RuneScape:Article of the Month/2010

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.

January

Article of the month: Fifth Age

Dragon Slayer

• Support: 1
• Oppose: 4

Support - I fully believe that the Dragon Slayer article SHOULD be the next AoTM, especially since I just finished adding so many images to it! Besides, DS is probably THE best quest guide next to While Guthix Sleeps, of course it's the best F2P quest guide, and so far there has been only one quest guide that has been featured as an AoTM, and that's WGS. What a great way to end the year, by topping it off with one of RSW's oldest and largest articles to date, and also the first free-to-play quest article! :D --Fruit.Smoothie 03:53, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support why not?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ppi802 (talk). ^{Does not have 50 mainspace edits. _{Evil Yanks} talk 03:07, December 6, 2009 (UTC)}

Oppose - I am sorry, but I can't support. The page is littered with sd images or images taken off the knowledge base, as well as having lots of sections in it not following the quest style guide. I am not saying that it is a bad article, it is a great quest guide; the thing is that there are many articles on the wiki that are near faultless, but this is not one of them. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:14, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see how it doesn't fit the Quest style guide. The images can be taken care of later, and there's only one or two SD pics. It's long, informative, detailed, unique with player perspective, easy-to-read, neat (I hope so, spent a long time cleaning it up). I don't see what's quite wrong with the article? As for the KB pics, I don't see too many. I copied and pasted some of the pictures from our other articles here on the RSW. I'm sure most if not all articles use some sort of variation of the KB as their picture reference. --Fruit.Smoothie 06:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It is the fansite images that is one of the main problems. It is well writen. I would nominate but because of the images I will soon as they are removed. Having those images is illegal (I think ). —Manyman ^(talk) 06:45, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There's fansite images? O.O darn --Fruit.Smoothie 06:49, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more detailed overview:

• The QSG prefers the entire walkthrough to be bullet-pointed.
• From the Quest Style guide: "Image should be right-aligned. However, centre-alignment can be used for some images in the quest pages, such as maps."
• [[:File:Guildmaster.png]], [[:File:Oziach.png]], [[:File:Pic6.png]] and [[:File:Elvargfirebreath.png]] are all standered detail.
• [[:File:Dragon Slayer combined map.png]] shouldn't have a see-through background.
• File:Dragon slayer.jpg is stolen from the Game Guide.
• The random inventory images scattered around the article don't really add information nor visual appear to the article.
• There is currently a move in the community to replace all unneeded animations like [[:File:Runescape-monsters-greendragon.gif]] and replace them with still png versions.

The following are to my own personal taste what is visually appealing. I think that some would disagree with me on these:

• Never, ever use bold or underlines in a quest guide, and only use italics very sparingly. Bold and underlines are very distracting and unprofessional looking to me. Italics should only be used on very important words, such as "use" if you have to remember to use an item.
• I hate long blank spaces for no real reason in texts. Even though there is no rule telling me to do so (or not to do so), I am constantly removing large amounts of enters from articles which stretch out the page while decreasing its visual appeal. The most is two enters that I use, and that is only if something like a table follows.
• Linking in headings. I just don't like it, I feel that it is always better to just place the same word prominatly in the first sentence of the section.

Also, this nomination really should move to its own page called "RuneScape:Article of the Month/Dragon Slayer". _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:40, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I've cleaned up the article a bit, hopefully removed all the underlines, and replaced an SD image. --Iiii I I I 14:34, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It is definitely not good enough - many SD images, game guide images, not well-written. Per all. Oil4 ^Talk 20:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Spaces are automatically inputted into any article whenever you save an edit or add images. It's just RSW's way of preventing overlaps. And the "stolen from the Game Guide" picture you mentioned was taken from an administrator. I think they know what they're doing. Also, I think that Dragon Slayer has the potential to be a better quest article than WGS, simply because it's F2P means that not much length is put into the quest, while WGS has been given much attention as being a "Grandmaster" quest. WGS and DS are very similar articles and quality. I just don't see why DS can't be as good as WGS.

