UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations/Archive 8

A superbly detailed and well researched article. It has excellent coverage of the subject, great images, and covers one of the fan favorite NPCs.

Support: As nominator. --AKB   02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Support: This article pretty well summarizes an important quest NPC of the game. -   ﴾TALK﴿ 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 

Support: Comprehensive article with good images. ~     06:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

 Support: Sure, why not? -      &hearts;   

Oppose''': Substantial amounts of dialogue are not documented in the article. A lot of it is fairly easy stuff to add like some standard greetings depending if you're in the Companions or not (first 6 or so lines of dialogue here), but there are a few lines that are likely quest-related missing as well from a glance in the CK. The generic conversations he has with fellow members of the Companions are also not currently included on the article. As such, I cannot support this otherwise excellent article quite yet. Forfeit (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Well, if that's the case, then per Forfeit, I change to an opposition. -      &hearts;    18:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Per Forfeit. —Legoless (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Per Forfeit. -   ﴾TALK﴿ 10:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Support''':   --Thelastdovah (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC) The Sheodovah(Formely lastdovah)
Comment: "Virtually everything" isn't everything. If the page is missing that much dialogue, it's incomplete. —Legoless (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I will work on Forfeit's concerns after I finish with the LG sweep. --AKB   21:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 


One of the more memorable villains, Ancano establishes great characterization for the Thalmor and has some of the cooler moments in his questline (aiding the article's images, for sure). I would like to see this one featured. 

Support: As nominator. --AKB   02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: An excellent summary of the descent into madness. -   ﴾TALK﴿ 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: I especially like the images in this one; looks great! ~     06:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support''': Damn it, man, you just made me accidentally spoil myself to the one guild line that is in-progress that I haven't yet gotten to on Skyrim (aside from the Bard College, but 2-3 quests is hardly a "guild") -      &hearts;    14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: Excellent NPC article on a memorable character as well. Very well written, comprehensive treatment in regards to dialogue and rumors, and all the images are amazing as well. Forfeit (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: Per the others. Excellent article. —          21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Support:   --Thelastdovah (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 


Note: For the sake of being open, most of the images on this article are mine. But this is a very strong article, combining important details about construction with excellent tables explaining what is necessary, a visual gallery to show construction. I even like the division between this and linked to articles, which go into more depth on specific wings. 

Support: As nominator. --AKB   02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: This article is very informative and helpful concerning its subject. -   ﴾TALK﴿ 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support''': I used this one myself after I got Hearthstone and appreciated it. It's very helpful and detailed. ~     06:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: Per above -      &hearts;    14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support:   --Thelastdovah (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC) The Sheodovah(Formerly Last Dovah)
 


An odd choice, I know. But I think this shines as a pretty strong coverage of the topic. I enjoy the comments from Soule, its a unique attribute to the article that I think we should look at including more of (when the creators specifically refer to characters or the like, it would be interesting to include their commentary on them). 

Support: As nominator. --AKB   02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: A nice subject matter rarely touched upon by articles presented very well. -   ﴾TALK﴿ 03:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: I like this one because it covers a variety of topics about the soundtrack and is not just, for instance, the tracklist. ~     06:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Support: Awsome, the one word I would use to describe the music in Skyrim, and just TES games in general. My vote goes here. -   ) )

Oppose: I feel like the formatting could be improved in some way. I'm not sold on all of the Show/Hide's for the Soule comments, despite the condensation it provides, and I really feel like there has to be a better way that we can integrate those into the articles. And, while this doesn't necessarily represent a lack of data, I don't care for how the Dragonborn music section has all of the Morrowind names set dead center of the table with white space above and below. It creates an illusion that something is missing, having a quarter of a table completely blank. I know that isn't the case, but it's still something I feel could be improved upon in some way by someone who understands tables and formatting better than myself. -      &hearts;    14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Per Damon, the formatting could be improved. there's tons of tables and then text. Not that visually appealing. I'd suggest a format similar to that of Skyrim:Console, where there's a fairly good amount of text in the tables. Phacteria (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: I like it, it's an interesting article. —Legoless (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 


This is an excellent item page. Not only does it contain all the basic information a reader would want to know about the item, it also includes the backstory associated with it. The image of the item from where it appears in-game is a nice touch as well. The bow is a rather obscure item too so featuring this article may provide some new information to even those who are fairly familiar with Skyrim. 

