UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations/Archive 6

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.

Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)

I think it's about time to feature this article. It looks pretty complete, has a good layout with lots of images, and describes one of the major factions in Skyrim.

• Support: As nominator. --Xyzzy ^Talk 02:55, 19 August 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I see no reason not to. Looked over the article, agree with everything Xyzzy said. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 23:59, 19 August 2013 (GMT)
  • Random Comment: Geez, so many votes going to the nominated images, nothing going on here...... Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 11:10, 30 August 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I'm satisfied that the page covers virtually anything anyone would want to know about the Thieves Guild in Skyrim, and it's pretty neatly arranged. The images are on point, though they strike me as a little banal. In reply to Schiffy, assessing a FI nomination is relatively easy compared to assessing a FA nomination. FA candidates have to be very carefully reviewed, as a lot of questions of policy, format, and an article's substantive merits come into play. People usually know in about 10 seconds whether they'll vote for an FI, but in my opinion, if people are really putting in their due diligence, assessing a page of this length might take up to an hour of reading and deliberation in total, maybe more. Most don't want to put in that kind of effort. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 16:05, 30 August 2013 (GMT)
• Support Guard of Dragons^{Speak To Me} 16:14, 30 August 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose While the article is thorough and accurate, I simply cannot get past the fact that 80% of it is bullet points. I understand that the standard format for Related Quests sections is a bullet list, but it is too overwhelming on this article. --Nocte|Chat|Look 09:21, 6 September 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. Four supporting to one opposed. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:22, 10 September 2013 (GMT)

Oblivion:Glarthir

A fully written page on a memorable NPC. The excerpts from Glarthir's notes and the clever images help add to an already high quality article. Definitely worthy of being considered for use as a future Featured Article.

• Support: As nominator. Forfeit (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: It really illuminates the "why" of Glarthir's schedule, which is one of the better NPC routines in Oblivion. The images are excellent. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:05, 20 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: A beautifully written article. Detailed, thorough, and very informative. My support for this article is so strong that I made this comment from my phone! --Nocte|Chat|Look 01:36, 20 July 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: I have to add though, the image of Glarthir spying on the Surilie Brothers, was in fact me standing there. Though I assume it's possible to get Glarthir over there, I think it's virtually impossible to do so. I don't usually "cheat" to take pictures, but there are a few cases like this one ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: It was good enough to make me want to replay it and go through all the possible endings, so it's earned my support vote. Also, the pictures are perfect. The one Dwarfmp "cheated" on (I don't see it as that big a deal myself, not in this case) made me laugh; the pictures show just how crazy Glarthir is, and that puts the icing on the cake for this article. --_¿Vulpa^? 17:16, 20 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: This should have been featured a LONG time ago. --Krusty (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: After taking a quick glance at this page, it is REALLY detailed, and absolutely worthy of being a featured article. It has everything there is to know about everyone's favorite nutcase, and is damn well written. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 14:46, 23 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Aside from the Related Quests section being too low on the page (I think it should be moved up as the first new section on the page), I love absolutely everything about this article. The writing is fantastic, it's thorough, the pictures are amazing, and it's definitely one of the best NPC pages I've ever seen on this site. I can't believe it hasn't been featured already, but it is definitely deserving of FA status. — ABCface^◥ 20:16, 23 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I really love this article, and I want to see another Oblivion article featured. A perfect choice! --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:53, 25 July 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. Supported by all participants. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:42, 27 July 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Understone Keep

A fully written page for a quest-centric place in Markarth.

• Support: As nominator. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 14:49, 26 May 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Very thorough article. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's almost TOO thorough. I think that there is a bit of excessive detail in the room descriptions that adds to the bulk of the article (e.g. "The table is a large square one, with two chairs and some food, and there are two inactive Dwemer spheres opposite the entrance. The dining room to the left has four tables, each with two seats, placed by the faces of a square pillar.") I know it seems nit-picky, but this adds even more size to an already lengthy article. It's just my opinion, though, and it's not enough for me to not support its being featured. --Xyzzy ^Talk 15:37, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: Same as my comment on the other nomination. The project banner should be dealt with. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:40, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: Same as my comment on the other nomination. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:45, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: As above; when the project guidelines are met and the banner is gone, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. ⇠eshe^talk 18:04, 18 June 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: I was skimming through, rather impressed, and about to support when I read the comments above. Xyzzy's (that's hard to type, how do you log in each day? :P) struck me, and now it's all I can think about. It's amazingly thorough, but so much so that I for one, and probably a lot of others, aren't going to read through the whole thing, which defeats the purpose entirely. I kinda feel bad though: a lot of work was put into this. --Vulpa 22:53, 7 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: This is a very nice, thorough article for such a large location. Every important detail about the location is included. While I can understand some of the comments about the article perhaps being too wordy or thorough, I personally only felt the article being a little too descriptive in a couple spots. The article basically covers four locations that each have enough content to theoretically be separate pages themselves (the main area, museum, laboratory, and the tower) and is still able to effectively describe all the important details of each section of the Keep without being an overly massive article. Forfeit (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: I just can't support this one as of now. Renominate once the banner has been dealt with. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:52, 25 July 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: No Clear Consensus. Three Supporting, three opposed. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:51, 25 July 2013 (GMT)

Dragonborn:Lost Legacy

Another nicely written quest walkthrough, with some high quality images.

• Support: As nominator. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 14:49, 26 May 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Another very well constructed page. My one quibble is with the image File:DB-quest-Lost_Legacy.jpg. It has that washed-out look of a dark image that has been lightened too much. In spite of that, I support the article as-is. --Xyzzy ^Talk 15:14, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: The image hasn't been altered in any way. What you see is natural in-game lighting. --Roger (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2013 (GMT)
    • Hmmm. Looks fine on my browser at work (Firefox vs. IE). Might've just been a browser setting. Carry on, then... --Xyzzy ^Talk 23:19, 5 June 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: I dislike the banner at the top of this page. It feels somewhat wrong to treat this as an example of our best work when it doesn't meet the expectations of the projects it is a part of. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:40, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: These articles are fully written, it's only a technicality that they aren't tagged so in the header. As part of the nomination I felt that could be done at the same time that they get looked at, as many articles get heavy scrutinizing and edited for errors while here. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:45, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
    • Comment: I understand that, I was basically just promising support after that issue got dealt with. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:50, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: I don't like the idea of featuring articles that still need checking. It may be fine as-is, but someone still needs to go over it with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it's all there, and all accurate. The project banners are there for a reason, and it seems sloppy to feature something that hasn't been officially verified yet. If we can do something to move this along and get the banner off the page, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. ⇠eshe^talk 18:04, 18 June 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I realize there's that banner, that was the first thing I saw, but this ought to be featured as soon as that's remedied. The images are amazing, and the writing is great. I even like the way the path-split is formatted. --Vulpa 22:53, 7 July 2013 (GMT)

Comment: It's really just a matter of someone popping in the game and play the quest while reading the walkthrough. It takes ten minutes and then the problem is solved. --Krusty (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2013 (GMT)

• Support: I did the check, so I can finally offer my support (as well as close it). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:51, 25 July 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. Four supporting to one opposed (and the opposition's concerns have been addressed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:51, 25 July 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Ulfric Stormcloak

As one of the most important characters in Skyrim, it isn't easy to bring a page of this scope up to a high level of quality. However, Helena managed to do just that. This is easily one of the best NPC articles on the site, and I fully believe that it deserves its time on the front page.

• Support: As nominator. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:35, 21 June 2013 (GMT)
• Support: A very nicely put-together page. Good layout and mostly complete. However, if possible, I'd prefer that the missing dialogue from the Season Unending section could be added before the article is featured. —Legoless (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: I have to oppose this for one reason: the huh tags for the two missing dialogue items in the table in the "Season Unending" section. Could somebody fill those in, please? Everything else is awesome! --Xyzzy ^Talk 22:18, 21 June 2013 (GMT)

• Comment: done. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:19, 22 June 2013 (GMT)

• Support: Thank you. --Xyzzy ^Talk 01:31, 22 June 2013 (GMT)

• Conditional Support: There was a suggestion on the talk page that his historical information be transcluded from the lore page. I'm against this, as I think it would make the page excessively long. In its current state, I support it. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 23:21, 28 June 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Hel's articles have been on a roll lately, and this is no exception. Extremely well-written for a character so important. *WoahBro^►talk 04:38, 1 July 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Ulfric Stormcloak is worthy of a page such as this--and I think it's what site-viewers would want to check out from the front page. Nice job Helena! :) --Vulpa 22:53, 7 July 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. Supported by all participants. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:39, 14 July 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Darkness Returns

After a little bit of tweaking in the walkthrough to (evidently) complete the Redesign project, I truly feel this article is ready for featured status. It has a lot of clear information, a detailed quest walkthrough, helpful images, and everything I could want in an article. That being said, I am still fairly new around here and am learning what is expected of the wiki, and I do hope this nomination process helps me gain more knowledge. :D

• Support: As the nominator of this article, I suppose it would be most unconventional if I did not cast my support. --written by Nocte ^{Chat with me?}_{Look at what I did!} 07:40, 14 May 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: Still mulling this over, but I thought I should point that if thumbnails are set to show at 300px, it creates some spacing issues in the detailed walkthrough. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:34, 15 May 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I like the format of the conversational options and the quotes for the difference sections. The depth of information is also impressive. --Grimblade175 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Excellent article. I couldn't find anything about it that I felt could be improved. Nice work! --Xyzzy ^Talk 14:50, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
• Support: A very nice article to explain one of the more heavily scripted quests. My primary complaint would be some of the language used in the section for the Second Test. It should be written from a slightly more neutral point of view (such as telling people not to play on Master difficulty (which is also notably, outdated with Legendary difficulty) as I do believe you can complete this section without ever entering the light). The bug section should also be given a very stern looking at, as these kind of quests tend to breed monstrous bug sections. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:40, 2 June 2013 (GMT)
• Neutral: I don't know what it is about the layout, I just don't favour it. However, I can't see any reason to oppose it, it's well written and quite complete. There's also a few too many unconfirmed bugs for my liking to be on a featured article. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:21, 18 June 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. Four supporting, one neutral. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:31, 18 June 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Draugr

I stumbled upon this article and was thouroughly impressed with how much information and images were available. Those involved with this page did a fantastic job.