P.S. There's only one SD image, and only one Game Guide image, Oli.--Fruit.Smoothie 23:51, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

All editers are equal Fruit, just becuase Enigma is an admin does not mean that he is right. The game guide image is a game guide image no matter who uploads it. I do wonder why you say that the guide has potential to become as good as While Guthix Sleeps. If you want to it become featured, wouldn't you want it to be at the prime of its life?? I personally wouldn't have supported WGS if it was nominated now anyway for the same reasons as Dragon Slayer. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:07, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Admins know what they're doing though. That's why there are admins in the first place, regardless of the "AEAE" policy. Besides, tell me what's so bad about the article other than the one GG image? And the reason why I said the article has potential is because once it becomes featured (hopefully), more editors will be attracted to it and so it'll be even better. That's the whole point of AoTM. --Fruit.Smoothie 20:11, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're only supposed to nominate an article when it's perfect, as an example for more editors.  C Teng ^talk 02:45, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think Enigma became an administrator after he uploaded the image. Don't know how this helps, but I just thought I'd mention it. --Iiii I I I 00:05, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Currently I don't like the times when it says "Note: blah blah blah". I feel that this can easily can be merged into the article. There are still random sections in bold or underlined. One of the images is in standard detail, with another chat image with a transparent background. The headings are not consistant throughout the page. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:46, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all; does not follow style guide.  C Teng ^talk 12:10, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:27, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What do you all think of the article now? Fruit.Smoothie

With the exception of some random bold sentences still, it now looks the same as every other high quality quest article. I like how the trivia truely is trivia since it can't be placed in the article easily. I still caný support it though since I highly doubt that a quest guide will ever actually be AOTM worthy in my eyes. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 04:49, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - well, I'm not seeing all these SD images, but I only skimmed over the comments; they may be removed. It seems okay to me, but it's no Lord Drakan. I'm unsure still; none of this months nominees seem all that good to be honest.

Asparagoose

04:31, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming updates

The Upcoming updates article cites every quote, and lists many confirmed upcoming updates. Any new reader will find interest in the RuneScape Wiki when they see a list of confirmed upcoming RuneScape updates on the Main Page.

Support

• Support as nominator.  C Teng ^talk 00:52, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
• Support While not a "great" article visually and such, I was amazed at all the sourced material listed here. ‎Atlandy 18:05, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
• Support It seems to be the definitive source on all non-speculation future updates. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:51, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Am having second thoughts about it after reading the opposition. While I don't think that I shouldn't be featured, I am not sure if it should be featured. Basically, I am on the fence. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 02:41, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
• Support I read this page all the time and love to get a view of what will be new on Runescape. this page should definitely be on the featured articles! --Mr Zaros357 18:34, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Does not meet voter criteria.--Degenret01 17:23, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems to be well organized, and well thought out. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured yet! --WCreary 21:53, December 10, 2009 (UTC) Does not meet voter criteria.--Degenret01 17:24, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Support Visually, could do better with how it looks, it is teeming with headers and subheadings etc... BUT, the information here is very nice, and everything is sourced. Bowler225 03:10, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Support It has lot's of great info for players and it's presented well --Onehandsolo 08:26, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's a very clear and concise article, not to mention well put together and very informative! 20:02, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Does not meet voter criteria.  C Teng ^talk 02:37, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Sourced references are EZ to obtain, since they're just all from the same Q&A thread. Besides, upcoming updates HAVE to cite quotes, or else they can't be upcoming. Not that hard and good, TBH. I think Dragon Slayer is much better in terms of everything. If we really want to nominate something when all that occurred was copy-paste, then I could copy and paste how to make a Fruit Smoothie, and that would garner me an instant win for AoTM, now wouldn't it? --Fruit.Smoothie 23:59, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Although it lists many of the upcoming updates, there are a few problems. The other day I created a few articles for some of those headlines, and was able to find A LOT more information than what is listed on that section (mainly from in-game research, a compilement of a few articles and other websites). If most of those sections are missing information as much as the ones I investigated were, that page is very incomplete. I find this should be more of a list, linking to respective pages, rather than an article. That is if this discussion passes. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 12:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Example: Upcoming_updates#Elemental_Workshop_III compared to Elemental Workshop III  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicken7 (talk) on 12:15, December 8, 2009 (UTC).

