UESPWiki:Featured Articles

50px|left 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.  High quality images can be nominated for featured status at Featured Images.

Previous nominations are archived here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  * Comment:    or 
  * Question:   

And fill in your concerns or questions.

Decisions
UESP Administrators will periodically make decisions on article nominations.  Decisions will only be made if:
The article has been nominated for more than seven days.
Five or more votes have been placed.
A clear consensus has been reached (either supported or opposed for featured status).

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

Articles whose nominations pass will receive featured article status on the front page for at least two weeks and receive a small bronze star (15px) on the top right corner. If an article achieves featured status before the present featured article's two weeks expire, it must wait its turn.

Current Featured Article

Next
none

Previous Featured Articles


Nominations and Votes

Lore:Vampire
A lot of work has been put into overhauling the vampire page this year what started out as adding in missing information like alchemical vampirism, went to a full on revamp/overhaul of the entire page, Not only my efforts but the efforts of people, like MolagBallet and others that contributed hugely to it. Not only is the vampire page now fleshed out. But lore that was not added in, from newer and even older titles has been added into the page. For readers this gives them a much greater understanding of what a Tes vampire is.  
Support: As nominator --TheVampKnight (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)  The second issue: there's a lot of information there, and plenty has been added since I last went in and overhauled it. Problem is, I didn't finish my initial overhaul, and the way I did that makeover was very sloppy. I have yet to personally verify every bit of information present in that article for quality like I have with even longer articles like Lore:Molag Bal. I haven't voted on Lore:Hircine yet for similar reasons. Lore:Vampire and Lore:Hircine are very long, and I haven't had time to run a fine toothed comb through them (or run it through again, in Lore:Vampire's case) as I have with Lore:Namira and Lore:Molag Bal. I'm not going to support a nomination for a page just because it's long; long pages leave room for editors to leave more errors, and errors are something I want the article to not have if or when I support it.  Lastly, I think we could improve upon Lore:Vampire's formatting in some way. I want to preface this by saying that I don't think the formatting isn't completely garbage or anything like that. One issue with its formatting is that there are a lot of subsections beneath subsections in that article, making for a long table of contents. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself. My issue arises in places like the Characteristics section. I agree with giving all the different kinds of vampires their own little thing, but bloodfiends, harrowfiends and the like have such short sections, and it gives the page a look that doesn't appeal to my graphical sensibilities. Image placement is another issue I have with the page. It's too wall-of-text-y in some places, and in others, the images would look better in different positions. I am responsible for some of the things I have complaints with, some points of contention were provided by others. The bottom line is that the page's formatting isn't wholly appealing.  To me, featured articles are kind of like a home when you've got guests coming over. I don't want guests to come over to my house if the bathroom they're going to be using isn't clean. The Featured Article slot is an open bathroom door with some sort of homey indication that guests should enter it. Lore:Vampire is a giant bathroom, and one that I'm not ready to let some friend's mother-in-law use because I haven't yet had the chance to make sure the sink is clean.  TL;DR: A page's byte count does not indicate its overall quality. Lore:Vampire isn't bad, but I feel like it isn't done baking, and we should leave it in the oven for a minute before serving it to others. -MolagBallet (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: For the reasons listed by MolagBallet. Additionally, from just a brief glance at it, the page makes some less than great choices. Immediately, the choice of image at the top of the page is extremely poor, as it provides a poor example of the average vampire. Then moving onto the body of the text, I have an issue with how the page documents things from the game. Look at this:

:From the article. Imperial culture views vampires as destructive monsters to be hunted and destroyed. Romantic notions of noble, virtuous vampires persisted in Imperial traditions through the Third Era, and vampires were thought to pass unrecognized in the Mages Guild and the Imperial aristocracy.

:The original quote that that was based on. Imperial culture regards blood vampires as destructive monsters to be hunted and destroyed. However, romantic notions of noble, virtuous vampires persist in Imperial traditions, and vampires are thought to pass unrecognized in the Mages Guild and the Imperial aristocracy.

:By simply removing that "However" and throwing in "through the Third Era" changes the meaning greatly. This is definitely a nitpick, but with a page this long, it's easy for bias and other issues to crop into the writing.