• Support: As nominator.--WoahBro (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: The frost breath shouts had to be verified, and I found out that Draurg Scourge (Over)Lords have these. The fact this hadn't been stated more clearly makes me wonder if this article is really "complete", what else may be missing? I'd like for these things to be clearly stated. ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

The reason why I nominated this was because someone did verify the frost breath issue, but I guess that wasn't correctly verified...bummer.--WoahBro (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

• Oppose: I don't think it's quite ready. I just went through and cleaned up some poor sentence structure and fixed a couple of other issues, and it probably needs at least one more go over by a second set of eyes. Plus, there is at least one image, File:SR-creature-Curalmil.jpg, that could be improved. --Xyzzy ^Talk 06:53, 5 May 2013 (GMT)

The image has been fixed now. Dreamshadow (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2013 (GMT)

• Oppose: I don't like the placement of the TOC or the intro image; the text shouldn't first spread out above them then be squeezed in between them like that. The image for the Draugr Death Overlord extends beyond the outline in the page. This may only show up for me because I have thumbnails showing at 300px, but still, it looks sloppy. I haven't read the text carefully, but it looks like there's a lot of it. I'm guessing it could be much more succinct, especially in the "Combat Strategies". In fact, I question that whole section's existence. I don't like the whole "See Also" section, either: a "for more information" link to the lore page should be in the text like other pages, the link to the Bloodmoon draugr page is unnecessary, and I don't see the point of a book list for just one book. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 19:50, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

• Oppose:A lot of the information is unclear, not particularly useful or redundant. For example, I removed a note on draugr trying to surround you during combat. All melee enemies in the game will atrempt to surround you, it's how the AI works. The section on combat lists names for followers such as Nightblade and Sorcerer that most normal visitors will not understand. There's still a lot of work to be done.--~The wind, forsaken~ (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Oppose. Krusty (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2013 (GMT)

Dragonborn:The Final Descent

The Final Descent, it's complete (will have it's SKQRP tag removed by the time of display), and long but not chock-a-block. I'm also lazy, so vote.

• Support: As nominator. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 01:34, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Very well written, with the text nicely broken up with images and quotes. My only gripe is not with the article itself, but the last image, The Final Descent 06. Crescius' face is pretty dark, detracting from the overall image. It's impact on the article is pretty minor though, and not enough for me to oppose its nomination. --Xyzzy ^Talk 05:28, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Sorry for my short support... I am a man of few words, but this is a damn fine article! Certainly FA material! - Chez ^{talk • email} 06:41, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: A very well written article, it is (in my mind) the perfect example of a quest walkthrough - thorough and complete, but not overly long. The simple page layout is really nice, and it makes the article much easier to read, when it is broken up into sections. The idea of using the text from Gratian's Journal to break up the sections was a clever idea. I agree with Xyzzy - my only gripe is that in The Final Descent 06, Crescius is much too dark, and from the thumb it's very hard to tell who is sitting in the chair (and, for that matter, if he is alive or dead). All in all, it's a great article, and I think it's exactly the kind of article worth showcasing for everyone to see. • JA^T 18:52, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Another fabulous re-write from Krusty. There is not enough in terms of rewarding on this site to adequately give him his much deserved credit for the hard work he puts into these articles. Support per Jak Atackka. Snowmane➚^{(talk•email)} 19:23, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Looks good. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:22, 18 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: FA-worthy for sure. — ABCface^◥ 02:53, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I'm more of an FI critic, and that carries over into my way of looking at FAs, where I only skim the article but look for cool formatting and gratuitous pictures. With that in mind, the article looks great as far as I can see. It's also nice to see a quest article grace this page for the first time in 10 months. --HalfStache 05:44, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
• Support:Why not? First DB article ever anyway. And the journal bits are a nice touch.--~The wind, forsaken~ (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. ~ Dwarfmp

Shivering:Jyggalag

Eight Skyrim articles in a row, I think it's somebody else's turn. Jyggalag is a fine article (if I say so myself), and featuring it would mark the first creature to be featured in UESP history. We need examples for them too right? Only minor problem is the last image is square, but I'm not even sure if it's a problem in the first place.

• Support: As nominator ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Per nominator Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 23:18, 8 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support:A really good page. Definetly FA material.--Skyrimplayer (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: The introductory wall of text makes it rather unattractive. Could be fixed with some sections and an image, I think. --Krusty (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I like it for being one of the simply most dreadful articles I could imagine ever being written. I simply don't know how you do it, Dwarf. This article also marks the end of my own messing with Dwarf's hard work, at least until I look at Haskill again (who simply has more text dumps then should be legally allowed), with the Shivering Isles articles. While I admit my appreciation for this one is more of a personal one as Dwarf completely showed me up here (I was about to work on it when I noticed Dwarf actually wrote it), but it's still good. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:04, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose:I think that the article's appearance is excellent, but I do have one gripe. It seems to me that it changes from an article about Jyggalag to a partial synopsis of the last four portions of the SI main quest. I think that an FI should set an example of the standards we expect from any article, including staying focused on its topic. --Xyzzy ^Talk 15:08, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

Comment: Jyggalag is clearly mentioned in every quest stated, rumors and mentions are to be written, so I don't see how it isn't on topic ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

The section that especially highlights my objection is the one titled "The Roots of Madness". Jyggalag does not make an appearance in this quest, but is only spoken of. In general, I don't feel that mere mentions of an NPC/creature in a quest should be included in their article. I have seen countless reverts of edits for this very reason, because the information was not deemed relevant to the article. IMO, this is an example of this. --Xyzzy ^Talk 20:02, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

It depends on the content; if, for example, Jyggalag would be mentioned as some sort of insult to someone, it's not important to note. This section potrays how Jyggalag has likely been talked into poisoning the font by the traitor duke, most likely marking the first time ever he's changed his tactics. It also adds two important descriptive sentences. There is one sentence that is a little off-topic, but leaving that out makes the already short text to be too small to fit next to the icon ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

• Support:Same as nominator. - The Chez Cake ^{Talk to the Cheese} 22:00, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: This is a really good page with good information on this Daedric Prince. --Jake-518 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: A very good article. As one of the least well-known Daedric Princes, this is a very good article to showcase the thoroughness of our website. • JA^T 17:18, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

CONSENSUS:Support (7 supporting to 2 opposed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:34, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Danica Pure-Spring

Another well laid out NPC page by Krusty. It's shorter than the other NPC pages we've had presented, but it's still a complete, finely tuned, concise, and yet thorough, page.

• Support: As nominator. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:05, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: I don't exactly think it is Featured Article material. But hey what do I know. - The Chez Cake ^{Talk to the Cheese} 23:16, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: Per nominator. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 23:32, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: It's basically what every non-VIP NPC page should look like, so I'd say that upholds the "example for other articles" part of an FA's definition. BTW: I love jargon ;P --Vulpa 02:07, 7 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: Given the fact that there have been several Skyrim NPC pages featured recently, and that this one pales before them, I oppose ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support:I'll support this. It's a good npc page. And it's a good model to go after. Dwarfmp, I fail to see why having npc pages a lot stops this from being a good one.--Br3admax (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: There just isn't enough for me to say we should feature this one after so many great NPC articles have already gone. It's like how Adanrel was featured because she was the first finished OBNPCRP article. After some more were finished up, she would of never been considered. The standard for what is worth showing off changes based on what we've already done. As such, I cannot support this article for featured status. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:04, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: I am of the opinion that regardless of what has been done in the past, this article has its own merits that deserve consideration. AKB raises some good points to justify his opposition, and I can respect his opinion to oppose the article, but as I was typing before he caused me to have an EC, I don't see how Dwarf means by it "pales before them"? Is it shorter than, say Rikke's page? Absolutely! Does it not have the same fancy formatting? You bet! The difference though, and what I considered when I wrote my support vote, is that this page is what a lesser important character's page should look like. The good Legate is a highly important character in the Civil War, and she has that lesser role in the peace negotiations, and Delphine is one of the central characters to the whole story. They are on completely separate levels than Danica is. The quality of the article is here, it just doesn't look so fancy as Rikke or Delphine because there is not enough information to put about her to justify formatting the page to look like them, which would ultimately only clutter the page with the fancy templates. That doesn't make the article any less complete than Delphine's article, and like I said, for a lesser character, this article is what I would think is beyond exceptional, and it should represent all minor characters in the game. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 02:17, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: This is a difficult decision for me. This article has elements essential to any FA. It has good image placement, covers in detail all the necessary information and dialogue, and has no missing information. I oppose for the same reason that I would oppose Skyrim:Bleeding Crown. That article has pertinent image placement for an article of its type, as well as all relevant information and text, in addition to numerous locations and possible uses. That does not make it an FA. I mean no offense to anyone who worked on the nominated article, but I do not feel that it is placed on a topic which can be extensively and majestically fleshed out. I don't believe that even with extensive work, like that which has been put into Danica, an article like this would warrant FA status due to the fact that there is ultimately not an extensive amount to be said. I acknowledge that Danica's page is a model article and that hopefully all of our NPC articles can live up to these standards someday, but at that moment, will this article still stand out? No, because the topic isn't given enough space in the game to allow it to be written about as much as people like Rikke or Delphine, which is why I must oppose. --HalfStache 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 06:30, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

