Zelda Wiki:Featured Article Nomination

= Current nominations =

Sage
With the work of the Zelda Wiki community, this article has become a well written, and informative page. Quite an accomplishment to everyone who contributed. 04:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It seems to me to be rather well organized. And it has a very appealing overall layout. And it certainly fits the other criteria. 23:37, March 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I would vote for this one because it goes more in depth in Sages than Rauru's page does. --Skermefaten 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Skermefaten
 * 3) Very good article, articulate, and an excellent example of what subject directories could be with the links to the main article and well written summaries on each topic. All images are relevant, clear and useful. And a solid mix of references to boot. 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Very organized, and quite easily read. It flows well, and the pictures couldn't be placed onscreen any better or more relevantly. →Kochjr 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Well written and organized, it really delves into all of the Sages and it more than qualifies for featured status.--Kresh64 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I think it was very nice and showed more info.--Link6767 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I think this was a good article, written well and good info. A very good article. Well written. 11:48 May 8, 2009


 * 1) I really can't give this my approval. What is there is well written, but there are, as has been noted in the neutral comments, some clearly missing aspects to it. While what we have is really good, it's not the full and complete picture. I simply can't ignore that and be neutral, or support it. The article is not complete, and thus I gotta say no. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've spotted what I consider to be quite a large omission in this article; there's barely any mention of Princess Zelda's role as the crucial Seventh Sage (or Maiden) in ALttP, OoT and FSA. I'd suggest that this needs to be rectified, or at least discussed here, before this becomes Featured. 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UT
 * The current content is great - however it is lacking as Adam mentions. It is up to featured standard but needs more I feel. I feel there needs to be more pictures; namely Fado, Medli, Makar and Laruto, with some more details on them. Furthermore, an example of this lacking is in the Twilight Princess section, which no where mentions them residing in the Arbiter's Ground's Mirror Chamber. Adam is right that it needs more 'Zelda' and may be worth covering the Sage-Oocca relationship potential, under theory of course.There is also lots of blank space. 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam and Mel, the current content and organization is great, but perhaps a bit more information on Zelda's role would definitely sway me to vote for the page. Link87 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article needs some more references and quotes from the Japanese versions of the games to highlight version discrepancies between the sages' roles. First, they were not Princess Zelda's tutors in the Japanese version of TP.Ganondorfdude11 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) - Voted negated as it is not a valid opposition - it's more neutral. Just suggests more things to add to the article, of which, all the mentioned has been added. 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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)




 * 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)

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)


 * 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 moemn, 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)

Sheikah
The Sheikah article is one of the crown jewels of the Zelda Wiki. Not only is almost every sentence properly referenced, the article's flow is suave and it covers all its bases - from theories to in-game detail. The enticing placement of pictures (and there are a good bunch of them), and the article's easy-to-follow structure make it an role model for all other race articles. This article is fantastic! 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) We put in a lot of time and effort on it, but it did turn out very nice in the end. We also had contributions from several editors, and that made the project all the more fruitful. Link87 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I might be a bit biased because I worked on this one, but it is a very high-quality article. Ganondorfdude11 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good to me. The writing style actually made the page interesting. I like the big words here and there. +1 00:27, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) As I was working on some of the references, I noticed that pretty much every single sentence has something to do with the Sheikah, and it is written very nicely. Really great article! Dany36 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) After the recent work done to this page, I fully give my support. --Xizor 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) This article might look good because of the overall arrangement of images and content however, the writing style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is...more reminiscent of fan fiction. When I read this article, I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over again. It's somewhat redundant. It could be cut down considerably just by taking out the redundancies. 06:42, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Even with all the reductions and cuts the article reads way too much like a story. With overly elaborate wording, unnecessary statements and phrases, over-dramatization. This article needs a total rewrite before it could really be featured. 18:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I must say Alter, that's the most supportive sounding opposition vote I've ever seen. I suggest you either reword it to make workable opposing points, or consider if you placed that in the right section ;)  00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Fixed it for him. ;) Link87 01:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Heh heh... I meant to do that... PUT IT BACK!!! lol Good catch. I mighta killed that nomination or something. 02:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I take offense at the criticisms levied by the opposition, as it was carefully written and has been edited by other editors to remove "redundancies". The page took a lot of work and effort to create and was a team effort, and there is nothing wrong with the writing style according to others who have read it. However, considering the critic, bias is not to be unexpected as the critic has a history of unwarranted criticism. Link87 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly it was only one opposition vote. It was my opinion to which I am freely entitled to. I apologize that you take offense over my criticism of this article, however, I cannot help that it, in my opinion, is not up to feature status. As for your claim of "bias", I am sorry to inform you that there was no bias in my decision to oppose this article. My vote was decided after reading the article in its entirety. 18:05, December 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, right, and the unwarranted block of last night was so indicative of no bias?? The real intent is obvious here. However, it's as you say one negative vote that is untrue in its accusations in my view. And if you read it you would have given examples to show that, and none appeared. So sorry, but I'm not buying if that's what you were hoping. Still, I will let others that have more relevance judge the article's merit for themselves. Link87 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The block was due to your harassment in the chat and your failure to ever compromise with anyone ;) 18:49, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if memory serves me right, you were the one harassing me when I stated my disagreement with you here, calling names and such. It's there for all to see. And obviously it was not in your authority to block for things unrelated to the wiki ;) Link87 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument stops here. Everyone is entitled to their own vote, and Mandi's opposing vote is as per the guidelines. It should not concern you so deeply Chris. The article is not your personal project and it still has a fair shot at a featured article. The featured system is made to be fair, and if one negative vote is made for smite, that will not affect its chances. It is best just to leave it and see how it goes. 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody, not me or anybody, said it was my "personal project", it was a team effort that is being falsely besmirched as "fan fiction", and I will not stand by and let all of our efforts be smeared without a proper defense. I agree the argument ends here, but we're all entitled to our opinions as I said and my opinion of said opposing vote is it is based in ulterior motives. End of story. Link87 23:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rupee
This article is very well written. It's extremely informative, and I feel that it does its job very well. I Think that we can definitely proudly display this article. It's really a great article, and I feel that we'd be doing a great disservice by leaving it in obscurity. Let's show it off to the world, eh? 03:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) My vote is no. Upon first glance at the contents table, I thought it was a lengthy article, upon closer inspection I've found that it is actually quite small (the numerous sections seem to give it a larger feel). And it doesn't have any references at all. What information is there isn't bad, but it's not really feature worthy. 19:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs for info in some parts. It feels more like a "listing", rather than an informative page. The Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland section also needs some more work. *Everyone looks at me* 20:33, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit listy for me as well, the amount of actual written article content is small. If every section had a legitimate amount of written info (explaining ways to collect, the different wallets, most expensive purchases, etc... you get the idea) it would secure my vote. 06:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon looking at this article again, I've smacked myself and wondered what exactly I was thinking. It's nowhere near ready for featured status. My bad :P 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

= 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)

= Voting Archive =