:Next I have a major issue with the page structure. The page starts out on providing some overhead information onto vampires, which is decent practice. It then moves onto specifics about some forms of vampires, before moving onto general characteristics of vampires. This order should be reversed. Provide broad overhead information, then get specific. Additionally the "Origins" of vampires is inexplicably underneath the header "religion", a section specifically focusing on religious practices unique to vampires. Origins would be a good contender for one of the first sections on the page, not the eighth and in a section that it doesn't belong in. THEN we move onto bloodlines and clans, when we have already listed various forms of vampires separately as top level header, now we move onto how it should have been done in the first place. Some basic restructuring I would consider is putting characteristics at the top, moving all of the top level individual vampire forms as sub-headers to a new "Variant" section that goes next to the bloodline and clan section, put "Origins" as the section after "Characteristics", boot "Religion" down towards "Artifacts".

:Next, I want to note that a lot of the sections are quite long (I have yet to review every line of this page), but they lack images to accompany them. When we have three paragraphs of text on bloodfiends, we can have an image of a bloodfiend to accompany their section. A gallery really should be more of a last resort to get an important image on a page that couldn't be inserted otherwise, not the default choice. 

:Beyond this, the page still probably should be carefully reviewed, line by line. I haven't done this at this time, and I could eventually get around to it, but I have other things to see to. If these issues are addressed, I could see myself supporting this article for featured status. --AKB   01:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: Seems that after almost a year, this article still has a few unresolved issues or unfinished improvements (Zebendal's vampire architecture section and AKB's "line by line" review, for example). This article has been in FA purgatory long enough. Croaker (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Online:Volendrung
Volendrung only spawns 4-5 times per day, and thus learning its behavior for documentation purposes is put on a strict time table. There's also the fact that the artifact has about 30 minutes that it will be up, and you are competing with other players over obtaining the artifact. Even if you pick up Volendrung, it will eventually kill you and someone is likely to take it away before you are able to grab it. The things I documented in the page are primarily from my own personal testing in PVP scenarios, and I also consulted with patch notes to fill in any gaps that we know of. I believe the top section can be spruced a bit, but this is the best we are going to get the page. We probably have the most informative page on the artifact on the internet. The only thing I can think of that we are missing is the sound effects for the hammer spawning, being revealed, and despawning, which would require someone to be on and recording when those three events happen, which makes it unlikely to obtain.
Support: As nominator. - Zebendal (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: One thing that I am unsure of changing is the sentence 
:;"first of many artifacts stolen by Sheogorath. He unleashed the artifacts upon Cyrodiil for the purpose of putting an end to his boredom surrounding the lack of chaos in the Three Banners War, and for the fun of keeping his Daedric siblings on their guard." 
:Reason why I worded it like that is because the Devs stated that they planned to add multiple artifacts, and Sheogorath worded it like he plans to do so as  well. Should I reword that bit?- Zebendal (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Support: Very well rounded ESO article, good use of imagery Imperialbattlespire (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment:I have added subsections to the page, and we now have 2/3 of the audio for volendrung, specifically  spawning and despawning. All we need is the Volendrung reveal audio. -Zebendal (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lore:Blades
Nominating mostly my own page here, I think the dramatic difference between what the page used to look like before the massive overhaul is pretty evident if you look at  what the page used to look like compared to now.