Support: As nominator. Forfeit (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not really sure what our history of item pages being featured articles is. That aside, being a single-situation item, the article is very short, possibly too short. Unfortunately, it can only really remain that way since any more information wouldn't be relevant to the item itself. I can't quite decide one way or the other, myself.   ( )  14:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 and  were both fairly short and have previously been featured. Forfeit (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Well written/good use of quality images. Visually the page looks unbalanced with all the writing above the related quest subheader, moving the second paragraph below this could help. Needs leveled stats section. Biffa (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe the weapon is leveled, so a leveled stats section wouldn't be necessary for this article. Forfeit (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: The article consists only of what it is, what its enchantment is, the quest it's involved with and a conversation with Gabriella. These are all very basic details and aren't in my opinion grounds for being a featured article. Kinetically-Interlinked Nirnian Multi-User NthGen Exoform (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Good, but not worthy of FI status. --  (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose:Is it just me having deja vu, or did a similar discussion (about this same page) take place before? Aside from being short, there's too much text on the first part with little line breaks, making it a chore to read. The huge blank space at the bottom doesn't help the visual presentation either. Phacteria (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 


I may just be biased towards Morrowind-based characters, but Almalexia is one of my favorite characters, being of the Tribunal and close to Nerevar, who I am always pointing out is my favorite person to study as a Tamrielic historian. Here is a well sourced and informative article on the Lady of Mercy, the wife of Lord Nerevar, a lover of Vivec's after his death, and the main antagonist to Tribunal who attempted to kill her reincarnated lover, the Nerevarine. I love this article, so let's add another to the list of articled queued up to eventually be voted on!

Support: -      &hearts;    20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: While I don't normally vote on lore articles as I don't know enough to judge what makes a good lore piece. This one is a good and interesting read. Biffa (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: A good, lengthy, detailed lore article about a deity always has a place on the FA list, in my opinion.   ( )  21:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: Complete history, images from both games she appears in. In my opinion a well-written article. Kinetically-Interlinked Nirnian Multi-User NthGen Exoform (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Support: Per above, extremely well written, and despite containing tons of text, isn't visually dull. Phacteria (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 



Looking through the archives, I'm actually surprised this article has not been nominated at all in the past. It's very well written and well laid out. Each war is well-described, both those that do and don't have their own dedicated articles. I feel the only thing that the article still could use is mention of the Planemeld (since the Oblivion Crisis is listed), but even without it, it still meets the requirements of FA status.

Support: As nominator.   ( )  04:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It definitely looks like a lot of effort has been put into this list. However, it's not really an article.. it just lists the historical events. So I'm unsure whether to support or oppose. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: If something as silly and subjective as a list of Easter Eggs can become a Featured Article, then I see no reason why an educational (from a Tamrielic perspective anyway) and well sourced list of major conflicts can't be a Featured Article. This is an excellent article, in my opinion. -      &hearts;    20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I've been hesitating on this because the individual entries are very good, but I just feel like this article isn't a finished product. It seems like a strange combination of both a timeline of major wars and a full description of each, which leads to an excessively long page. I'd almost propose to split it. —Legoless (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: The article is extremely long and though it may be well-written it's hard to tell when the page is made up of an endless stream of paragraphs. Kinetically-Interlinked Nirnian Multi-User NthGen Exoform (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: The article is a bit dull visually with a lack of images, and could use a better layout. Article is written well, but it's pretty hard to be read in its entirety. Phacteria (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 


A fully-written, comprehensive article on one of the more memorable characters involved in the Thieves Guild questline of Oblivion. The article is complete with images that capture many memorable moments of the Argonian's interesting career. The article is an excellent example of what the OBNPCRP can accomplish and would be a great fit for the main page. 