Oppose - No. This article isn't about anything in RuneScape, just some decent guesses. I think the Aotm should always be something actually in RuneScape, I.E. WGS. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:30, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes it has lots of information, and its pretty neat stuff, it just doesn't fit a real article style.--Degenret01 07:03, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not saying it's not interesting and cited well. But the information it's talking about is very dynamic. What about when new hints are released? What happens when the ones discussed in the articles actually make it into the game? How can we determine if an idea has been scrapped completely? And will the article be maintained as well in the future? I just don't think an article about something that changes so frequently should be featured. Morian Smith 01:16, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Age

I just finished reading this and thought "Damn, thats a good article". It is extremely informative, interesting, well laid out and organized. It follows our style guide very well, and for a few thousand bonus points it doesn't have a trivia section. That alone bumps it way up the awesome article scale. Sure it doesn't have a lot of pictures, but I think the ones it has do it justice.--Degenret01 17:06, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Supports - 9
• Oppose - 0

Support as nominator .--Degenret01 17:06, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Even though I like Dragon Slayer better, anything is better than Upcoming updates. --Fruit.Smoothie 23:26, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - If you didn't nominate it, I probably would have. Great article. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:10, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Fruit.Smothie. This is actual RuneScape history, much better than this page... --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It is very well-written. Oil4 ^Talk 19:12, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

SupportI like it the editors have worked hard, good job! Supawilko 19:20, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Written like a section of a history textbook , editors put some vigorous effort in it to be nominated. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 04:01, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone scooties 01:45, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Definitely one of the more informative, well-written articles on this site. Ravenhol ~ Talk 05:29, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Well now, this one is tricky. On the one hand, it is a good length, well-written and of course informative, but the layout irks me slightly. There's too many == of these headings == for my liking, makes the article and contents page look untidy. If some were replaced by === these ===, I might be convinced. As it happens I'm unsure.

Asparagoose

04:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wilderness Survival Guide

This would be a good article for new players , because many have unanswered questions about the wilderness and what to watch out for. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 01:37, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

• Support:

• Oppose: 1

Comment - The fact that it says it's incomplete is off putting. If I see that removed legitimately, then I would most likely support. scooties 01:44, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It's just a list of small tips for when you're in the wild. Not worth AotM status imo. Oil4 ^Talk 13:25, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a guide. not an explanation. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 20:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

February

Article of the month: Lord Daquarius

Lord Daquarius

I personally think this article is very well written, clearly doccumenting the life of Lord Daquarius as the Lord of the Kinshra, his rise to power, personality and even his involvement in the Betrayal at Falador novel. The article is much better constructed than the opposing White knights and Sir Amik Varze articles, and even the associated Kinshra article surpasses these, and seeing as no one has suggested any articles this month, I thought I might as well put one forward. Gr33nday345 00:56, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Current Votes

• Support: 7
• Oppose:
• Neutral:

Support

• As Nominator Gr33nday345 00:56, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Just needs a few more images. --Iiii I I I 01:01, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
• It needs a full body shot of him and possibly some images that make the page look aesthetically good, but apart from that it is a great article. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:03, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
• It is a great article and I was intending to nominate it myself but I was beaten to it. --Cake753 15:04, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
• The artice is great for something that doesn't appear in game! Masta Woodsman ^Talk 20:08, January 16, 2010 (UTC)Superplayer08

• Comment - Err, he does appear ingame O_o Gr33nday345 13:56, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Well written, nice pictures. --Nup^(T) 10:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely a quality article.--Degenret01 06:05, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

March

Article of the month: Mahjarrat

Nomad

Current Votes:

• Support: 4
• Oppose: 2
• Neutral: 0

This is a very well-written article, which I believe several users will find useful. It is very detailed, and has sufficient information to help defeat the Nomad. Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 ^Talk 03:43, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support

Support - As nominator. Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 ^Talk 03:43, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As I read it, this article does not have the word "you" (not counting quotes) in it unlike other articles. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 03:49, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Nomad is teh sick. Superplayer08^{Talk HS Log} 03:47, February 6, 2010 (UTC)superplayer08

