Zelda Wiki:Failed Nominations/Article

Failed Article Nominations
The following sections are article nominations that received at least three signed opposition votes.

{{hide
 * header= Kafei - Failed February 23, 2009
 * content=At first, mysterious, masked child. Possessing the strength of a man(see manga). Way faster than Normal Link. Tragic story and a main part of the best side-quest ever. Features of a Shiekah. A subtle cameo in Animal Crossing. A playable character!!!

Kafei needs to be featured, he is, while small to the Zelda universe in general, a large part of Majora's Mask. Zapdemon 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC) @ {{support}}
 * 1) Amazing side-quest with romantic and courageous storyline {{Unsign|Dekuta}}
 * 2) Kafei is a less-known character, so reading about him would interest visitors. On the other hand, any Zelda player who has picked up a controller already knows at least enough about the temple of time to at least search for it.--Claire 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) The article meets the criteria -- it is lengthy, yet detailed, containing all information available on Kafei from the one game in which he was found. There is nothing wrong with the article itself. Ancblue52 15:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  In a word, yes. This character is not only little known about, but the page has a lot of information. I'm all for making this the featured article. --Prince Deity 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, this is definitely good content to feature. He is home to one of Zelda's greatest sidequests, so many people would read it for the sake of nostalgia. And the actual article is very nice, even if there are a few slightly weak areas. Twilight Wolfo 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) It is just a great side-quset, and I think it deserves notoriety.TheOracle 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

{{oppose}}
 * 1) Though the character would make a great featured article, I find the content lacking. Some sections are only a sentence long, such as the Sun Mask says see Couples Mask. I think the page needs to be elaborated on before obtaining featured status. It should be almost complete within itself, and though giving links to other pages, it should give details to suffice in relation to Kafei. I don't see this yet! {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 11:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) i) The article is actually really quite short, just with a lot of padding. ii) Most of the sections are stubs, other than the intro and "Daily Schedule" (which overlaps too much with the content in Reuniting Kafei and Anju) iii) NO REFERENCES - seriously, we cannot feature something without a single reference (I'd say this makes vote 3 above invalid) iv) Another invalid, subject-based nomination - seriously, we need to get some detailed guidelines up at Help:Featured Content. {{:User:Adam/sig}} 09:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Too short, no references (unless you count those two sites as references). This article needs much more work before it's worthy of being featured. --Felicia's Champion 08:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

{{neutral}}

I guess that's 3 opposition votes. Too bad. {{:User:Alter/sig}} 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC) }}

{{hide
 * header= Rauru - Failed April 12, 2009
 * content=I believe that Rauru is very worthy of receiving featured article status. Although it is a bit short, it is very well-written and thorough. It properly sources it's information, and the images are of high-quality. This page needs your vote! {{:User:Alter/sig}} 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

{{support}} {{oppose}} {{neutral}} }}
 * 1) I think that Rauru is great he helps link.  --Link6767 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This is very small page. The references alone make up nearly a third of the page. It is way too brief to be featured.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 23:34, March 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. It is quite short. Reference section is longer than the actual page. Not long enough to be featured.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) The page is rather short. I don't think something this short on information should be featured. →Kochjr 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

{{hide This article is very lengthy and well-written, and has plenty of images, all of which are nicely placed. There are also several sources. I think this would make a great featured article, seeing as how many people have contributed to (and vandalized) it. {{:User:Alter/sig}} 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * header= Tingle - Failed December 18, 2009
 * content=TRR Tingle 2.png

{{support}}

{{oppose}} {{neutral}} {{clear}} }}
 * 1) Nothing against Tingle, I love the guy. I think the article overall just isn't as informative as it could be. There is very little information on the Tingle's own games, which to me isn't acceptable even though they never made it stateside. Not only that, I can't help but feel certain areas of the article are underwritten, and it may be do to the general distaste for the character (that is, people not really wanting to work on this article as much as others). I may need to give this piece some personal loving, but I just don't think it's ready. Maybe next month. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe Nathan has voiced my opinion, as well.{{:User:Neo/sig}} 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) To me, what is presented in this article is written well, but it is lacking. Many points are skimmed over, and as has been mentioned, it has significant holes in the sections on Tingle specific games. There are subtitled sections with barely one or two lines, and some single sentence paragraphs. The overall formatting is not yet worthy of featuring yet, with much blank space. It isn't ready yet. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 11:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with you all. When I nominated it, I just looked at the amount of content, how well-written it was, the refs, and the images, but not how much it covered in total. I'll work on it some more at a later time. {{:User:Alter/sig}} 19:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