Support: As nominator Forfeit (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: Another perfect OBNPCRP article. I especially like the section detailing his faction rank changes. —Legoless (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: Per the above. -      &hearts;    20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: A superb article well researched, well written, good lay-out. Biffa (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: Very informative about his role throughout the questline, and well laid-out. I also agree with Legoless here about the rank section. It's very interesting.   ( )  21:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: Good old Amusei! --Krusty (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 


One of my favourite Skyrim articles. It details all of the game's obscure quasi-creatures and has great imagery.
Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: This is an excellent article full of great images. I was unaware of a lot of the minor details discussed in the article too, like being able to use melee attacks or Unrelenting Force on some of the passive creatures, so the article was a very interesting read for me as well. I'd imagine other readers may be unaware of these facts as well, so I think the article would be a good choice to put on the main page. Forfeit (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Whereas the above list on wars is sourced and informative, this page is, for the most part, filled with one-liners. For the most part, this is what there is available to use, but it's still not a particularly interesting page as it sits. -      &hearts;    20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: A nicely designed/layed-out page that details all relevant info succinctly with good use of quality images. Biffa (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Agreed with damon. Too many one-liners. While well written for what's given, not quite FA-worthy.   ( )  21:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Agree with Damon and Schiffy.   ( )  22:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 


Short and sweet, the Sancre Tor lore article examines the conflicting founding myths from a neutral standpoint and summarises the game events pretty well. It's a textbook example of what the LPP can achieve (although having said that, it does need to be fact-checked by a second project member). The final vn tag was removed today, so I figure it deserves a nomination. 

Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: It's really well made. -- ( ) 22:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: It's a great article about an interesting location but the LPP tag needs dealt with before it is ready to be featured. Other articles have been held to this standard and opposed for this reason in the past and LPP pages should be no different even if the tag is less noticeable. Once this has been dealt with, I'll gladly support featuring this otherwise excellent article. Forfeit (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 was featured without having ever even been given an LPP tag. The purpose of that project is to clean up old, pre-2012 lore pages which didn't match the new guidelines. The check is a largely irrelevant step in the process, which is why the tag is hidden. The Sancre Tor article's continued participation in the project shouldn't really affect its FA chances if there aren't any obvious flaws. —Legoless (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
What about what was mentioned in this conversation though? If what Jeancey suggested is what checking means for LPP articles, I would think it would be important for a page to go through this process before being featured to ensure it's 100% complete and accurate. Even if there aren't any obvious flaws, some less obvious errors may be noticed and corrected during this checking process or missing information could be filled in. Just because Lore:Skyrim didn't go through this process doesn't mean that this was for the better as the article may have benefited from being checked. An article like  certainly suffered from being featured without a checking parameter because no one noticed the lines of dialogue missing from the article that would have been caught if it was checked through a project, leading to an incomplete article being featured. Forfeit (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree. Missing a line of dialogue is a very technical and significant flaw; making sure that an article is "correct and sourced" is pretty standard procedure for wiki articles regardless of their participation in a project. To equate the LPP with gamespace is to misunderstand the purpose of the project, and to exclude a page from a FA nomination because it doesn't have a box ticked seems unwarranted (especially when other lore articles have not been and are not held to such a standard). —Legoless (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Support: Another well-written article, and also quite inspirational to read, for me at least. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: What the nominator said. -      &hearts;    20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: Per the nominator's argument.   ( )  21:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutral: I think the page could do with checking prior to acquiring a featured star. That being said, it looks great already but I'm currently neutral on this.   ( )  22:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 



Another well sourced and well written article. I thought it deserved a nomination.

Support: As nominator. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Support: One of my favourites. It meticulously documents the information from Dawnguard and Skyrim, while still paying respect to the older, more obscure lore. —Legoless (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: Looks good to me. Comprehensive, well written, and about an interesting topic as well. Forfeit (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Support: Agree with the above, it looks like a great article. Again, inspirational for those who are trying to start writing articles, this sets a good standard. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Support:Really liked it. --Manu (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: With five supports, can we get this on the main page? I think we're all experts on mountain climbing by now! Forfeit (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 


An impressively put together article, it looks technically great. 

Support: As nominator. --AKB   06:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not going to oppose this one, but it's too much of a list page for me to support. The content is entirely transient and is based on what the Crown Store currently contains. The option to view all past offers exists of course, but it's almost a secondary function. It's a great page and very useful, but I struggle to see it as an article. —Legoless (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm going to oppose this vote using Legoless's listed points. -      &hearts;    16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I can not mobilise any degree of enthusiasm to a listing page that is changing all the time and needs constant maintenance to be updated. —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Per Legoless. The page isn't really much of an article and as such, isn't something I'd want to see featured on the main page. Forfeit (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: It does look great, but technically it's quite easy to add all that information. A FA should be something that requires a bit more effort! Hmm.. and now I sound like I underestimate the technical part. Well, I don't, but it's just not the most important thing when it comes to a FA. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 


A great example of the oft-neglected 'Hints' section. It contains a ton of useful information and is a joy to read.

Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: Good god how did I not know this existed, it's beautiful.   ( )  13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: I'll definitely support this, becase even though I'm a dedicated mountain climber, it nevertheless taught me a few things and came in extremely handy when I was trying to reach all those blasted secret mountain peaks on Solstheim a few weeks ago.  &ndash;       16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: I love it, we definitely need more articles like this one. -- ( ) 22:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: it has my support. I would have nominated it a while ago but never got around to doing so.   ( )  19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 


A well sourced and informative article; exactly what UESP is about.

Support: As nominator. MetaCthulhu (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Support: Very well written. Amazed it hasn't been featured before.   ( )  06:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Support: ME's huge overhaul earlier this year brought this well up to Featured quality. -- Hargrimm  16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Support: Possibly one of our best lore articles. —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: Excellent article. Forfeit (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 
 
Dragonborn:Dragonborn (quest)
So much is going on at the start of Dragonborn, and this is a great summary of all the various starting plot threads as well as a great introduction to most of the important characters.

Support: As nominator. --AKB   06:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: A very thorough walkthrough. A little heavy on dialogue and images, but not at all cumbersome. —Legoless (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: An excellent article, although I just accidentally spoiled the start of that expansion, and I've not gotten around to playing it yet, because of the new Metal Gear game :( Anyway, an excellently thorough article that serves to get you into the starting points of the story, as AKB said. -      &hearts;    16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I find a quest page with all the related dialogue to be a double-edged sword. As long as the instructions are there, the dialogue doesn't need to be there. It can go on the relevant NPCs' articles. Quest walkthroughs should have the information needed so a player can complete the quest. Dialogue won't help a player complete the quest.   ( )  19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

:*Comment: We could cut a lot from articles on the grounds it isn't absolutely needed. Dialogue should go on relevant NPC pages, but if it's interesting or quest related enough, there is no issue with making a quest article more interesting to read with dialogue. --AKB   04:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: I've long felt that with Skyrim's very detailed journal/objective system and accessible design, there are vanishingly few quests that are actually complex or difficult enough to really need a gameplay walkthrough to complete. I believe quest pages are more useful as a summary of the events of the quest as a reminder or primer for someone who hasn't played it or for whom it's been several years. With that perspective, I obviously don't mind having a large amount of dialogue and accompanying images, since they enliven the summary information and make it much more interesting to read. -- Hargrimm  16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 


This is everything you could want to know about ESO fishing, summarized in one place. It is hands down the best guide of its kind I've seen on the interwebs, and there are quite a few out there. It deserves some attention.

Support: As nominator.      21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Support: One of our best ESO articles. —Legoless (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Support: I agree! I started the page March of last year as an ugly, tiny stub and I never dreamed it would be as lovely as it is now. Mah bb is all grown up~ (I kid, I kid.) —          01:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: There are no less than 4 VN's in the lead section. I find it hard to believe this article is the best it can be, is entirely accurate, and is one of the best articles around the ESO namespace when we don't even have all of our own facts completely straight on it. A VN for a bug or something at the bottom? Fine, I'd let that slip in an FA vote, but there's no way I would support an article with so many VNs in the body of the article. Also, hello, I'm back-ish for a little while! -      &hearts;    23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
As the author of all four I am a bit divided if those should be significant enough to oppose it being FA. On one hand they do not look good, and they are a fair bit of the article itself. The tables of all sorts are nice and the pictures are good, but the lead section is the central part of the article and a sizable bit of the total text. On the other hand, I do not know how easy there is to confirm such ESO data. Due to the lack of direct access to much of the game data in ESO, as opposed to the other Elder Scrolls games, there would and should be a lot more vn tags. There should maybe even quite a lot more than there are today in most articles. This would disqualify a lot of otherwise good ESO articles by definition, without good means to improve them more. —MortenOSlash (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm with Damon on this one. While I certainly agree with MortenOSlash's point about the difficulties of verifying information in ESO, I would think that time and play-testing would provide sufficient evidence, even if we can't get absolute proof. Once a couple of those VNs are taken down, it might be more FA-worthy.  &ndash;       19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion nicely highlights the difficulty in confirming anything through playtesting. At most, I would say one of those VN tags could be removed in the near future (the 15 fish limit). We have one of the best ESO fishing guide on the web, and a couple VN tags serve only to point out the limits of our current knowledge to readers, rather than mark the article as incomplete. —Legoless (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Conditional Support: The vn about the 15 fish limit seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to verify before featuring this article. The others I can live with being in the article for the reasons given above. Overall, this is an excellent article. Forfeit (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I will attempt to do some testing. I did get a fishing hole with exactly 15 catches when I bothered counting. (I wonder if having 2 or 3 people at a hole will halve/third that number?) Hopefully we can get that vn off, though tbh I don't care whether it's there or not. —          01:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: Too many VNs.   ( )  05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment:I feel like postponing the vote, as the page is no longer complete as long as it lacks information from the Imperial City. —MortenOSlash (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Correct. I'll suspend it until it can be updated. —Legoless (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 