Support- This character is simply amazing. His armour is well-designed, he's extremely tough (and insane), and he has near-god-like abilities. Support. Babyvegeta93 03:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Support- Nomad ftw! Oh, and the article is well written too. --  Wingcap 19:05, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Its trivia section is way too long and full of childish writings, very unprofessional and unworthy of a wiki AOTM. Its like a 4th grader random sentence jumble fest. Seriously, we can do better.--Degenret01 04:12, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Most of that trivia should be merged into the main part of the article in the logical section. People seem to think that trivia means "say all the information in bullet point", not "facts which didn't logically fit in any other section". _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:05, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The trivia section has been cleaned up now.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not Lvl 3 (talk).

Oppose - It's just a small guide on how to kill him and a big load of trivia. While it is written well and has some very good images, it is not featured article-worthy. Oil4 ^Talk 20:49, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen and Oli. It is an unprofessional article that talks more about how to beat him in combat than about his background, actions, etc. ----Liquid^Talk 03:40, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Mahjarrat

Current Votes:

• Support: 9
• Oppose: 2
• Neutral: 0

Support

• Support - As nominator.--Degenret01 03:35, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - If only there were more images, though I suppose there isn't a wide variety of them for that article. None-the-less a great article! scooties 03:37, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I would say a better article than my nomination. Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 ^Talk 03:59, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Support-Clearly laid out. Maybe more pics? -- Karimabuseer ^Talk  22:43, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
• SupportThis article is very well written and has an incredible amount of information regarding the Mahjarrat. It is well organized, follows the style guide, and makes for a heck of a good read.—Haloolah123 (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.
• Support - I wasn't much of a Mahjarrat fan until after the curse of arrav. I wanted to catch up a bit of history about the mahjarrat, and this article was well-written and clear. Go Zaros, Boo Zamorak! Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 07:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - nice article, but more pics please? --Murd3rlogist^{Talk• Contribs •} Sign here 11:43, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Really insightful and interesting...more pictures would be nice but not totally necessary --Zachilicous 03:35, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting, laid out nicely, I see no problem with the pictures. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:27, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A very knowledjable article, an enticing read, well written, and (on a more personal note) because the Mahjarrat are some of my favorite content types. The Mahjarrat are powerful, malevolent, and enviable. This article outlines that with incredible accuracy and intellegence. I support this article's nomination. Icecold531 22:50, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - It's basically just a list of small facts about each Mahjarrat. It also includes pretty much speculation. But it is very well-written. Oil4 ^Talk 19:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article lacks images. Although this is most likely due to the fact that images cannot be found on such a topic, without them the article looks incomplete. The bottom half (listing the tidbits of information about various Mahjarrat) is, like Oli said, a list of small and unnoteworthy facts. ----Liquid^Talk 03:38, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Stealing Creation

• Support: 3
• Neutral: 1
• Oppose: 2

This is a very nice and informal article on Stealing Creation, with strategies, an explination, trivia, and more.~~Signed,Bulbear4444~~ 01:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support

~~Signed,Bulbear4444~~ 01:30, February 15, 2010 (UTC) As Nom.

Joeytje50 09:32, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

--Zorak plorak 19:20, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Guys, please say why you support. Oil4 ^Talk 20:30, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Layout looks awkward, I don't see anything that stands out and makes it AOTM-worthy. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Cleanup template says enough. Oil4 ^Talk 20:31, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

It's very well thought out, but the layout is very scrambled, and the guide part is seriously not the best. I can easily make my team win every game using what i do. If the guide part could be updated it'd be nice, and maybe some paragraph editing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiePleaseNoob (talk).

April

Article of the month: Elvarg

Tutorial Island

I wanted to find a Morian quality page that wasn't made by Morian. This was what I found. I think it is a great page, with everything logically placed around the page to give an overall view of Tutorial island and its entire history. It also uses lots of cites which I like. It has a citation needed at one point, though I am not sure how it would be possible to cite proof for this. There are a lot of pictures on the page, though that is not necessarily a bad thing since it visually shows what players can no longer experience. It was nominated once before where it got 80% supports.

