Zelda Wiki:Featured Article Nomination

= Current nominations =

Twinrova
Matt pointed this one out to me recently, and now that it's complete with full references, I think it definitely meets (or exceeds) all the requirements. A very well put together article about one of my favourite bosses of OOT! 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Well, the article is well written and organized, and has lots of references. It looks interesting enough to be featured. 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This is another one that was basically a stub when I got here. Now it is so much bigger, better. And with cool pictures we didn't have we back when. A very good article indeed. Plenty of references now. That's good. Must be featured. 20:01, May 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Very well written, very well laid out, and plenty of references. It is very well sized and has great pictures. This one is a must-feature in my opinion. Shnappy 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) It is well written and has good pictures. It has references and is looks very interesting. It is 'featured worthy'. Well done to everyone who wrote it. - ShellShocker 09:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) I vote this gets up. There doesn't seem to be an issue about the section and it gives a lot of info about Twinrova. 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Well organized, has enough references. Needs to be featured. 06:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Very well organized, plenty of images while not overboard, enough references, I see no reason why to not reference it. 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Great organization, good images and references, and a good article to look at on the wiki. - Josh 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) This is a great article. A good amount of length and detail, as well as enough refernces and pictures to easily allow it to be published. Two thumbs up. Psychoboo13 11:50, 18 September 2010 (EDT)


 * 1) Hmmm...I finally decided to read this article, and the first thing I noticed is that it needs to be better organized. Pretty much what Cip said: some of the sections get horribly redundant, like Koume and Kotake's MM sections, and later on, "Twinrova's" MM section. While it has all the references it could ever need, I just simply cannot vote in favor of this article until its get reorganized. :( Or at least, the Majora's Mask sections, which is what a few people seem to complain about the most in the comments section below. I'll put up a talk page today to try and see how we can improve this article even more. Edit: It seems that the redundancy has been a problem for a while now and nothing has been done. I checked the Twinrova talk page and there are two sections about it: "Separate sections" and "Majora's Mask." So yes, something NEEDS to be done about the redundancy before this gets featured! Dany36 13:45, 18 September 2010 (EDT)


 * 1) I think it is a GOOD passage but cloud need more detail about them...--Link6767 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I think the page needs just a little bit more work before becoming featured, although it's well on its way. A little bit more info for MM and OoX will earn my vote. 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I feel some of the things are a little... off. Take the Majora's Mask section. It's rather small, and a little bit misguided. Maybe I am being a stickler with these featured articles, but if a article is to be featured it should be pretty much 100% true to the facts. They played a pretty big role in MM, yet are barely mentioned in passing. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Upon closer inspection, while the article is informative, well sourced, and nicely written, the Ocarina of Time subsection of appearances is very cluttered with images and video, and is actually a bit redundant between talking about the individual witches and their appearances in the games, in respect to the whole page. A simple reorganization should do the trick, then this article'll be hot. 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) It is really good except that some sections, especially the Majora's Mask section. 68071 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Twinrova is sooooo easy. I hate her! Gammadiologist 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote negated due to opposition guidelines at the top of the page 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fishing
One notable aspect of Zelda Wiki.org is our method of placing similar content from varying games into fewer articles. Fishing is an article representing that, our inclusion of references, relevant images, cross referencing related pages, up-to-date info, and despite having brief how-to sections; the article never seems dominated by with a guidish style. Fishing is certainly worthy of being the standard for all other mini-game articles to follow. 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I'll go for it. It's been edited by many users, is very detailed, and has a lot of good info without being excessive. --Xizor 07:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) This article is well written and has sufficient references. Deserving of being featured. 22:35, October 30, 2009 (UTC) 22:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) This one looks pretty good to me. Detailed without being overwhelming, well organized, ample references, layout that is appealing to the eyes. Everything you'd look for in a featured article. 18:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) This article is not just detailed, but it is also a major event in many Zelda games.&#123;&#123;SUBST:User:supermariosuperfan/sig}} 15:28, 6 August 2010 (EDT)


 * First off, I want to support this, because I think the article's great. But I'm still concerned about the status of this article alongside others (mainly Fishing Hole). I know others have shared these concerns, which have mainly been discussed here and here. The two key suggestions were either to create a Fishing template which could be used on various different article (e.g. Fish, Fishing Rod, Fisherman) to unite the information, or to merge Fishing with Fishing Hole. Personally, I think either or both would be good, because as it stands I'm not entirely happy with the way the information on the subject of Fishing is distributed. I've held back on adding Merge templates for the moment, as that would disqualify this article... 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Adam. It's a very good article, but it's a little messy when it comes to related pages. There may be some merging that needs to be done first. 15:35, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Both articles have been extensively reworked since the last comments on those talk pages, I'll make the case to merge the Fishing Rod content into Fishing, and get that template going. I think a sidequest article would help diversify our featured articles, so they don't look like Featured Characters :p 02:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Earth Temple
Hey, it's a great and detailed article. The Earth Temple is a great and detailed article, but it is constantly overlooked. Give the Wind Waker some appreciation!


 * 1) This article is beautifully written, complete with maps, info, and plenty of pics! --Linkdude101 6:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm going to have to oppose this one for a number of reasons. First is the length; I actually think this article is both too long AND too short! By "too long", I mean that there's redundant information (things like the general storyline detail) and the content carries a lot of unnecessary padding. It's already been cut down a lot, but I think there's more work that needs to be done in distilling the content down. But even at its current length, to me there's too little relevant information contained in the text to warrant it being featured. Secondly, I don't think it's especially well structured or laid out, and the section headers seem a little odd. And the third issue I have is the actual subject itself. While that's not normally of much relevance, I do have reservations about featuring a page about one dungeon in TWW over any of the other dungeon articles. For example, the Wind Temple article could be nominated on the exact same basis; it's written in exactly the same style and has all the same merits (and problems) as the Earth Temple article. For me, it just doesn't tick the box of being unique, or even exceptional for that matter. 16:30, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

= Featured Articles =

The featured articles are listed in this format: Articles that have been disqualified are in the format:
 * Name of Article (Date it became featured)
 * Name of Article (Date it became featured) (Date disqualified)


 * The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (N/A) (May 27, 2008)


 * Zelda Timeline (N/A) (May 27, 2008)


 * Ganon (N/A)


 * Boomerang (N/A) (October 14, 2008)


 * Stalfos (July 7, 2007)


 * ZeldaInformer (August 1, 2007) (June 12, 2008)


 * Lake Hylia (October 2, 2007) (November 24, 2008)


 * Zant (October 16, 2007)


 * Dark Link (November 5, 2007)


 * Link (December 15, 2007)


 * Princess Zelda (January 28, 2008)


 * Link's Crossbow Training (February 13, 2008)


 * Dodongo (February 15, 2008)


 * Moblin (February 18, 2008)


 * Majora's Mask (Boss) (March 8, 2008)


 * Pedestal of Time (April 6, 2008)


 * Triforce (May 17, 2008)


 * Midna (June 12, 2008)


 * Master Sword (June 17, 2008)


 * Gerudo (July 21, 2008)


 * Darknut (August 30, 2008)


 * Golden Goddesses (October 15, 2008)


 * Veran (November 24, 2008)


 * Goron (March 12, 2009)


 * Warping (April 30, 2009)


 * Sacred Realm (February 14, 2010}


 * Bomb (March 13, 2010)


 * Sage (May 9, 2010)

= Voting Archive =