All you need to know about ESO's pets. UESP's pets page is nothing short of the definitive guide to these collectibles, and I've seen it referenced online plenty of times. It still needs some UESP-specific images and maybe old item links if our database ever gets sorted out, but otherwise it's as close to completion as an ever-expanding list can get.

Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: Some missing data ((?)) for the Abecean pet.  &ndash;       22:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That data is not missing, it's just not available yet. The Abecean cat section contains everything we know about that pet at this time, so opposing for that reason is groundless. —Legoless (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, the data is missing. We don't have it yet. Let the article reach it's full potential.  &ndash;       20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be missing the point of an ever-expanding list, and by the time this article would be featured we'd likely have the data anyway. —Legoless (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: It's a well laid-out page that is also a favourite on the ESO Forums for being a good summary of the available pets. --Enodoc (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: Looks like a good article to me. Featuring this will also serve as a nice change of pace in the types of articles that have been featured recently. Forfeit (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: Good-looking and very useful, can't really find anything against it. -- ( ) 02:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: The nature of ESO doesn't cater to finished products sometimes, and this is one of those times. But this is why FAs have time stamps.      12:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 


An awesome article that explains it near-perfectly.

Support: Nominator.  &ndash;       11:33, 4 April 2015 (GMT)
Support: Lesser-known article to the masses being nominated, huh? Yeah, I'm game. Certainly is well written.   ( &#124; ) 15:03, 9 April 2015 (GMT)
Support: Looks good.      15:54, 9 May 2015 (GMT)
Support: Looks fine to me! --AKB   04:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Support.  ~Shuryard (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 


I was perusing the Daggerfall namespace to see what information I can glean from it to aid my first-time playthrough of the game that I've been working on for the last... really long time. Anyway, as far as Daggerfall articles go, this is a quite informative one, and it is definitely a standard I feel like we can work the Daggerfall articles towards. And, a Daggerfall Featured Article would be a really cool change of pace since all we ever see are from the latest titles. Vote, my loves!

Support: Nominator   ( • )  17:12, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: I was pleasantly surprised at how good this older article is. It definitely makes for an interesting read and would shed some light on the older games.        17:25, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Comment: That disclaimer about a "documentation vacuum" is a bit out-dated, and should probably be replaced by a link to the Vampire lore page. Anyway, I can review for grammar and what-not, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Daggerfall to judge the page's quality.      17:38, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
I am not sure, but I seem to remember the "documentation vacuum" is a reference to the in-game lack of other sources, though there might of course be other ways of illustrating that. —MortenOSlash (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Yeah, there is virtually nothing in terms of lore in Daggerfall specifically, so I think it's referencing the gamespace specifically.   ( • )  19:54, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Nice to see the old games be highlighted again. Daggerfall was my first Elder Scrolls game. I really like the article for its thorough description. —MortenOSlash (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Never really played Daggerfall, but the article looks FA-worthy.   ( &#124; ) 19:46, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: This one is pretty great, reminds me of running into vampires while playing Daggerfall. --AKB   05:24, 1 April 2015 (GMT)
Support: Very interesting article. Easily one of the best pages I've seen in that namespace. Forfeit (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2015 (GMT)
 


A fully written page on one of the most important characters in Skyrim. The dialogue for all the different quests is presented in an interesting and effective way. The page also contains a number of memorable images that further benefit the article.  