Support - As nominator. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:31, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support/comment - I can confirm the citation needed thing - do I count as a citation? Anyways, nice article about something new players will never have the chance to experience. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  18:11, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It is good.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmenz (talk) on 16:46, March 18, 2010.

Support -Per Telos. And I think you can count as a source ;) As long as I can too anyways. Halo^Talk 23:52, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - Sure, it's nice, but there's way too much trivia. Some of that trivia belongs in the main article. Oil4 ^Talk 13:21, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - New players will learn that Tutorial Island was once a tutorial for new players. Spine^Talk 19:25, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Elvarg

I believe that this article has lots of information. It also has pictures and tactics to defeat it. (Classic image!!) --Coolnesse 01:22, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As nom. --Coolnesse 18:39, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I did some work on the History and Gender aspects of this article. I'm surprised it hasn't been featured before.
  Asparagoose
  14:13, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Great quality article! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Elvarg is ftp's only boss, and deserves recignition Muziak 01:14, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great page. Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 ^Talk 16:55, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Coolnesse.   Zap0i ^Talk  20:25, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Very well-written, I love the "history" and "gender confusion" sections. Images are pretty good too. Oil4 ^Talk 13:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks great. Stelercus 13:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Looks nice, very well written --Farxodor^Talk 18:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

May

Article of the month: Lumbridge

Lumbridge

This article is written superbly and extensively, with lots of images and detail on things as simple as spawns! Also, see RuneScape:Article of the Month/Lumbridge/1st nomination.

Discussion

• Support - As nom. --Coolnesse 02:17, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely deserves AOTM status, a very well written, structured and long article with loads of pictures to illustrate points and keep any readers interested. Gr33nday345 15:38, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Support- Very well written. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 18:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, nice layout, and seems like a fine article for AOTM. Ryan PM 20:42, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, nicely organized, tons of pictures. I support. --Raian the Fallen 22:42, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Nice organization, with equal pictures and words. Murd3rlogist^{Talk• Contribs •} Sign here 10:52, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great article! Lots of picetures too google at. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:35, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I really like it, it's full of neat/organized information and colorful pictures, it would make a great article of the month. Lil Diriz 77 ^Talk 07:00, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It's really neat and overall a clean article. Lil cloud 9 00:42, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Runecrafting

Contains much detail on how to runecraft and also has many pictures on what the runes look like, where the altar locations are, etc. I think it would be a good candidate. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 18:49, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support- As nominator. Stormsaw1 ^Talk _{Sign Highscores} 18:52, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral/Not yet - It still has some flaws that need to be worked out, but still becoming of a featured article. Stelercus 18:59, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but it feels kinda jerky. Some sections flow one into another but then it seems to get jumbled and no progressive sense> The pictures are also pretty big creating lag.--Degenret01 19:02, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'll admit I didn't even read through the content, the layout just looks ugly. Its a ton of infoboxes, tables, and thumb-nailed images smashed together. No way its AOTM worthy looking like that. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 19:06, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - History section! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 02:22, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - Per Stelercus. --Coolnesse 22:52, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Support- I just did a once over on the entire article (which took me 2 days worth of free time as 'unregistered user' [i'm lazy that way]) and I believe i made some much needed changes, and revised and expanded to article considerably. (Although i have horrible spelling, which i'm not entirely sure i caught all of) The article should be re-reviewed as i made rather sweeping changes to some areas, and, as a person above sighted, improved 'the flow of sections into one another.' I personally believe the charts are a bonus; as the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. ~Qjack 15:41, apr 28, 2010 (PST)

June

Article of the month: General Graardor

Arposandra

This article has lots of information and pictures. It is very extensive, and details are quite specific.