{{hide 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! {{User:Cipriano 119/sig}} 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC) {{support}} {{oppose}}
 * header= Sheikah - Failed May 9, 2010
 * content=OoT Impa Artwork.png
 * 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 {{:User:Alter/sig}} 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.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 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.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 18:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not sure this article is ready for Featured status yet. While it's apparent a lot of effort and hard work has been put into the article, it feels longwinded and there are some basic writing errors that inhibit it's flow (3 sentences starting with the word "after" in a 5 sentence paragraph, for example). There's also some assumptions made about the entire race based on the few people we meet who represent them (The Sheikah are a warrior race? All of them? Really? Where did it say that?). It just... while all the information inside is cool, now that all the contributions have been made it needs to be rewritten, it needs to be polished. It's too storylike, and not encyclopedic enough, as has been pointed out. I think that's the major flaw. {{:User:Embyr 75/sig}} 02:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

{{neutral}} {{clear}}
 * 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 ;) {{:User:Axiomist1875/sig}} 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. {{:User:Alter/sig}} 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.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 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 ;){{:User:Mandi/sig}} 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. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 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)

}} {{hide 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?{{:User:Neo/sig}}  03:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC) {{support}}
 * header= Rupee - Failed May 11, 2010
 * content=

{{Oppose}}
 * 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. {{:User:Mandi/sig}} 19:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I also vote no. It has no citations/references at all, which, in my book,  disqualifies it from earning a distinguished status. In fact, shouldn't  pages citing zero sources be tagged for revision? Hmm... Embyr 75 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) 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{{:User:Neo/sig}}  01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Neutral}} 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* {{:User:Alter/sig}} 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.{{:User:Cipriano  119/sig}} 06:14, 19  January 2010 (UTC)

}}

{{hide|header= Twinrova - Failed 31 October, 2010|content= 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! {{:User:Adam/sig}} 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) {{support}} {{oppose}}  {{neutral}} {{negated}} Twinrova is sooooo easy. I hate her! Gammadiologist 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC) }}
 * 1) Well, the article is well written and organized, and has lots of references. It looks interesting enough to be featured. {{:User:RupeeLord/sig}} 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.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 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. {{:User:Yusei/sig}} 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Well organized, has enough references. Needs to be featured.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 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. {{:User:Zenox/sig|~}} 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)
 * 2) After reading this article, I have decided that more detail should've been given. The OoX section isn't even filled in. Pokemainiac 04:49, 27 October 2010 (EDT)
 * 3) Took a look at the article and the first thing I noted were several wording errors, grammar mistakes, and other such faux pas. I was willing to overlook these mistakes until I saw the empty sections where the Oracle games should be. That's a complete red flag in my book. We simply cannot feature an incomplete article, no matter how great the rest of it looks.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 04:05, 31 October 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. {{:User:Alter/sig}} 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. {{:User:Cipriano 119/sig}} 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)
 * Vote negated due to opposition guidelines at the top of the page{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

{{hide|header= Earth Temple - Failed November 17, 2010|content= 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! {{nosig|Zelda nexgen|19:35, June 30, 2010}} {{support}}
 * 1) This article is beautifully written, complete with maps, info, and plenty of pics! --Linkdude101 6:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