• Comment: If I am understanding your reasoning, 'Stache, FA is reserved only for high-profile locations/characters by default? May you clarify your stance if that's not what you meant? I am not tring to argue with anyone, I am just genuinely curious about the oppositions to what seemed to me like a straightforward vote. Of course, to each their own, and I am not out to change opinions. --Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 23:26, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

I'm sure there's plenty of complete articles out there to nominate, and we've got a list of to-be-featured good for a couple of years. There's plenty of them that have been complete before Danica, so what makes Danica so special? ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

• Comment: Maybe it's good to have a featured article that isn't HUGE. After all, a FA is an article that should be used to base other articles on. It's written well and (as far as I know :P) formatted well. Just because it isn't some ginormous article isn't bad: after all, it isn't a VIP article. And again, that shouldn't be a bad thing-- there are FAR more non-VIP(NPC) articles than otherwise, and there should be a high standard to base these all on. In my opinion, this article is just that. ...It's not big, but that shouldn't be what matters. --Vulpa 23:21, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
  • Comment: I know that an FA is "technically" supposed to be a model article, but my view is that it should be an absolutely stunning article. I'm not opposing the article simply because it's short. I am opposing because it doesn't blow me away in awe. To explain via an analogy: a featured article should be like a brilliant and beautiful piece of architecture. The best ones are built by great architects with the finest materials and ideas in the land. These are the ones that hit the front page of magazines. But sometimes, the architect doesn't have access to all the materials, and so the idea is hindered by a lack of resources, and then the building isn't brilliant enough to hit the front page of a magazine. In my opinion, this article falls into the latter category. --HalfStache 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: I hate to oppose this when I would rather see it as FA than SR:Easter Eggs and I didn't even vote on that one, but... I'm with Dwarfmp here with the end of his last comment... what makes this one so special? — ABCface^◥ 03:23, 10 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: This is quite fascinating. Not only do we see an awful lot of ‘slumbering’ editors become ‘active’ all of a sudden, my little Danica-article also gets a lot of attention it doesn’t really deserve. If I’ve wanted it to be FA-material, I’ve put in a lot of flashy Gildergreen/Eldergleam images and done it in an entirely different way. Truth is, I wrote this page purely because I felt obliged to do so (I wrote The Blessings of Nature and Maurice Jondrelle as well so I was “into” the material), and it was actually a left-hand effort on my part. Sure, it ended up nice, but I don’t know what all the fuzz is about. It’s not THAT good. It’s an NPC article, just like we should write NPC articles, nothing more. My goal was to write the best Danica Pure-Spring article on the net – and that should always be our goal on the UESP. Still doesn’t prevent me from supporting it though. ☺ --Krusty (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

• Comment: That was exactly my point above, Krusty, you just worded it better. :P The point of an FA (as far as I know) is for it to be not only the best it can be, but the best of its kind, which I consider it to be. No, it's not really much if you compare it to Legate Rikke or other recent nominations, but it IS a minor NPC and raises the standards for other minor NPC articles, which is what we should all try to do. There, I'm done now :P --Vulpa 20:32, 10 January 2013 (GMT)

• Comment: Does anyone else have anything further to say regarding this nomination? Technically, it cannot currently be closed, since the vote is a dead tie and the procedure for these nominations clearly states that nominations can only be closed if "a clear consensus has been reached." If there are no additional votes and no changed votes for several more days, I may go ahead and close it without consensus, but I'd rather see the community come to a decision first. ⇠eshe^talk 16:14, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: This is similar to Oblivion:Adanrel, in that an otherwise un-noteworthy article was made a Featured Article because it met the standards of our website. By that logic, we might as well feature Skyrim:Alvor. This is an excellent article, don't get me wrong, but making it a Featured Article solely because it's high quality isn't enough for me. Quality is an important factor for sure, but to be a FA, it needs to be more interesting, in-depth, unique, or otherwise special, and I'm afraid that this article simply isn't special. • JA^T 17:18, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: Like others have said, the time for featuring random Skyrim VIP pages seems to have passed. —Legoless (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

CONSENSUS: Opposed (5 supporting, 7 opposed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:34, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Irkngthand

A very thorough place page, if I may say so myself. It breaks the mold with previous games, but I think that's for the better. Bethesda seems to be progressing towards the style where quests can be randomly allocated to a dungeon, and so the "walkthrough" (its actually a "description" of the place, as it doesn't give hints on how to deal with enemies and other quest related information) as such is better placed there. For all our procrastinating about being thorough, and documenting as much as possible, this is, imo, how it should be done. And for the purposes of transparency, I wrote it.

• Support: As nominator. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:05, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: I could nitpick some on how some of the walkthrough sections are unbearably long, and I was quick to start simply skimming through the content, because of how the formatting is so plain that at times, it becomes hard to read. I guess I am spoiled by some of the eye candy that people went out of the way to create. That aside, it's not that big of a problem, and this is a very thorough article and one that all our locations should strive to match, so all in all, my vote is still a support. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 23:31, 6 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: As far as a location page goes, I'm fine seeing this a featured article. I agree with Snowmane, as a location page, it sets the mold.--Br3admax (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: It's pretty good, and I feel like we don't feature enough place pages. I think this one deserves the star. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:04, 9 January 2013 (GMT)
• Support: An excellent place article. • JA^T 17:18, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

CONSENSUS: Support (5 support, no opposed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:34, 16 January 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Artifacts

I think this is a great page and includes heaps of information about all the artifacts in the game. This page has great pictures and lots of good tables :)

• Support: As nominator - Cheezytrousers (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2012 (GMT)
• Weak Opposition: Don't get me wrong, it's a good article, content-wise, and I know that the layout is what's the standard, but I don't find the wall of images on the left, the wall of infoboxes on the right, and the text smashed into what's left to be all that attractive looking. Since the page has to list all this information and the standard is to look like it is, I offer no suggestions to remedy the eyesore that I find it to be, since I don't know how it could be fixed without making it so incredibly different looking than it is supposed to be. If somebody has a good idea to fix it, I'd gladly support it, but right now, it could use a little TLC, IMO. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 21:10, 18 December 2012 (GMT)
• Oppose:It's not a bad page per se, but I can't see how it is outstanding. The formatting is a bit awkward, and also, for good or for ill, there's still some debate over how to define an artifact-~The wind, forsaken~ (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (GMT)
• Oppose: Simply to spite the definition of an artifact. I'm still not happy with it. —Legoless (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2012 (GMT)
• Comment: Despite the awkward nature of the formatting, I fully support the nomination of this article on the grounds that it is one of the most useful and comprehensive articles I have read. — Unsigned comment by 173.190.137.27 (talk) at 02:24 on 2 January 2013
• Oppose: Eh. It's not FA material, IMO. The definition alone is controversial, which makes the whole article flawed. — ABCface^◥ 08:10, 3 January 2013 (GMT)
• Oppose: It's nothing spectacular. The Dawnguard Rune Items are not unique in appearance, Morokei has no unique enchantment (although this may be a mistake of bethesda), Dragon Priest Masks have their own category while Shields for example don't... This article, although about an interesting topic, is not the best qualitiy this wiki could deliver. SarthesArai (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2013 (GMT)

CONSENSUS: Opposed (1 Support, 5 Opposed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:41, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Easter Eggs

Okay, just hear me out. I will be the first to admit that this page has been the most aggravating and possibly the most contentious in the Skyrim namespace. "Trainwreck" is probably how I would describe it for most of the past year. I washed my hands of the actual page earlier this year, and didn't look at it again until a few days ago. But when I did, I found it to be surprisingly good. It had a logical arrangement, and logical entries, as well as an appropriate notice and introduction. Thanks to greater editors than I who had the dedication and patience to monitor, debate over, and refine the article, it has become an excellent example of what we want for this type of page, and those editors deserve a slap on the back.

With Dragonborn just around the corner, we're undoubtedly going to be hit with a new slew of potential eggs that everyone and their mothers will be trying to put on the wiki, and it wouldn't hurt to highlight for new or inexperienced users just what kind of things we're looking for and the process we expect them to follow. If nominated for FA status, this would be put on the main page about a month after Dragonborn's release, which may help achieve that goal. Further, it's just a fun, eye-catching page. No need to take it or ourselves too seriously. :P

• Support: As nominator. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 18:06, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Support: Okay, ME, while it's good for an Easter Egg page, I don't see how it can represent the wiki as a whole. It's well maintained and Thu'um keeps the tabs on it, but I don't know if it can be in the same category as the rest. I can't deny that it is well written, but I don't know if it is in the same ballpark as what I think about as a FA. Also from the top of this page:"Featured articles are articles the site's editors deem to be of the highest quality and should be held up as an example for other articles. Articles are nominated for this status below. The site's editors then review the nominees for content, style, completeness, and overall quality and place their vote."--Br3admax (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: For this type of article, I think it is high quality. And as I stated, I do think it should be held up as an example for other articles; i.e., other articles of the same type - egg pages. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:00, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: Took a while, but you've won my support. The article looks a lot more feature worthy.--Br3admax (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (GMT)

