Zelda Wiki:Failed Nominations/Article

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

{{hide
 * header= ReDead — Failed March 20, 2008
 * content= The ReDead are classic "zombies" if you will. They have appeared in most games and are probably one of the creepiest creatures I've ever seen. --User:Zeldagirl93@legacy41958063}Zeldagirl93 19:55, 1 March 2008 (EST)


 * 1) I like these enemies for years the redeads are a cool zombies  (Unsigned vote by Lightningtom - see rule 6 above)
 * 2) Me too. These enemys are CREEPY as heck, yet so awesome. --ShadowLink45

}}
 * 1) I'm torn here, because the article is a very good article, but does not meet all the criteria for featured article status (namely, citing no sources). --Ando (Talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) I like the article, but I have to oppose because I HATE these enemies! Their screams freak me out completely! Ika5263 11:36, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) Just not quite good enough yet, I'm afraid. 14:19, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

{{hide
 * header= Gohma — Failed April 8, 2008
 * content= Has been in the zelda series from the beginning so yeah--Lom678 6:54 16 February 2008 (EST)


 * 1) For quite a while when I played Ocarina of Time, Gohma was my favourite boss. That may no longer be the case, but I do believe it deserves to be featured. --Yuvorias 12:48, 19 March 2008 (EST)
 * 2) This is a great article with lots of good info about a classic Zelda boss. --Seraphim 20:16, 23 March 2008 (EST)
 * 3) This article tells you about all the different Gohma's through the games and she is the most recurring boss and one of the coolest at that (OOT's Gohma being my favourite)--Kresh64 16:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) A cool boss that's been featured and changed enough, and the article covers each form pretty well --Emeryn 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Gohma is one crazy boss. I really like her in Twilight Princess and she's been featured in the game since the very beginning. Gohmas' got my vote! --User:Zeldagirl93@legacy41958063}Zeldagirl93 17:13 6 April 2008 (EST)

}}
 * 1) While it is a decent article, it fails to cite sources and is a little sloppy in some places. Adzma 03:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) Like Adzma said, its organization could use work here and there.  I'm fairly certain some of those sections (LA, FSA) could use a little more detail too.  I wouldn't call it bad, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of being featured either. --Guy (T 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) It's okay, yet dosen't cite sources and some of it could use more detail. --David (T : C) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)