{{oppose}} {{neutral}} }} {{hide|header= Great Flood - Failed May 4, 2011|content= The Great Flood is one of the most important events in the Zelda Universe. Though somewhat short, this article does a fantastic job of describing it. Furthermore, every reference in this article is taken directly from the games themselves making this article very reliable and feature worthy. Zelda4life 20:46, 18 March 2011 (EDT) {{support}} {{oppose}} {{Neutral}} As I've voted for Hyrule Castle, I can atleast have some say into this article. It's rather nice, but it's one of the few articles that are big, but the information is rather short. As Matt said, it's really basically too short of an article, and it's literally like a story or a tall-tale, as he said. But in honesty, it can be literally redone, as Zenox has said, and it could be much better then what it is now. But I'm not taking any sides, I'm simply stating that this isn't bad, but it isn't good, either. It has much more work to be done, heck, even potential, but little at the most. Hylian Historic 16:05, 30 May 2011 (EDT) {{Negated}} I really like THE WIND WAKER. So this is a great story. ( Negated due to rule 5){{:User:Mandi/sig}} 17:18, April 6, 2011 (UTC) {{clear}} }}
 * 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. {{:User:Adam/sig}} 16:30, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
 * 2) Gonna agree with Adam here. It wouldn't really make sense to feature the Earth Temple and not the Wind Temple. It could also use some cleaning up. Dany36 19:04, 31 October 2010 (EDT)
 * 3) Pretty much what Dany and Adam said. It has a lot of rather redundant and irrelevant information. Not exactly feature-worthy.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 21:10, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm gonna have to say no here. First off, the importance of the subject does not automatically make it worthy of featuring. The article is very short and there really isn't any material that could even be added. In fact some of it has to be removed. A lot of the text is overly elaborate and dramatized as if it was for story telling. Very unencyclopedic. It used to have a lot of speculation in it, though most has been removed already. But still the wording is excessive and drawn out with a slow pace and it dances around the point. Encyclopedias aren't for story-telling, they're for the facts. I'd say it has to be completely rewritten before even considering featuring it.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 00:41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with what Matt said, however, I think that there is room for improvement. I'll see what I can do with it later. But for now, at least, no. {{:User:Zenox/sig|~}} 16:44, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
 * 3) I agree with the users above me. --Masked Kafei 06:05, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

{{hide|header= Chuchu - Failed February 28, 2011|content= One of the greatest enemies in the Zelda series. The article is neat, detailed, descriptive, and not one chuchu is discluded. It encourages you to read the whole article. Very cute, and it deserves to be featured. --Masked Kafei 20:31, 3 May 2011 (EDT) {{Support}}

{{Oppose}} {{Neutral}}
 * 1) This article is lacking in references, and therefore, I do not think it is worthy of the title "featured". {{:User:HelmarokKing/sig}} 17:42, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
 * 2) No references. No not one. Zelda4life 18:13, 7 November 2011 (EST)
 * OK, nobody's addressed the issue of missing references, so until that's been corrected this can't be featured. {{:User:Adam/sig}} 02:32, 28 February 2012 (EST)

{{Negated}} 1. Me like chuchu. --Toon Link Guy 00:40, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Liking the subject of the article is not a valid vote. Dany36 21:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

{{clear}} }}

{{hide|header= Bow - Failed April 15, 2012|content= As one of the usual handful of items and equipment in the Zelda series, and to Link, as he almost and always has in his inventory, this item is rather important as a tool and weapon throughout all of his adventure, as this article is very nicely detailed and described rather throughly, maybe short, but it's to the point of what it's to be and of it's use in the series with its upgrades. ~ Hylian Historic ~ 02:18, 10 June 2011 (EDT) {{Support}} {{Oppose}} {{Neutral}} {{Negated}}
 * 1) The article is alright, but isn't outstanding like a Featured Article should be. The article somewhat lacks neutrality. Although it may have potential, I think I can quite definitely say that it doesn't belong up there with the Featured Articles yet. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 20:43, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
 * 2) It's a decent enough item-based article, but nothing special or particualrly engaging, and the layout seems kinf of chaotic to me. {{:User:Adam/sig}} 02:32, 28 February 2012 (EST)
 * 3) First thing I noticed was the lack of references, which is something that a featured article must have. --Dany36 14:54, 15 April 2012 (EDT)
 * 1) I think the point of Featured Articles is being missed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what makes an article feature worthy doesn't come from its importance to the series. There are better ones that should be featured *cough* Hyrule Castle *cough* but I'm staying neutral. Zelda4life 23:17, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
 * 1) this article should be the fetured article because not only in almost every game but it's effective against most enimies --Ruchq 17:43, 24 June 2011 (EDT)ruchq
 * Has nothing to do with the content of the article, rather the subject.{{:User:Zenox/sig|~}} 01:42, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