• Ummm.... What?: I swear I only said "Seconded" in IRC because I thought you were joking. It's an Easter Eggs page... I know we don't need to take ourselves seriously, but this is a page that everyone and their mother and dog edits, and ultimately serves no use at all to the wiki. It's just a place for people to make up connections to other events. I will call this an opposition. Is General:Fanfiction next? It's got an organized list by game of poorly written stories, but the page itself is good as it can be. :P ES^{(talk•email)} 18:21, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Support: It's still a stupid page, in my opinion, but it's a good looking stupid page, so I guess we can give it a shot on the front for a while. ES^{(talk•email)} 22:41, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
• Comment: That's fair. I just make no discriminations against any type of article on the wiki. Hypothetically speaking, an ingredient page could be an FA. I see no reason to categorically bar easter egg pages. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:00, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Support: As an editor of that page, and as a lover of Easter Egg pages in general. One of the first pages I read on this wiki was the Oblivion Easter Egg page. I think showcasing the Easter Egg page would be a good way to draw people into the wiki, since you don't need a knowledge of the game to like it. Considering we've featured General:Playing DOS Installments under DOSBox, Shadowkey:Glacier Crawl, and Books:The Infernal City, I don't see how including an easter eggs page is going to downgrade the wiki's quality. And the Easter Eggs page is quite a bit different from the fan fiction page. --][Respect the wind][ (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: Shadowkey and The Infernal City are official TES releases though, not just useless joke pages. Playing Under DOSBox is a guide to getting the pre-Morrowind games running on today's newer machines. All three of those links are bad examples for comparison, as they are actually useful to the wiki and the population in general. ES^{(talk•email)} 18:40, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: I think it's aberrant to say easter egg pages are "useless joke pages". Like any other page, they attempt to catalog something in the games. In this case, something I think readers of the wiki will find interesting. In that sense, this nomination is no different than the nominations for Skyrim:Thalmor or Skyrim:Dragon - these nominations are not just about article quality, but because the subject matter is inherently interesting. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:00, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Oppose: Surely this is a joke. This page, though clean atm, is utterly full of speculation, how can that be presented as one of our best pages. A better choice would've been the Historical References pages, because at least that isn't speculative. These "Eggs" are not fully verifiable, only by consensus do they get chosen, and as the recent spate of suggestions suggest, it isn't even a complete page. If we were to nominate an Eggs page (God forbid), then the more complete Morrowind or Oblivion pages would be a better choice, but even they aren't complete, as evidence by a few Morrowind suggestions this year. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:39, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Support: I have to agree with Minor Edits on this one. Part of what makes this site so popular is not only our documentation of the "boring" aspects of the game, but also the fun parts. I for one greatly enjoyed reading the article Oblivion:Easter Eggs when I first got here. I looked through the nominated article more closely, and I have to agree with Minor Edits that it is very polished, and even if a couple of references are missing, it feels complete. Bethesda Softworks isn't just a boring group of programmers with no creativity and no sense of fun. They intentionally put these Easter eggs into the game, for us gamers to find. I think we should advertise this. • JA^T 19:02, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• CommentA lot of things can be interesting and helpful, but not the Easter Eggs. The Easter Eggs are at best, speculation, and at worst, a bunch of stuff we put up for a laugh or two. The Easter Eggs are purely our own judgement of the placement of items and nods towards others work. Hey, if you know me, than you would know that I love jokes, but as a FA it has to be more than what we think the developers meant. Nothing in that article can really be confirmed, per say, so I do not understand how any of it can be conclusive, or feature worthy. We do not usually put speculation on a wiki page, but that is all the Easter Eggs really are.Br3admax (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: A lot of the stuff on the wiki is just us saying what we think the developers meant. Anyways, a good egg doesn't need confirming. Look at the references on the page to Annie, Dungeons & Dragons, the Fishy Stick, Minecraft, Pac-Man, etc. We don't need confirmation for these. If you think there's too much speculation on the page, then that's an argument against its quality, but that doesn't mean an Easter Egg page is categorically unfit to be an FA. I personally think the vast majority, if not all of the current entries are valid, and now over a year after the game's release, I think it's as reasonably complete as it's going to get, which is why I nominated it. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:00, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Oppose: This article is in a much better state than it was last time I looked at it, but it is by no means an FA. It is interesting to read, but I would have to agree with all of the aforementioned criticisms, and then add one of my own. My criticism is that it has no images, something which I personally consider crucial to an FA. It may not be very well set up to accommodate images, but I am disinclined to support something that is essentially a fragmented wall of text. --HalfStache 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 19:41, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: Well, that's something we can take care of pretty easily, not an absolute reason to shoot down the nomination. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:00, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: It concerns me a little that some people deem this page to exist as a joke, that it's "pointless". If gathering information of the games is pointless, what's the purpose of this site? In fact, instead of filling your head with Elder Scrolls lore or characters, you might actually learn some culture reading it. Furthermore, these frequently interesting facts can only add more to the meaning behind the game in question.

That aside, this article's eligibility for featured status is subject to two main oppositional factors: content and completeness. Technically easter eggs can't be proven, some things may just be incredible coincidences. Where we can safely state resemblances, other cases are at best doubtful.

The biggest problem is of course completeness: who can possibly say all the easter eggs are discovered? It's not just researching one part of the game, every character name could be a potential reference for instance; so that's why the page is created by a lot of different people, each person with their own knowledge and view. But that's exactly why we can't be sure it's a complete page. Yadda yadda yadda, all in all, would it be problematic to have it potentially incomplete, only to have it expanded should another easter egg get discovered? Supposedly not, it depends on the other aspects of the article.

As stated above, images could improve the article's appearance (though I wouldn't necessarily state a FA MUST have images in the first place). But this is probably not as simple as usual, for I can only see images of the references in question to be fit for adding. But then we would need images with the correct license etc. Also, most sections are small and leave barely any space for images. We'll see.

For now, I don't lean towards support, nor to opposition ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: Actually, I think adding images would be wonderful. Just because the sections are small doesn't mean that they aren't fit for adding. Space isn't a concern either. Just look at Skyrim:Passive Creatures. The sections on that page are even smaller than the easter eggs page, and yet that page has a very organised layout. I noticed MinorEdits posted some image requests... well, I'm on it :) ~ Psylocke 02:28, 22 November 2012 (GMT)
• Comment: For what it's worth, thanks to Psylocke, the page now has some images and a new Table of Contents. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 21:35, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Well, considering pages like Legate Rikke can become featured and considering the recent additions of images (I'd like to see a few more visual ones though), this is a pretty good article. Obviously, it's going to be held to different standards because it's a different and unique type of article. elliot (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
• Support: I completely revoke my previous oppose. As my opposition was mostly aesthetically based, the recent changes have made a huge difference for me. I think the images fit very well, and don't create the awkward spacing that they do on some of the creatures pages. I also love the new TOC. Great jobs Psylocke and ME! --HalfStache 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 23:22, 25 November 2012 (GMT)
• Support: It's amazing what a little formatting and some pictures can do for an article. This is definitely more what I'd like to see on other Easter Egg articles. – Robin Hood↝talk 04:53, 26 November 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Holy cow, I'm flabbergasted at how much the article levelled up with the addition of just a few pictures. Kudos, dude! I used to hate the Easter Eggs cesspool, but admittedly the content seems much less objectionable now too. About the only thing that could make me hesitate supporting this at this point is the fact the article is in a state of work-in-progress; but I'll take a leap of faith and trust it won't go back to being shitty in the foreseeable future. Weroj (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2012 (GMT)
• Support: I was going to vote in support awhile ago, but now that I look at all of the recent additions, I'm blown away by a page that some think is dumb and useless! It's fun sometimes to look at this page and either just read all of the pop-culture references or try to find them yourself in the game, and now it looks great while doing this! --WoahBro (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (GMT)
• Support: i havnt logged on for awhile, but i must say, the article looks real nice! a few months back when i 1st read it, it was all words, but the pics really enhances the article, and i especially love the 1st pic! and might i say, the star wars pic is in my opinion the most accurate pic on the internet. all other pics i searched for have their arms and skull dropped off.--Honeystars (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Great page, especially with some of the pictures for the eggs. I think it could do with a bit more pics but definately deserves FA status!-- Cheezytrousers (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2012 (GMT)
• Support: I think it's an interesting, fun page; certainly worthy. --Grimblade175 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2012 (GMT)
• Comment:Encourage further discussion.Support Well, I had no idea this vote was taking place when I just made a comment a few days ago about a "problem" I personally encountered with the page, and then was part of a discussion that involved some conflict. I think it's important to make that clear, because otherwise it could look very much like I was trying to mess around with this nomination in some weird way. I have not (just now) refreshed my mind as to the criteria we're supposed to use to evaluate these nominations, and I've just scanned the input and votes so far. I might not (yet) support it if I look them over carefully and think about it more, but I'm supporting it right now because I think effort and hard work in the face of adversity (the difficulties particularly inherent to the nature of the page) count for a lot, and I think it's fair to compare it with other lists or discussions of Easter eggs, which I sampled a bit just recently and found to be generally messy. The other reason that comes to mind is that it's an area that many people basically eschew (related as it is, at least conceptually, to "etymologies" in that the decisions often must be subjective), BUT tons of people are very interest in it, (just look at its extensive history), and I hope we can be here to help people with different interests enjoy all aspects of TES. Maybe if it gets this kind recognition for what it has to offer, instead of its shortcomings and difficulties, those who enjoy putting their time and thought into maintaining it will use the appreciation to step back and think about the difficulties. Someone might later convince me to oppose it for different reasons, but I feel certain enough to vote this way right now. --JR (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2012 (GMT)
  • Update/Comment: I still support the article, but one thing sticks in my mind after again scanning the discussion above: Silencer's opposition. Since the consensus process is so often confused with a process of making decisions by majority vote, I'd like to hear more from Silencer. Maybe his thoughts and feelings deserve a little extra attention. Silencer, do you have any additional response to the discussion? I know you are more than capable of saying something if you want to, but I guess I'm saying that I really want to know where you're at. --JR (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2013 (GMT)

• Comment: My opposition wasn't based on presentation, it was based on the content. I have very grave reservations about presenting this page as "one of our best" simply due to it's unreliable, opinionated content. As seen time and again on the talk page, people disagree not about an item being an egg, but about what that egg is in reference to. Of course we have a few incontestable eggs, such as Pac-Man, and Luke Skywalker, but they are far outweighed by the eggs that are reliant on people's opinion, and consensus to reach the page. In my opinion, only pages that have been factually checked, double and triple, should be presented as the best pages on a wiki, specifically one that strives to be the best in it's chosen field. As I've already mentioned, the "items" in-game in relation to eggs are there, it's what it's a reference to that cannot always be 100% accurate. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:18, 2 January 2013 (GMT)

