course no-one blames him for passing up on it now, as we all know he's doing a lot of other things out there, I wouldn't think he'd be bothered with it in the first place. Now, is Krusty's "gotcha" an implication he's going to do it now? Or should I do it? Best to discuss on my talk page. Anyway, when that's done, and the information all seems to be correct, I would definitely agree putting the feature tag on. ~ Dwarfmp 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~Support: As I mentioned on the talk page I believe the article has far too many images, if this were to be rectified I will change my vote to support. I would of done the edit myself to remove a few but since it is currently considered for feature status I didn't want to do it until someone else supported my notion. I do believe the article is truly great though, I even like all of the images (just not the quantity). --Alpha Kenny Buddy 04:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time I've thought about in a while, I have every reason to believe that my problems (spoken and not spoken) are being fixed so I'm changing to support now lest I forget again, good work to everyone who worked on it. --AKB ^Talk 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've put the normal stats under the statistics section, made a lot of stat boxes narrower (not all that much left), so an image can be put next to it, making three images in a row no longer needed to remove gabs. Though I wouldn't say this is all finished now, so, I would like people to check out my sandbox and tweak it, or leave a message on my talk page for suggestions etc. (the GS page has had tweaks since I launched it from my sandbox, so it's not up to date over there, I'll just copy the changed stats to the real page when it's finished) ~ Dwarfmp 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment:The reason we feel the page isn't ready is because of the format we came up with has to be tweaked. In order to save space and remove some images, I made the stat boxes take only a part of the width of the page, so that an image could be placed next to it at the same time, resulting in less images (e.g. no 3 images at one box, but 1 next to it). Leveled lists that were being used in about 90% of the npc's were put in the stats section, which made the boxwidth-reduction possible. Krusty thinks the images next to the stat tables now float above nothing. He had a solution, however this caused the text in the stat tables to move to the left instead of being centered. Now, we can't figure out to fix both problems at the same time. See my talk page if you think you can help out. Otherwise, we're going to have to launch it with one of these problems being present. ~ Dwarfmp 02:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've updated all the tables on the page in order to eliminate the float problem (or so I assume) and having the text centered at the same time (thanks to Wizy). Assuming everything, or at least the most significant problems, have been dealt with, I believe we can all agree it's ready to be a FA. ~ Dwarfmp 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Page looks really good now (removing Brellach was the right decision), so I'll promote it to FA after work today. In the meantime, and if you have the time and patience, please give it one final proof-read, as I noticed tweaks are still being done to the page. --Krusty 07:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. --Krusty 16:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 4

Up: Featured Articles/Past Nominations

Next: Archive 6

UESPWiki β

UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations/Archive 5

UESPWiki ^β