Support: As nominator. Forfeit (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Nice and thorough. Looks good.   ( • )  01:35, 9 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: As Damon said, this article should take precedence over the Sheogorath nomination. Perhaps the next couple, too, if we get any other successful nominations soon.      01:13, 12 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: I'll add my support here. Dialog appears complete no matter what part of the main quest or side you're doing, or not doing any at all. Layout is very solid and all parts read fluidly. Philbert (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Looks good.   ( &#124; ) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Great article, FA quality for sure. —      18:18, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
 


Can never have enough of the Madgod, right? Aside from being about such an interesting subject though, this article presents the quest-related dialogue and events well by mixing paragraphs, conversations, and tables with plenty of headers and high-quality images. Overall, I think this page captures Sheogorath's character quite well and is more than deserving of being featured. 

Support: As nominator. Forfeit (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Yeah, it's a good article, but since the last FA was Sheogorath, I'd like to propose that Balgruuf goes first if it wins its FA nomination, so that we can have a second article between this Sheogorath article and the last one.   ( • )  01:35, 9 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Looks good.      01:13, 12 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Well laid out, but I agree with Damon about the featured order.   ( &#124; ) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
Support: Good article, I'd like seeing it on the front page. —      18:18, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
 


Support: An AWESOME article, IMO.  &ndash;       20:36, 4 February 2015 (GMT)
Support: I can find no issue with this article. It's greatly detailed, yet nothing goes on ad nauseam, it's well formatted, and there are a plethora of beautiful images that perfectly supplement the article. It's certainly a stellar example of what can be done on UESP, and I give my congratulations to the editors who put this article together.   ( • )  21:55, 4 February 2015 (GMT)
Comment: There have been no more responses to my nomination. Is something wrong?  &ndash;       21:07, 15 February 2015 (GMT)
::No, it just means nobody has felt the need to take a look. If there was a problem, it would have been brought up and addressed. Just relax, because sometimes nominations stall because nobody's interested in them when there's work to be done.   ( • )  23:22, 15 February 2015 (GMT)
:::By ''"there's work to be done"'', do you mean other stuff such as things in the big namespaces such as Online? I've never known the wiki to be as inactive as this on nominations (that's just an opinion, FYI).  &ndash;       13:46, 16 February 2015 (GMT)
::::There are many possible reasons why a nomination may not get votes. As Damon said, work can be an issue, whether that's on the wiki or in real life; the wiki also tends to be much less active in between major releases and at certain times of year; it's also possible that people just don't feel  strongly enough about it to give it their support or opposition. That's why there's a minimum number of votes, to prevent articles from being featured if they're either lacklustre or they were nominated during a slow period and didn't have enough support or opposition to have a clear consensus. We've had several nominations refused because they only had three or four votes. Going way back in the archives, some of the earliest ones only had a couple of votes, which seems to be what led to the minimum being put in place (see Voting System on the talk page).  &ndash;       17:20, 16 February 2015 (GMT)
Support: Despite the fact I haven't read it, I support it, considering a new FA has been due for a few days. Don't suppose there are serious flaws in this article, if any, so in that case, featuring wouldn't do harm ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2015 (GMT)
Support: Damon said it all. ~ Shuryard (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (GMT)
Support: At first glance it might not seem look much more than just good, but as you read through you find it has got all you would expect, both leaving you with the feeling of having been well informed at with an urge to learn more. —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2015 (GMT)
 