• Comment/Reply:I'd like to see some more discussion before a decision is made. There is a strong and wide support to honor this page. On the FA page we have this: "Featured articles are articles the site's editors deem to be of the highest quality and should be held up as an example for other articles." I see lots of perfectly rational perspectives, not just from The Silencer's comments, but even also from comments of supporters, why some could see this page as not meeting that standard. Anyone have an idea how to explore things like compromises, adjustments, additional discussion/debate, brainstorming for any potential "outside the box" solution that everyone feels comfortable with? What if we introduced the page as an FA, but explained that it is at least partially for different reasons than usual. Perhaps, "when considered in the context of similar webpages/sites", or "An example of the best, when the content by it's very nature is blah, blah, blah..." I don't know. My point is: I think it would be cool to reach a true consensus with everyone honestly on-board if at all possible. --JR (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2013 (GMT)

• Oppose: Sorry for being all over the fence with my voting this time around, but when I revoted, I voted looking at visually how the page was, but Silencer raises some good points about the content being too opinionated. Taking into account the visual transformation the page received, my vote is "neutral", but with a neutral vote, I may as well not be voting. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 03:23, 5 January 2013 (GMT)
• Comment: I'd add this: A lot of people enjoying/benefiting from an article/page (including "bad" fan fiction in follow-up to Snowmane's comment above), could in itself define its value or quality. If the nature of a page makes it necessarily "opinionated"; is that a bad thing? The question to me would be: Does the page have a clear purpose, and does its design well-enough facilitate the advancement of that purpose? One of the comments above I agree with most is Minor Edit's, above, that it should be evaluated in the context of other Easter egg pages. Beyond that, I'd personally frame FA "quality" questions importantly in terms of how well a particular page "works" for the people who like to use it (or who care about it and think it's not what it should be). Maybe our criteria for selecting FAs could use a review at some point. I think there's something to be said for FAs offering some insight into everything the wiki has to offer, not (to intentionally exaggerate) become a series of articles that are almost copies of each other because of their excellence based perhaps on too-narrow criteria. I'd never seen the Easter Egg page before a couple of weeks ago. And I've never seen the fan fiction page ... yet. --JR (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2013 (GMT)

• Cmt: General:Fanfiction. No more excueses, JR! On topic, I disagree that interest in it makes it a good article. Have you seen Oblivion:Useful_Spells? Judging from the large amounts of pointless spells listed, which really don't have any unique individual value, you could argue that it is/was popular. Maybe I misinterpreted what you say, but from my grasp on what you said, you could debate that article as becoming FA, because people enjoy it. That said, to me it's an absolutely appalling article simply by the fact that it is an opinionated mess of unoriginal concepts. Maybe it's a bad comparison to the nominee, since, like Silencer said, the Easter Eggs are there, it's just what they reference can be so incredibly debatable at time, and nobody ever solidly agrees on anything besides Pac-man and Luke hanging with the Wompa. But, the point is there, at least, that popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's a good article. And, given Skyrim's incredible popularity, I thank the Eight for not having spell crafting in the game to enable the creation of such an article in the Skyrim NS. Lastly, I agree that maybe we should give consideration to our FA process in order to take into account different types of articles in instances like this. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 08:17, 5 January 2013 (GMT)

CONSENSUS: Support (11 Support, 2 Opposed). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:41, 9 January 2013 (GMT)

Skyrim:Dragon

Many, many editors have addressed complaints and made updates and enhancements since this article was last nominated six months ago. Eshe did a fine job polishing it up, and we've had an opportunity to nit-pick her work, but it doesn't seem like we can make any more substantive improvements. Ready now?

• Support: Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 17:47, 12 October 2012 (GMT)

• Support: Giving the dragon types individual sections is what did it for me. An impressive article. —Legoless (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (GMT)

• Support: I like the progress you made Eshe! I remember seeing it when you first started polishing it up, but seeing it now, it's really cool! Plus I do like the subsections with the multiple different types of dragons you may encounter along with their data tables. Overall, outstanding work! Keep it up! :D -Helenaannevalentine^(talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Definitely worth suporting Eric Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 18:11, 12 October 2012 (GMT)

• Support: After pretty much killing the previous nomination, I would say this article has come a very long way. No more is my original prerelease version still visible in any clear way. While it may seem strange to support an article because your own contributions to it are pretty much nonexistent now, it was really necessary to move it away from being an article added in an effort to bolster the Skyrim namespace to one that is a shining example of quality from that namespace. I'm glad that I can finally support this nomination. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:33, 12 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: I love this version, it's fantastic. I especially love the 'Named Dragons' section. Great work, Eshe! — ABCface^◥ 18:37, 12 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Yay, dragons! Gotta love them dragons. Pretty much what Legoless and ABC said. Nice touch with the dragon alphabet in the named dragons table, and the dragon types section looks very organised. And such pretty colours *sniff* xD ~ Psylocke 01:41, 13 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Absolutely one of our best articles. Great work, Eshe! --Xyzzy ^Talk 03:24, 13 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Ten claws up! Or however many claws dragons have. --JR (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support:I'm loving this article right now. It looks amazing. Amazing job, Eshe.--Skyrimplayer (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Hurray for Eshe!--Ratwar (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Oh wow...I just took a look at this and Ratwar took the words right out of my mouth. That article is amazing now! – Robin Hood↝talk 03:48, 27 October 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Oh, I haven't voted on this? Well then, Support Support Support! Also, isn't this WAY beyond the requirement for speedy nomination? • JA^T 03:57, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

Consensus: Support.

—Legoless (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2012 (GMT)

Skyrim:Delphine

I believe this article is one of the best NPC articles I've seen in the Skyrim namespace. It's thorough and well-written, and the formatting and images give it a nice look (which I find impressive, considering the article's length). I can't think of anything that's missing from the page, or any significant changes that should be made. I think this is a really good example of the quality of articles we like to see on UESP.

• Support: As nominator. — ABCface^◥ 20:11, 25 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Psylocke really outdid herself with this article! Great work! Eric Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 20:48, 25 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support:Well linked, well written, and plenty of images. Good job, Psylocke!--Skyrimplayer (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Brilliant page. Golden Silence^{Break the Silence} 21:29, 25 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Looks perfect! • JA^T 23:53, 25 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support:Delphine, I'm totally over you trying to tell me to do bad things. A great article.--Br3admax (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: What is it with these Skyrim NPC pages? First Cicero, then Rikke, and now Delphine. Just as good if not better than the others. --HalfStache 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 00:50, 26 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: A NewLeft for the Sleeping Giant Inn section might not be the worst idea in the world, but this is the best NPC page I've seen on the wiki. Comprehensive, but with no wasted words. I love it. To the likely indignant audience of my edit summary: yes, I have just shamelessly stolen several seconds of your life through a misrepresentation of my position. In fact, I am continuing to do so as you read. I am doing this without provocation or reason, and with an intent to inflict psychological distress. Hopefully we can move past it and have an amicable working relationship, but you will never get these seconds back. They're mine now. I only oppose the theoretical possibility that a superior product like this could be defeated democratically. I demand a dictatorship! Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:08, 26 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Great page. Huge amount of information and very well organized. My one tiny gripe is the location of the TOC, but I don't see a way around that that I like. – Robin Hood↝talk 02:03, 26 September 2012 (GMT)
• Comment: Because of the article packing a ton of info, in this state it looks messy to me. I also don't understand the reasoning behind the frame of Alduin's wall. I really think this page needs a good simple layout, mainly making each section more of a stand-alone, because as of now it appears complicated to the eye. If that is achieved, it more than deserves featured status ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2012 (GMT)
• Comment: As article writer. Well, considering I spent 6 weeks revamping it and uploaded almost 40 images for it, I'm not surprised it's being nominated. I would gladly throw my support, but I'm not sure if there's any rule against the writer supporting her article (so I'll just stick with Comment for now). As for the NewLeft for the Sleeping Giant intro, go ahead and add it if you guys think it looks better. As for the layout, well.. to me, it looks pretty organised and neat already, but if you think you can improve it, by all means. ~ Psylocke 13:58, 26 September 2012 (GMT)
  • After further investigation of the article, I have some questions and other statements. My main concern are the lines used to separate the sections, namely I think it looks bad. I can see why you used them though, since there are so many sections, which is, aside from the many quests she's involved with, because of more sub-titles for quests, something I'm not sure is a good thing. What I probably meant as messy or confusing is the inconsistency of the layout (conversations without a table, then with unique tables, then some with colors, again that frame around Alduin's Wall, ...). I'm not great with layout myself, and I've seen some interesting new tables I did like, and also some that I didn't, but anyway, I wouldn't be able to just say how exactly to improve. I find the colored tables difficult to look at, well not the small ones with a blue line or two, but the bigger ones, especially the one with the orange colors (of course that might just be me, but I feel the need to add that). Moving on, I think it's better to make a 'Main Quest' head section, and a sidequest head section for the Rebuilding the Blades and Paarthurnax. The spells topic can just be included in the intro somewhere, because it's so small anyway. Another remark, about the dotted dialogue in which you can hover to see an alternate form, interesting way to handle that, but it doesn't explain how to get the alternate dialogue as it is now. Considering dialogue, a colon is used before the lines. And since I'm on a roll, the images are small, which is a shame (unnoficially, images should at least be 800x800 for them to be considered of good quality), would you able to get bigger screenshots in the future?

