UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of past nominations for Featured Articles.

Page Archives
Archive 1: 2006-2007
Archive 2: 2008
Archive 3: 2009
Archive 4: 2010
Archive 5: 2011
Archive 6: 2012-2013
Archive 7: 2013-2014
Archive 8: 2015-2016
Archive 9: 2016-2021

Online:Volendrung[edit]

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)
  • Support: The information is thorough, even if it's missing a single audio clip; it seems to have all the information you really need about the artifact. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Sure, this article is of high enough quality. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I’m more of a lore page guy myself but this is nicely done. Dcking20 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported. Robin Hood(talk) 02:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Skyrim:Fishing (activity)[edit]

Very comprehensive page with almost any detail you might want to find about the topic. It would also give some attention to our Creation Club project. --Ilaro (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: As nominator. --Ilaro (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Probably the most detailed fishing overview on the internet. --Zebendal (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: It is very well done page that covers the topic extensively.Tyrvarion (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Looking at this article gives me Wiki-envy. Incredibly thorough: the icing on the cake, for me, was the black-bordered section breaks between each fishing zone type. It's subtle, but very much appreciated. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: A fantastically informative article on the subject. Could possibly use some more image considering how many sections it has, but it's fine as it is. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 22:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported. Robin Hood(talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lore:Sea of Ghosts[edit]

A very expansive 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. —⁠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)
  • Support: A very thorough article. The islands section is very useful at summarizing the places mentioned from across each game. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: The landmass sections could benefit from having more paragraph breaks, but besides that, a well-rounded article. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Fully supported.Robin Hood(talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Lore:Blades[edit]

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 https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Blades&diff=2181994&oldid=2180708 what the page used to look like compared to now.

  • Support: As nominator. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Excellent page, covers every nook and cranny that exists on the Blades. Obviously I have to support this. However, I believe that the Dragonguard section is big enough that it should be moved into its own page, with a brief section explaining about it before it is featured.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. —⁠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)
  • Oppose: Going to have to agree with the above opposition. Using Wikipedia as an example, articles with related, but distinct, information in large amounts— preceding or succeeding— are often given a redirect in a separate section. Usually, you only detail tangential information if it's brief, but this page in particular has three sections for preceding information. It's fairly excessive, so that alone warrants a separation into its own page. What's listed in the introductory paragraph suffices, and "before the Blades" should have its own section with a redirect to the Dragonguard page. If you feel the need to go in depth about the Dragonguard, detail the last leadership (Sai Sahan), then immediately go into Blades. Besides that, it looks to be a well-rounded article. —- Ingura (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: None. Not enough votes after over a year and no consensus (2-2). Robin Hood(talk) 01:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)