Zelda Wiki:Ex-Featured Content

= Disqualified content =

Score: -2
As it has been pointed out elsewhere, this article's information has now become outdated with the release of newer games. It doesn't use any references, and although the topic is a very popular one, it's highly subjective when compared to the largely factual body of information normally promoted as Featured. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) As one of the original authors, I definitely feel that the page has bounced between 'less then perfect' and 'total crap' for quite some time... it was written under a completely different atmosphere then the (preferable) one that currently permeates the wiki and for a completely different period of zelda-related theory. The article could not possibly be 'brought up to date': the entire timeline-series needs to be almost totally redone. Disqulify and, if there's no change in a couple months (the chances of which are slim, likely dependent on myself and one other party ), delete. --Mmmmm PIE 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh. No sources, too much subjectivity (which, given the topic makes it... tolerable?), not to mention, as stated, it's outdated given the recent releases. Also, the writing style doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. --Ando (T) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Score: -2
Maybe controversial, but this article seems to me to be just one amongst many. It's no longer the latest game (as it was when it became Featured), and wasn't actually voted in but rather selected by the staff. Also, the single token reference doesn't really cut it, and the YouTube video included doesn't work. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I love Twilight Princess, but I have to agree with that. I've always seen this page as just one among many. If this is featured, then why not all the other games, like Ocarina of Time? --Yuvorias, 11:21, 11 May 2008 (EST)
 * 2) It's true, Twilight Princess has lost some of its glory :( --Seablue254 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Score: -3
I actually really like this image, just not this version; it's too busy, cropped and covered in logos and text. I've suggested here that it be replaced with what I consider to be a much better version. However, given that it's so different, perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to remove the current featured image and upload and re-nominate the new one separately? --Adamcox82 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't like the image at all. I think it's rather ugly.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) My vote goes here, as described here. --Ando 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) The suggested replacement is better. Disqualify this one, and put the other up for nomination.--Mjr162006 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Score: -3
When this article was featured, it was definitely the best website article on the wiki, having been one of the first to use the infobox and be properly subdivided and include references. However, now that so many other website articles have been improved in the same way, it's simply average. Fairly short, and it seems a little unfair to promote only one of our member sites in this way. Also, nearly a year on it seems that the controversy of the launch must have died down enough to make it less than newsworthy. --Adamcox82 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The articles really not that well written.--Link hero of light 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed with Adam. At the time the site was new so it was interesting, but it is now old news, the article is not too exciting to the point that our visitors should be looking at it as featured material. Make room for better articles that everybody can enjoy. I don't necessaryily think its bad to have a website featured, but in the future, I don't think featured websites should be mixed in the rotation, but rather, just get a 2month run or so and then that's it. Mases 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) There isn't anything unique about this article anymore. Just one of many.--Mjr162006 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

 * 1) Since the addition of "The Masterminds" section on the menu puts it on EVERY PAGE on the wiki, "featured" status is kind of unneeded at this point, but I could care less which way this one goes. --Captain Cornflake 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Boomerang
Current score: -4 This one's been around for a long time, and while it is a nice article, it's nothing revolutionary. The sections are pretty short, and while interesting it's hardly that noteworthy. Time for a change methinks! --Adamcox82 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Yeah, its sections are rather short. There really isn't anything unique about this.--Mjr162006 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree...not anything special...ZeldaGirl96 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Nothing special about this article. It is Short, Simple, and Boring, not worthy of being featured. Mases 01:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Nothing Important. 12:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)