I hope I don't give the impression as to undermine your work, I just like things to be as best as they can be, and being such a large article, there's a lot to pay attention to. Frankly, if I would have written it, I don't think it would have been as professional as this ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2012 (GMT)

One thought I had for the dividers was to consider using a decorative divider instead. Maybe something like this:

– Robin Hood↝talk 16:16, 26 September 2012 (GMT)

Comment: I’ll have to agree with Dwarfmp on this one. Content-wise, it deserves an FA status as soon as possible, but there are problems with the layout. There’s too much going on. When creating a VIP NPC page, the first thing you need to decide is how to make a consistent design – decide on how to make “Delphine’s design” – and this page is a bit all over the place. As you scroll down you’re presented with nearly every possible table variations imaginable and, to the best of my knowledge, too much variation makes the article hard to follow. Right now, I don’t have any specific suggestions on how to make it more consistent – but I do know that it needs it before we can put it on the main page. On the plus side, we have a full month to figure it out. :) --Krusty (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: This is a really well-written article, and the number and quality of images is really great. However, I think some of the elegant simplicity of it was lost to fancy formatting. When I scrolled through, it became too easy to get lost in the different tables and decorations, and I found myself skipping past the actual content. Taking some of the suggestions above into consideration, I've come up with a simpler rendition, which you can view in my sandbox here. I ended up scrapping nearly all of the tables, and opted to use the dotted-box quotes rather than the horizontal lines to break up the separate quests. Let me know what you guys think! ⇠eshe^talk 18:47, 27 September 2012 (GMT)
• Comment: Perhaps it was just me, but I liked the tables over the more simplistic look. It just feels more organized than the wall of text. Of course, whichever way everyone else likes will still have my support, as I like both -Eric Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 19:09, 27 September 2012

Don't get me wrong, I love me some table goodness! The problem for me (other than each one having a different style) was that the text being highlighted in tables wasn't really that important. All the really compelling dialogue was already incorporated into paragraph from, or the player option / NPC response form. ⇠eshe^talk 19:18, 27 September 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: Well, I prefer the tables too. In fact, I think it currently looks just fine now in Skyrim:Delphine. By scrapping the tables, I think it's more disorganised, especially the conversation between Orgnar and Delphine (with all the repeated "alternates"), and the looong conversation with Delphine when she reveals about herself is now a wall of text. Also, the combat dialogue looks fine before with the integrated images; similar tables are used on Cicero and Spectral Assassin. (I think these tables should be restored; the other scrapped tables I guess are okay.) Although there is one thing that I agree with—using the dotted boxes to separate the quests. (Oh, and some of your dotted boxes aren't centered.) ~ Psylocke 19:23, 27 September 2012 (GMT)

I have to agree with you there Psylocke. It indeed looks like one huge wall of text, although I do like how you've separated the sections using the dotted line boxes which I've seen used before and think they add a nice touch to an article. I reckon you should at least incorporate tables where there's more than one dialogue option that you can choose from along with the NPCs response. -Helenaannevalentine^(talk) 19:28, 27 September 2012 (GMT)

They are all centered, but I suppose it may not look that way on a narrower window. I think having a table for the Delphine/Orgnar exchange could be fine—I admit it is probably easier to follow that way—but I don't think using a table for the PC options/Delphine responses is as good of an idea. That same format (with the indent and the bold PC options) is used on other pages, and it's a nice clean format, and it's important to keep some consistency, besides :). Oh, and the images integrated in the tables is fine, too—I just personally like it slightly less (I'm old-fashioned that way, I guess!), even though there's not really anything wrong with it, so that's why I took them out when I was playing around. Thanks for the feedback, guys! ⇠eshe^talk 19:35, 27 September 2012 (GMT)

For me, the sandbox makes it more of a wall of text. Rather than increasing readability, it decreases it. There needs to be things to break it up and give a person's eyes some rest. If we were voting on the sandbox version, I definitely wouldn't support it, probably wouldn't oppose, but certainly not in favour of it. There may be a proliferation of tables, and the Skyrim Box doesn't seem to fit, in terms of suitability, but removing all but one isn't the answer. Golden Silence^{Break the Silence} 19:47, 27 September 2012 (GMT)

Hmm...what some see as a rest, others see as distracting. I re-added the Orgnar/Delphine table for now, so let's see what others think. ⇠eshe^talk 19:53, 27 September 2012 (GMT)

It may be a good idea to use those... things RobinHood70 suggested, in between the quests. I'd also separate the main quests and sidequests. In any case, I like where this is going ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

(←) I don't meant to keep repeating myself here, but I just want to point out that Legate Rikke and Cicero are set up almost the exact same way, with very few tables breaking up the flow of the text. Frankly, when you add in as much dialogue as these main NPCs have, it's going to be a wall of text to some readers no matter what you do, and the mere length of such pages will be enough to scare away some people. That's just how articles go sometimes.

As I said before, I love tables, and some of the designs Psylocke came up with were really cool (seriously, Psylocke, I'm coming to you the next time my brain gives out when I'm working on tables!), but this is article-writing, not web design. We can use tables as needed, and I think the dotted-box quotes (or something similar) work well to break up the page a bit, but other than that we should really rely on headers and image placement to design the page. This also makes it easier to keep a consistent design and layout for all of our NPC pages, which will keep the site looking clean and professional. Okay, getting off the soapbox now! ⇠eshe^talk 14:49, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

Eshe, get back on the soapbox because you are absolutely correct. This is not about making multi-colored and confusing pages, it is about documenting the Elder Scrolls, the way we do it on UESP; attention to detail. In fact, we’re so detailed that too many tables and fancy formatting can ruin a page completely and make it a less attractive read than a good old wall of text. People who reads everything on articles like Rikke, Cicero and Delphine are hardcore gamers who wants to see how much can be squeezed out of the game – and they’re interesting in pure facts and pretty images, not unnecessary tables and overly fancy layout. That’s what makes pages like Cicero and Rikke works – and that’s why the Sandbox is more deserving of FA status, simply because it makes Delphine consistent with other pages, not only in Skyrim namespace but in OB as well (example). I’m not saying tables are bad, but they should be kept in separate sections, to achieve a structure within an article. --Krusty (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

I may be overstepping my bounds as I have no official title but I would like to add my two septims.

• Now, with PsyLocke's version, I was in awe at how stylish it is but as I scrolled down it became jumbled and confusing. I also don't understand the border around Alduin's Wall and the two foot Blade's Sword at the bottom right of the page is unecessary. It is the best looking and most comprehensive NPC page that I have seen on the wiki in years and am immpressed but I think it maybe got out of hand towards going live.
• Eshe's sandbox presents the largest wall of text I've seen. It does need to be broken up at points to keep the reader from wanting to actually read the text.

As it is, the tables should stay to a point but the images in the tables should go o the right of the page as it does nothing for the table. These are just my points of view and I think they're are both done with the editors best intentions in mind.--FubarFrank (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: New section breaks like Robin offered would be a good idea, but I like the tables. We're not just here to document the Elder Scrolls, we're also here to do so in a readable format. I appreciate the desires for standardization with other NPC pages, but I think Psylocke's version does more to promote reader comprehension simply by sustaining interest in the page. There's obviously quite a lot more to say about Delphine than most other NPCs, to the point where reading it all quickly becomes a chore. The current arrangement adds a bit of spice that helps the reader power through all the way to the bugs section. And you can insert here boilerplate arguments against hampering innovation, the merits of supporting successful experimentation with formatting, and so forth. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 17:14, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Since I authored the article, it's only right that I fight for it now, don't I? I pretty much agree with Silencer, ES and FubarFrank, and disagree with Krusty and eshe. I admit that the original article is fancy (sandbox here), but after the subsequent edits being done on the main article, it looks quite decent. As pointed out by Silencer, there isn't a need to chop down every table; it's pretty much the opposite of enhancing readability as it makes the article less organised. By keeping certain tables, each dialogue line can be neatly paired with the corresponding reply, instead of writing the dialogue and reply one after the other consecutively.

When I finished the article, its layout was even emulated and used on articles such as Mercer, Karliah and Delvin, as the layout is seen by quite a number of people to be very well organised (as you can see from the initial votes and comments by ABC (nominator), ES, Jak, Minor Edits, and from Helena's wips). I believe this can be the new way for the layout of articles; well, things can change over time now, can't they? And I plan to change that, although I know I'm just a barely three-months-old editor, and anything I say might not have much weight compared to you people.

I'm going to make some changes to the main article now, like scrap certain tables, remove 'colours' from the tables, use dotted boxes etc. and see how that works out. ~ Psylocke 17:19, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

I love how that turned out, Psylocke! The additional table works fine, especially since it is kind of a longer PC/NPC exchange. I'm happy with that :).

I honestly didn't mean to turn all your hard work into a stage for my philosophical views on how articles should be formatted, I swear, and I'm definitely open to change in how things are done. The achievement icons are something fairly new that I like, for example, as are the standout quotes. I just want to make sure we have some sort of consistency in these articles, but I definitely don't want stifle anyone's creativity—especially someone whose creativity lands us with such excellent work as yours :). Great work! ⇠eshe^talk 17:42, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

There's still one thing I don't like, and that's the scene dialogue. I want it to be more readable, maybe by denting them in so you can more easily see each one's line, using an invisible table, or putting space in between them or something. What do you think? ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2012 (GMT)

• Support: That last tweak was perfect, Psy – it truly is an incredible article, and the layout is perfect now. Sorry for the criticism, but it was meant to be constructive, nothing more. Excellent page, and definitely one of the very best NPC pages on the wiki. --Krusty (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

• Support: It looks a lot better, Great Job Psylocke. Side note, I added a section on Joan Allen's Wiki page about the voice acting you noted on Delphine's page. Added a link to it as well. --FubarFrank (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2012 (GMT)

• Support: With that extra little tweak you did by readding the topics table! It gives the eyes a break from the wall of text, but doesn't clutter the page anymore with a whole lotta' tables :D Love it now! -Helenaannevalentine^(talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: I had reservations due to the sheer size of the article, but Psylocke has done an admirable job making it work in spite of this. Excellent job! --Xyzzy ^Talk 00:25, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

• Support: These new VIP articles are amazing. When compared to the walls of text we had for Oblivion, this article really speaks volumes about the sort of quality we have in the Skyrim namespace. Perfect for showing off on the Main Page, especially considering the recent exposure the wiki has gotten from TESO's PR interview. —Legoless (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

• Support: Now that dialogue has been made easier to read, all aspects of the page conform to the standards of a featured article. Now I want this page to act as an example to all other NPC articles. Featured status well-deserved ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2012 (GMT)

• Support:Not really much to say.. or rather, every1 already said whatever needs saying haha. What Dwarf said is true - it's a superb article, and in my opinion, the best-quality article on uesp site thus far. And from what i hv read abv, i can see there were alot of disagreements, but the article author Psylocke managed to pull thru all of it, and she produced an excellent article. Kudos to you!--Honeystars (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2012 (GMT)

Consensus: Support.