This is an exemplar example of how a lore article should be written. Even if it isn't the length of a novel it has many awesome images and text. One particularly amazing part is the various quotes. This has my full support.
Support: As nominator.  &ndash;       13:52, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
Comment: The layout doesn't seem right for me (I have 300px thumbs and widescreen), I don't know if that's the same for other people, though I'd like to have that improved ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2015 (GMT)
The layout seems well done to me in 16:10 with the dafault thumbnails. —Legoless (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
If you remove hide the TOC, it removes most of the huge space I get. Maybe it could be toned down (no sublinks for Artifacts). And some NewLefts on the bottom would make a big difference too. Can I try that out? ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
It's definitely the large thumbnails that are creating the problem. I tried a couple of things at the top, but didn't find anything that really helped much, so I limited my changes to the lower portions of the page.  &ndash;       01:56, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
Can't we choose the number of pixels in the image links when editing (i.e., 160px) etc? Maybe that will help. The wiki sure has gone less active recently.  &ndash;       21:09, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
We can, but it's strongly discouraged. Some people like larger thumbnails, others like smaller. It's preferable to honour that whenever possible.  &ndash;       22:57, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
  The layout for me can be greatly improved by using TOClimit 2, plus, I think the image of his Skyrim version doesn't fit the section, it'd be better for a 4:3 Jyggalag image to be there, which would take less space than a square one ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (GMT)
::I went ahead and changed the TOClimit, all subsections are visible for me on the screen, and I don't suspect the sections to be all that larger on smaller screens, so I'd say there's no need of links for those in the TOC. The only issue that may arise for some is the TOC is less noticeable. I also replaced the Skyrim Sheogorath to a Jyggalag thumb, I thought his Skyrim version just didn't belong at the Greymarch section at all, while Jyggalag does, and I've moved this image to the gallery. I hope this doesn't upset or cause issues to others, but I don't suspect it will, and it improves the layout dramatically for people who use large thumbs and have wide screens ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2015 (GMT)
Support: Hits the spot for me! Biffa (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
Oppose: I love the article, but the layout of the pictures and TOC make me have to oppose it being featured. ~     21:26, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
Support: It's a good article. I'm not seeing any of these layout issues. —Legoless (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
Support: Sexy. Give it a copper star.-      &hearts;    23:52, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
Support: Sheo himself or the article? Nevermind, agreed either way. Sexy. --Somercy (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
Comment: Dom, maybe adjust your preferences and see if that helps? There is a relevant discussion above at the start of the consensus if that helps?  &ndash;       21:22, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
Its more of how every image is on the right except for a couple at the very bottom of the page. It just seems unbalanced to me. ~     05:00, 19 January 2015 (GMT)
 

Dragonborn:Ralis Sedarys
This article is very well-written in my humble opinion.
Support: As nominator.          17:07, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
Support: Looks good to me. -- RNM&#124;T 19:43, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
Oppose: The dialogue could due with being divided up a bit more. This could be done by dividing it up into subsections and using other innovations (if you have multiple options to choose from in dialogue, his responses to each option could be displayed in a table or at least not just in a paragraph for example). The recently nominated Sinding page benefited from such suggestions in its nomination in my opinion, albeit it wasn't enough for it to be supported. Aside from this, the page seems to lack a schedule for this character, though this may not be relevant (I'm not knowledgeable about Dragonborn so I don't really know this NPC's behavior). Forfeit (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
Comment: Your assumptions are correct. A schedule is not relevant here. —MortenOSlash (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
Oppose:I agree that the dialogue needs to be used in a manner to help break up the text and show it with each option and the replies available. Biffa (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2014 (GMT)
Comment: And why should the dialogue get changed may I ask? Lots of other pages don't have a concept of showing dialogue with each option and the replies available. For example Skyrim:Jaree-Ra doesn't use this concept.          08:18, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
Comment: I did try and break up the text with the dialogue when I started revamping it, but it got changed.          08:20, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
Oppose: Per Forfeit and Biffa, some of the dialogue could use different formatting to make the page look less repetitive. You could use quotes from his dialogue or from his writings to help break up the text. (See  for an example.) The article is incomplete as well, as it's missing follower dialogue and mentions of his letters and journal. I will gladly change my vote once these problems are addressed.      11:13, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
Comment:Jaree-Ra's page is a poor example as sections of his dialogue have been formatted differently to help break up the wall of text AND it wouldn't get my vote for FA support either. Overall I think it's a really good article that could with tweaks get the support you're looking for. The reason I mentioned the dialogue was the layout as it is was the main reason I voted to oppose and wanted to give reason/suggest what could be done to make it worthy of FA status IMO. If you look at the other two mentioned NPC pages not all the dialogue is formatted any different to the way you've laid it out, however sections of it has and it has massively improved the readability and appearance of those pages. Biffa (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (GMT)
Oppose: The dialogue really needs to be divided up. To me, its pretty much a wall of text with a couple of pretty border images. ~     03:42, 20 December 2014 (GMT)