Support: As nominator. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Support: Excellent page, covers every nook and cranny that exists on the Blades. Obviously I have to support this.Zebendal (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Support: This page has everything I, or another reader could want to know on this subject, great use of imagery, just a solid page. Support.Dcking20 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Solid page, well seasoned with images. I only have two problems that prevent me from supporting. Firstly, I think the Dragonguard stuff should be moved to its own article. Secondly, I don't like the use of certain images that aren't necessarily in-universe depictions. The Oblivion icon from the UI and the Blades logo may not conform with the Tamrielic perspective laid out in the lore guidelines. -Dcsg (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Reply: I had similar concerns about the Blades icon until I recalled the Emblem decoration from that game, the description of which makes the in-universe connection clear. This isn't the first time we've seen game icons appear in-universe (e.g., Moon-and-Star, Oht, the Ouroboros), so I don't have any issues with the use of this one in lorespace. —&#8288;Legoless (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Dcsg on the matter of Dragonguard information being moved to its own page. The Dragonguard part can be mentioned, and a navigation link should be provided after such a mention. Other than that, the page is great. -MolagBallet (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Amending my comment to add: the section on Sai Sahan's Dragonguard is gratuitously long, to the point where it warrants the Dragonguard stuff going on a different page. I felt like I should clarify that. The Blades and the Dragonguard are intertwined, one comes from the other, etc. But a lot of the "just Dragonguard" stuff doesn't have anything to do with the Blades themselves, secret service of the Emperor. I think the information can be removed and replaced with a summary on how the Dragonguard came to be the Blades. -MolagBallet (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose:I tried to split them up but I should have done a talk page, but  like the others said these are two different factions and need to be treated as such so I oppose the nomination based on those grounds. All the Dragonguard stuff should be on the Dragonguard lore page, and the Blades page must, focus mainly on the actual Blades faction, which means its should give a brief description of what came before maybe a small paragraph with the Dragonguard but the Dragonguard must not be the main focus like it is. If its seperated, and we get two separate lore pages, then I'll happily change my vote. I am however impressed by the work you put into it so not downing it at all just, it needs to be two lore pages.TheVampKnight (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


A very expensive article covering every aspect of Tamriel's northern waters. There is a lot of information to cover on this topic, and the article is neatly divided into history, society, and geographic sections. It also makes excellent use of imagery from the games and provinces this body of water has appeared in.

Support: As nominator. —&#8288;Legoless (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Support:This has my support, looks good. TheVampKnight (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Support Croaker (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


I normally don't consider the lore pages I create myself as nomination worthy per say, but this project wasn't done by me alone, but another great editor WriterS who really made this page possible, and this allowed the page to be made in such a great manner. Only reason why I'm upping it for a nomination status, as it goes into great details on Ghosts and how they function and what they are, and the unique lore they provide. Plus I always like to hear good feedback on what can be improved with it. So its a win for me either way.
Support: As nominator.TheVampKnight (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


Nominating a page primarily worked on by me because it accomplishes several things. First, it clears the confusion between the Bosmeri Wild Hunt and the Daedric Great Hunt. I know that several editors did not want to touch the topic because it was nothing short of a clusterfuck due to how annoyingly confusing the entire thing is due to the usage of two terms for both events. Before someone complains about or requests a name change for the page due to both topics sharing the same alternate names, please consider dev intent. With how convoluted it is, you can refer to the notes on the Lore:Great Hunt page for how Bethesda and Zenimax has been drifting towards using the term Great Hunt over Wild Hunt for non-Bosmeri Wild Hunts.

For further context, here is a list of instances that have been scrubbed of the term Wild Hunt and changed to Great Hunt, all which are non-Bosmeri Wild Hunts.
1. Battlespire's ESO version of The Posting of the Hunt. 
2. Morrowind's Tal Marog Ker's Researches ESO clone Harvest's End. 
3. Bloodmoon's Hunt makes reference to it being a Wild Hunt with its ID BM_WildHunt, while Kurt Kuhlmann refers to it as the Great Hunt.
Here is also a list of emphasis on the term Great Hunt over Wild Hunt:
A. Skyrim makes an effort to refer to Hircine's Hunt as the Great Hunt with his followers Majni, Rissing, as well as the Prima Official Game Guide.
B. ESO has one reference to Hircine's Great Hunt as the Wild Hunt via Darkest Divinities, but is overshadowed greatly by the term Great Hunt in the related quest, as well as other Hircine themed content. Hircine is also known as master of the Great Hunt.
C. Blades, the latest installment, also sticks with the term Great Hunt.

My second point is that there has been enough content from five games to allow the page to give a wealth of information on the topic. From what I seen, this page has potential to be the first "Rituals and Prophecies" page to be featured.

Support: As nominator. Zebendal (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


Contains a good summary of the history, the flora, fauna, society, food, and the origins of the Clockwork City realm.

Support: As nominator. -Zebendal (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support: I support this because its a very good article and is very detailed and a good read.TheVampKnight (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Support: Solid page on my favorite location in the setting Dcking20 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)