}}

{{hide|header= Zora - Failed April 13, 2013 (expired)|content= This page was refreshing for me. It's an older enemy that got limited exposure in the series. I thought the article was well-fleshed out and in-depth for such unpopular enemy. It has plenty of references, lots of details, a pleasing layout, everything you'd want in an article.{{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 02:33, February 16, 2011 (UTC) {{Support}} {{Oppose}} {{Neutral}}
 * Score: -1
 * Final Date: April 13, 2013
 * 1) Definitely one of the best enemy pages on the site, its got quite a nice layout without losing vital information, and doesn't confuse details across games unlike many other enemy articles. If it has any faults, its that it probably has a few too many images at the moment of writing, but it has a lot of accurate information and is presented in a good manner. Fizzle 14:58, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
 * 1) The article may be well written, but it's lengthy, and the theory section needs to be cut. With a bit of work, it'll be perfect for featuring. {{:User:Darkness/sig}} 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Darkness. It is lengthy, and with some cuts here and there, it would be great! {{:User:Ankazar/sig}} 23:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't really know, it looks pretty messy to me. The page certainly has enough information, and quite a few references, but image usage especially makes the page seem just ... I don't know, umm ... messy is still the best term I can think of. Especially the trivia section. Just a bit of cleaning and it has my vote. {{:User:Zenox/sig|~}} 22:16, 17 February 2011 (EST)
 * 2) As I have already voted "for" Hyrule Castle this month, I'll just say that it is a good article, but I would recommend losing the trivia section if you wish it to have a real chance at being featured. Vyselink
 * 3) The article is well written, and well-sourced. My only gripe is that it is perhaps the longest "common enemy" article, and it is not yet harmonized with the other "common enemy" articles that have, for the most part, taken on a similar layout. Once this is done, I think this'll be prime for featuring. {{:User:Cipriano555/sig}} 00:13, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

{{Negated}} 1. This picture just does not look good. I agree with Zenox. It is really messy. I hate that enemy anyway(Not that my opinion on the enemy itself matters.). TriforceSlash 12:24, 19 April 2011 (EDT) (this is about an article not a picture)'{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 19:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC) {{clear}} }}

{{hide|header= Helmaroc King - Failed April 13, 2013 (expired)|content= This article is full of knowledge, without excess or repeated information. I think it has amazing detail, especially on the Appearances and Strategy section, and just shocked me when I first saw it. Including the figurine template and plenty of resources, I believe this article has the potential to be featured. {{:User:HelmarokKing/sig}} 18:05, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Score: 1
 * Final Date: April 13, 2013

{{Support}} {{Oppose}} {{Neutral}}
 * 1) Agreed, for all the reasons stated in the nomination. --Xizor 18:38, 6 December 2011 (EST)
 * 2) I read this article, and was surprised by the detail it held. When I played Wind Waker, I had no idea this character had this much history in the Zelda series. I thought it was just for that game. This and more I learned from this article. Good nomination, General Tarken. {{:User:Ankazar/sig}} 23:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In my opinion, unless the Helmaroc King makes a few more appearances in future titles, there won't ever be enough content in this article for it to deserve a special mention. It's well-written, to be sure, but there isn't enough variety to make it outstanding. Some articles just aren't meant to become Featured, unless Nintendo decides to give us more to work with! {{:User:Hylian King/sig}}

{{Negated}} I agree for this article to be nominated because, when I first played Wind Waker, the Helmaroc King really struck me as amazing. -- Shyla12323 15:24, 17 December 2012 (EST)
 * Negated because liking the subject is not a valid point to support a nomination.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 01:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see this article featured because of how amazing this boss battle was as well as how impressed I was when I saw this boss for the first time. {{:User:GeneralTarken/sig}} 03:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Same reason as previous. {{:User:Hylian King/sig}} 13:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

}}

{{hide|header= The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (Ishinomori) - Failed June 14, 2014 (expired)|content= This page is quite well done. It's heavily reffed, and it covers the full story of the comic in a professional and exceptional manner without any supposititions or theorizing. I think it would make a nice addition to the featured article collection.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 11:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Score: 3
 * Final Date: June 14, 2014

{{Support}} {{Neutral}}
 * 1) This page is excellently written, very informative, and includes a more than adequate number of references. It's very hard to find an article of this caliber that covers a non-canon topic. It's got my vote. {{:User:Dannyboy601/sig}} 15:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely gotta agree with this. All articles on the site should use this as the standard for good citing and informative content. You can count my vote -- Bwar (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This certainly a well written article, I can't think of any reasons not to feature it. William (Talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Negated}}

}}