⇠eshe^talk 15:10, 17 October 2012 (GMT)

Skyrim:Thalmor

I personally do not like the Thalmor, and many don't. Maybe that's why this page has not been nominated, to my knowledge, before. It is well written, properly organized, and clean. It is detailed, with statistics rivaling Forsworn. The images are great, and I feel if any article in the Skyrim named space deserves feature status, this is it. I feel if more faction pages, a non-playable faction I might add, looked like this, we could set a new gold standard for factions in future games. I may not like the Thalmor, but I believe the page for the faction is excellent. If anyone disagrees tell me how I can make it better, because I think the amount of time spent into making the page deserves praise.

• Support: As nominator.Br3admax 23:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It's a fabulous article. The only improvement I can think of would be an image to open up the page with, since I am not a fan of just a wall of text to open the pages. Of course, the absence of that image isn't enough to ruin my support vote. ES^{(talk•email)} 00:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support:I don't like the Thalmor either, but the article it sets a very good standard for the faction pages, and is very well-written. Thus, I believe it should become a featured article.--Skyrimplayer 00:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral: I think that this article is excellent and all inclusive, as well as well written. For me, however, an FA should not just be a good article, or even necessarily a great article, but a perfect article. Because of that, I think that ES's main complaint about opening the article with a wall of text strikes me as something that should be fixed (perhaps an embassy picture?). Once this article gets an image to help eliminate the "wall of text", it will have my full support. --HalfStache 01:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I liked your idea of an embassy image and decided to try one out. Personally, I like that image in place, and the article now has the fullest support it can get. Like? ES^{(talk•email)} 01:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Definetly better.--Skyrimplayer 01:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:Agreed. I'm only more firm in the decision now.--Br3admax 06:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support: My one qualm has been fixed. I am content. --HalfStache 03:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The image dramatically improved the article it has my fullest support. --2dum2live 13:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: An excellent article. • JA^T 07:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: A great article. Ad Intellige Mecum loqui 03:21, 22 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: Very well worded and well formatted. --Xyzzy ^Talk 04:55, 22 September 2012 (GMT)
• Support: An article about elves? How can anyone not support it? But the current ‘Featured Article’ is about a Nord... it feels like we are saying those Nords are on the same level as us Elves… Heresy! — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:49, 24 September 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: We Nords are not on the same level as you elves. On that, you're absolutely right. We are on a higher level than you Elves. However, to be fair, you get your moment to shine on the main page :p Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 22:54, 24 September 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: I'm quite surprised that voting took this long, and it took Kimi this long to notice it was here. And it's bad it took an entire faction to get on pare with one Nord. Consider this nomination a gift.--Br3admax (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

• Support: I think this page deserves some attention beyond FA status. We should create pages in the Skyrim namespace for various profanity and have them redirect here. ****ers, *****es, ***holes, *******s, ****s, Pieces of ****, etc. You know, the basics. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:10, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

• Comment: I would support this proposal haha. Another hilarious comment from Mr. Minor Edits :) Eric Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 01:59, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Consensus: Support.

⇠eshe^talk 19:28, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Skyrim:Legate Rikke

I have been meaning to nominate this to be a Featured Article for months, but I have never bothered, and I notice that nobody else has either. If any page deserves to be featured, Legate Rikke does. Krusty spent ages writing up this page, and various photographers have provided many quality images to supplement it. I would argue this to be the most detailed article we have for Skyrim, and this article sets a high bar for other NPCs. A high bar that we should get every NPC and quest to. On the front page, this article would definitely show off the high standards of quality that we strive for at UESP.

Support: As nominator. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: I want to get rid of the red links, but it's a good article.Br3admax 23:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'll do some testing and get rid of the red links tomorrow. EDIT: Both red links are gone now. --Krusty 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: It's a very well written article.And just like what ES said it shows what this site is capable of.--Skyrimplayer 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Another brilliant page from Krusty! Well written and formatted as always, well done again! --kiz ^talk_email 21:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: An amazing article that truly shows what this wiki is capable of. • JA^T 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Very good article, among the best in the Skyrim namespace. Plenty of quality pictures, definitely lots of content, and also well linked. --HalfStache 17:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: A fantastic NPC page, which Krusty put an unbelievable amount of time and effort into. Complete and utter support! Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 04:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: I agree that this may be the best article in the Skyrim namespace. Definitely worthy of being a featured article. --Xyzzy^Talk 05:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: I don't think this will be opposed, so might as well close the votes ~ Dwarfmp 20:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: SUPPORT --Krusty 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim:Cicero

While looking through some Dark Brotherhood pages, this one struck me as remarkably complete, with a huge amount of information about the subject. I don't think that it leaves any unanswered questions. Also, it has nice, relevant images and necessary explanations for relating quests. I see no reason for it not to be nominated.

• Support: As nominator. --Vulpa 21:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• 'Oppose: While it does have a lot of information, I pulled up the page to see one big wall of text. It is not at all appealing to my eye, and I didn't even bother reading it since it was so ugly, so I wouldn't know if it was even decent information. I'll leave the quality of the text to another. I feel that this article will need a little TLC from someone before I would support it. Some images and some other visual tricks to help break the wall of text and section out the page better would be a big help. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 22:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support:Great work guys :) Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 01:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried to break up the page some, but can't do much in the way of images. --Vulpa 22:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a nifty little tweak with the journal quotes - they're now all in nice boxes - hopefully, that breaks up the walls of text. :) --Krusty 23:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost there. As was mentioned in the IRC, one or two more small format tweaks like that to make the page more visibly appealing, and it has my full support. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 23:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Well I love this article it has my full support! ^_^ — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The article is great; no reason not to feature it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I hardly ever vote on these, but Cicero is one of my all-time favourite articles on UESP. Total support. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I think the page is worthy of FA status and throw my support behind it. The Silencer speaks^Talk 16:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: A well-written article for a well-written character. Fits the bill perfectly, in my opinion. • JA^T 17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Awesome article, one of the best NPC articles I've seen. The recent changes have really made it look great, too! ABCface^◥ 14:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: SUPPORT --Krusty 00:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim:Forsworn

I came cross this article recently and was pleasantly surprised at how very well-written it is. The text flows so nicely throughout the entire article, and is consistently clear, descriptive, and interesting. (I mean really--"the Reach's battle-scarred landscape," "not all Forsworn traipse about in the wilderness dressed in tribal garb"--that's gold, right there.)

The layout is also pretty nice (I particularly like the use of images to fill the empty space to the right of the tables), and the content is nothing if not comprehensive, covering everything from a brief history to unique items. I really feel like the only thing that's missing would be some kind of image toward the top of the page, but that may be just because I'm so used to seeing an image there on pretty much every other page. Overall though, the page is really thoughtfully done, and I think it deserves to be served up as an example of our best!

• Support: As nominator. eshe^talk 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm opposing this merely because I think it misses out on armor pictures. Well, at least on the female set. I've uploaded armor images not long ago, and I don't know where to put them (the page where the armor and stats are shown have no space for them), and I think they would most likely belong here. In case you're wondering which ones, it's this one and this one. So that would, logically, mean that the armor stats should be put on the page as well, but I can see how it would be considered redundant info (since you can't just repeat the same info on every page). What would you think? ~ Dwarfmp 16:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: And now that I think of it, doesn't it lack the NPC stats as well? ~ Dwarfmp 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tentative Support: I think it's an excellent article. The problem with NPC stats is that due to the large number of individual Forsworn warriors, there would be a massive table roughly akin to Skyrim:Dremora, only much, much bigger. I agree that the Armor should be pictured, but as that is the article's only failing I see no reason to oppose. • JA^Talk 18:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: See Shivering:Golden Saint, a similar featured article that basically summarizes Dwarf's opposition, I believe. It should at least be up to the standards of that article. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I see. I still like the article, despite the missing NPC information, so I changed my vote to "Tentative Support". • JA^Talk 19:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support: The article is about a thousand times better now. Excellent job, Eshe! Changed my vote to "Support" without any hesitation. • JA^Talk 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Dwarfmp summed up pretty much the whole thing. It is not as comprehensive as it could be, so I have to side with him on this one. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 19:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Beautiful Eshe. That is infinitely better than the old version. Good work! :) Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's been stated why. Forsworn Briarheart has it's own page (for some reason) while Forsworn Warlord, Forsworn Ravager, Forsworn Pillager, Forsworn Looter, Forsworn Forager , and Forsworn Shaman all redirect to the page, but there is no information on them. Once that is fixed, and the armor information is added to the article, then it should be good to go. elliot (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I find the SkyrimBox to be way over the top, otherwise it's great. elliot (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: You guys have brought up some valid points, about the NPC data in particular. I honestly didn't realize that there wasn't already a page for each variation. However, the other day I had a go at gathering the data with the hope of fixing the problem myself, and I think I may never see that particular part of my brain again :(. So, calling all CK experts--can someone make good enough sense of the data so we can add that information to the page? (The armor and weapons are already listed here, so a link should suffice for that.) eshe^talk 15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Alrighty, I added NPC data and did some other little cleanup. Let's see what you think! eshe^talk 15:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The page looks awesome, and Eshe's revamp was a vast improvement. Worth a 'support' vote, IMO. ABCface^◥ 04:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Brilliant page – and a ton of good work from the Eshe. --Krusty 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: SUPPORT --Krusty 21:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim:Dragon

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for this article to mature to the point where it might be worthy of FA status because the subject matter is such a big part of Skyrim, and I think it will prove eye-catching on the front page. I think it's come a long way recently, so if anyone has any issues with it, we should air them out now, fix them as appropriate, and get this page a star on it.

• Support: As nominator. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Loos awesome to me ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 05:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The only thing I'm unsure of is the 'Combat' and 'Tips' sections, which seem to have quite a bit of overlapping content. I think if these sections were merged (or if the redundancies were removed), it would be better. I'm not sure I want to tackle that change myself though, especially without knowing if anyone else feels the same way. Otherwise, this article is very thorough, interesting, pleasing to the eye, and definitely good subject matter for the front page, as mentioned in the nomination. ABCface^◥ 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose:This article needs a lot of work before I would consider it to be an example of our site's talent. The fact that I just had to remove the gravely outdated references is just one of the signs this article isn't ready. Many sections of this article still reflect the initial version, it's written as if it was still a pre-release article in many ways. There is a lot of unneeded redundancy on display here with having a "Combat" and "Tips" section. Worse yet, by having a "Tips" section we encourages less than stellar contributions to the article with every generic combat tip imaginable being present on this article, including a few that don't make sense such as a note about Odahviing being summonable with the Call Dragon shout. Having tried this out myself, I find him to be beyond useless against other dragons. As he can barely attack opposing dragons that aren't grounded (and really, what use is an aerial ally against an aerial enemy that he can't even attack?), and he causes a five minute long shout cooldown. As for the images, I would mark nine of the eleven images on the article for cleanup. Finally, I wouldn't mind as much information as possible on the Dragon Cult to be added to the article, including pages created for artifacts relating to the cult (I added a few red links to the article for two groups of related artifacts that really need some kind of article or redirect to more relevant places, if they don't have one already).
• As far as I'm concerned, I'd mark this article for cleanup across the board before I would want to see it featured. While I'd love to see it featured, it's nowhere near ready. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral: Yes, I know, a "neutral" vote isn't really a vote, but I don't feel strongly enough to Oppose or Support at this point. I think a number of things have been brought up above, pretty much all of which I agree with, and I think someone with better skill at layout than me (witness this version) would be beneficial to the article as well. Still, I think the article has some potential and clearly, the nomination has helped spur some editors to work on it. So for now, I'm voting Neutral, but with time, I hope that will change. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral: I have to agree with Robin Hood. This article has a lot of potential, and I mean a lot. However, I don't think it's as good as it can be. Once it's improved to Featured Article worthiness (which with a starting point like this isn't that hard) then I'll pledge my support. Till then, though, I'm ambivalent. ?• JA^Talk 04:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. It's getting there, but there are quite a few problems as of now, mentioned above. elliot (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not ready yet... —SkoomaManiac 00:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is outdated now - However I do not believe this article is complete just yet. There is bound to be bits missed or future additions. --Manic 18:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: It has great potential, but isn't ready yet. The big fat section on combat and the list of "Tips" in particular could use some attention, I think. eshe^talk 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Oops, I thought I changed my vote a long time ago. The page still needs a lot of improvement, especially the Combat and Tips sections as I mentioned in my original vote. ABCface^◥ 03:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus: Oppose. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim:Forbidden Legend

I just happened to stumble across this article recently. The amount of attention given to the quest walkthrough is exquisite - with a great deal of images and thorough directions as to how to proceed through the dungeons. It also gives tabular data regarding all of the places where one might find the book necessary to advance the quest. The article is simply very well-rounded with regards to content and format, in my opinion. Admittedly it may be a bit excessively wordy in places. Describing each and every potential trap encounter, for example, detracts from the excitement of navigating the dungeons - and giving advice as to how one might bypass them (i.e. with the Whirlwind Sprint) shout also seems a bit superfluous. But all in all, as a walkthrough, I think it's perfect.

• Support: As nominator. StoneFrog 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Neutral: Very well-formatted article. Easy to read, lots of pictures, and a very detailed walkthrough all tie together a long quest into one complete walkthrough. There are a few problems in places, (mostly what StoneFrog mentioned above), but these can all be easily fixed. ?• JA^Talk 18:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Nephele's point below, I'm changing my vote to Neutral. Although it may not fully comply with site standards, it's still an excellent example of what this wiki is capable of. ?• JA^Talk 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote back to Support. I wasn't sure if this met site standards, but we changed the standards for Skyrim, so now this meets official standards. Excellent article! ?• JA^Talk 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although it's a good quality, well-written article, it is not an example of how we want to organize place and quest content -- it is not an article that "should be held up as an example for other articles", and therefore I don't think it qualifies for featured status. For example, the Saarthal section of the page is nearly all information that is more relevant to the Under Saarthal quest, and therefore the article doesn't comply with site guidelines about avoiding duplicate content. I just started a more general discussion on Skyrim Quest/Place Organization, and until there's a community consensus on whether this quest page needs to be reorganized, I don't think think it can be considered for featured status. --Nephele^Talk 18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm withdrawing my vote and withdrawing from the FA discussion overall because I appear to have a completely incompatible idea of what is important when selecting a Featured Article. I don't even know how a vote can be held on a proposed article when a separate discussion is considering whether significant parts of the article need to be revised. If the community has no problems with a Featured Article being rewritten the week after it is selected, then I have no have no basis for objecting the nomination. --Nephele^Talk 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Was this inspired by some other conversation? For the record, I agree that if a proposed FA would misrepresent our standards to newcomers, that's a good reason for opposing (or abstaining, which is what I usually do). Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's because of the above-mentioned ongoing discussion at Skyrim Quest/Place Organization, which in turn was started in part because of a proposal to move one-third of the Forbidden Legend article to a transcluded subpage. --Nephele^Talk 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Good quality article, well written and structured with good pictures along side. --kiz ^talk_email 12:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I think this is the first time I’ve ever voted for something I have worked on, but due to the unneeded controversy on what is, in my honest opinion, one of our very best and prettiest walkthroughs, I place this vote for Thuraya (images) and Kiz (proof-red and nifty book-table) who helped me with the task back in the day. I'd also recommend that all users judge the article exactly as it is, and maybe even participate in the overlong discussion and help prevent UESP standards from being lowered. --Krusty 07:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) Support: As mentioned in the nomination, I feel the walkthrough on the article is excessively long and detailed given the specifics of the quest. There's no doubt that it's a good-looking article, but I'd really like to see it tightened up a bit before we bring it to Featured Article status. Like Nephele, I'm also a bit dubious about nominating something for FA when the very style it promotes is under discussion. I think it's best to wait on that discussion and see what, if any, changes are necessary. There's no reason we can't move on to nominating a different article in the meantime. Once we've resolved the discussion that's underway, I'll be happy to return and re-evaluate the vote based on the policies we decide. I realize that Krusty and perhaps others think that the changes to this article suggested by that discussion might lower the quality of the wiki if adopted site-wide, but I feel the exact opposite—that the discussion supports our historical practices and will ensure that our quality remains consistently high in the future. – Robin Hood↝talk 09:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Having gone over the quest and discussed some of my issues with Krusty, we basically both arrived at the same point in terms of what needed to be done with the article. In a quest that takes you through four different dungeons, it's understandably hard to write something complete without being long, and to add "if you've done this, go here" notes to help find information quickly without cluttering everything up even further. I have no magic answers here, but I think the major points in terms of both length and clarity have been dealt with, and the community has told us quite clearly that they'd rather see some duplication but not too much, which I think we've managed to do at this point. Discussion is ongoing on the specifics of that, but I think this article is now somewhere in the right general neighbourhood and can be tweaked if necessary when that discussion comes to a close. I now feel comfortable adding my support for it to be a Featured Article. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This article rocks. I love the detail and organization, and those pretty pretty images pull it all together. I really love that little gallery of four images toward the bottom, too. Can we make all of our quest pages look this good? –Eshe^talk 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Just read it. Really good. Say no more. --Manic 07:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus: Support.

eshe^talk 04:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Skyrim:The Black Star

This strikes me as an unusually thorough yet succinct quest guide which is complemented by some fascinating images. If a Featured Article is supposed to showcase the best of the wiki as well as act as a constructive example for newer editors, this absolutely fits the bill (certainly, any remaining issues will be solved by the scrutiny it will now receive). Some have apparently thought the split columns in the middle look awkward, but they appear very professional to me. I've spent the last few days actively searching for exceptional Skyrim pages, and this is the best that's out there right now. A lot of people have contributed to it, but I believe Krusty has done the lion's share.

• Support: As nominator. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 07:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This is an abosolutely great article, and I am liking the new signature, ME. ^S_n^o_w^m_aⁿe^T_C^E 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This is definitely one of the best Skyrim quest pages I've seen. It's thorough, pleasing to the eye, accurate, provides information on choices in a great way... I'm completely in favor of this article being featured. Alphabetface 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support:Daedric seems to be our strongest right now, It's a fine example of a good Skyrim article.Br3admax 14:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment:It could use, as well as the site if not here already, a picture of both stars. If they look identicle, one picture.--Br3admax 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I added images of the stars, though I'm not sure it's an improvement. I couldn't figure out a better placement for them without replacing any of the existing images. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Looks much better now its had a bit of tweak! --kiz ^talk_email 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: We should add hidden table "columns" on other quests that have multiple paths. The result is visually appealing. --Theothersteve7 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: Support. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 5

Up: Featured Articles/Past Nominations

Next: Archive 7