• Support - As nom. --Coolnesse 01:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think it's that great. We don't know much about Arposandra, and to me it seems to be just a bunch of synopsises of quests...not that great an article. The first image I saw was one on a line of tortoises in battle, where the relevance to Arposandra was not explained in the caption. This and the fact the paragraphs are quite short, it's not that interesting... I don't think It's suitable. ile:Runecrafter hat.png Helm360 ^Talk_hiscore 20:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I mean it dosn't even have a map for it yet. Sentra246 03:14, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - It's lacking references, could use more images, and has a messy infobox. And if it is really a future event (it has Template:Future on it), then it should not be featured until it is released.  C Teng ^talk 14:37, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Per C Teng.   Zap0i ^Talk  14:15, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's really not that impressive. It's a decent article, but nothing extraordinary. Halo^Talk 22:32, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

2009 Christmas event

This page has an extensive History section, which is fully cited, a full lead, an easy-to-understand Storyline section, and a good trivia section. The article is filled with good-quality images. I think enough time has passed for this holiday article to be featured on the main page.  C Teng ^talk 15:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.  C Teng ^talk 15:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. willwill Talk 17:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Murd3rlogist^{Talk• Contribs •} Sign here 11:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The only thing that I dislike about the article is the [[2009 Christmas event/Walkthrough|Walkthrough split-off]]. --Coolnesse 01:05, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose. --Coolnesse 22:10, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is the [[2009 Christmas event/Walkthrough|Split-off]] that annoys me. --Coolnesse 22:10, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

  The fact that it is a split-off, or the quality of the split-off?  C Teng ^talk 14:39, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

  The fact that it is a split-off. --Coolnesse 22:58, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

• Medium support - Per others. The main article is great. The split-off walkthrough is fine with me, but it's kind of messy and disorganized, filled with images. Otherwise, it's a wonderful article overall. You did a great job redoing it, C Teng Lil Diriz 77 ^Talk 04:01, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, the walkthrough was pretty bad (where did "The Red Flame Pattern" come from?). I've made it a little less messy now, thanks.  C Teng ^talk 20:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Support- I'm gonna be boring and say "Per Nominator".  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helm360 (talk).
• Support - Very naaice.... but I fixed teh NPOV stuff. Ajraddatz _Talk 20:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The only thing I don't like is the blank space at the beginning.   Zap0i ^Talk  14:17, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Very well written, nice pictures, overall nice article. Halo^Talk 22:33, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per Halo Twig Talk 22:08, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

General Graardor

This, has got to be one of the most detailed, if not the most detailed, monster article on the wikia. It has extensive amounts of historical context and information, and also contains guides on how to effectively defeat him as a monster. The trivia section is well written and the drop logs and tables are 100% accurate to my current knowledge. It clearly has the ability to be an AOTM. - Rhys ^Talk 15:54, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As the nom Rhys ^Talk 15:54, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I agree it is a great article. Sentra246 03:15, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting and informative. Foop46 ^{Talk HS} User has less than the 50 required edits. Halo^Talk 23:02, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think this page sets a standard that all of the Wiki's monster articles should try to reach. Morian Smith 17:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The article is very detailed, and is quite the 'quintessential hip young fella'. --Coolnesse 22:57, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Reasonably well-written article. While the solo section should be shortened a bit, overall it is nicely done. Halo^Talk 23:00, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Very well written although the last half needs a wee bit of clean up for capital letter and a few other things, nothing major. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 07:06, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great article.   Zap0i ^Talk  14:14, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Very, very well writen. BTW, I had forgotten my password for a while, and remade my account. My old account was User:Fangride. Anyway, I totally support this article and agree it deserves a spot on the main page. The Mistress of Poison 21:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC) User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 22:26, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I love this article. It's full of information and pictures. It's interesting. Lil Diriz 77 ^Talk 05:33, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great informtaion, good pictures. Only problem I have is that currently, some links are broken.-- Swampflare 00:37, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I can confirm that those links were not like that during the nomination period. Someone had obviously edited them in good faith and changed them. Ill revert them now. Rhys ^Talk 12:23, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Great information and pictures. Very highly detailed strategy and equipment advisement, as well as other info. Boxian77 02:19, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
• I would like to add that I'm not a member but now know more about the General than most members. I support this article 102% User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 12:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Filled with great history and lore, but the strategy guide is equally impressive. ʞooɔ 17:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Karamja

This artcle is well written, all of its images are HD, has all info needed, etc. CMunz 00:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe you would want to nominate this for June 2010... Just saying. --Coolnesse 19:49, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

July

Article of the month: God Wars Dungeon

God Wars Dungeon

1st nomination

This is probably one of the most detailed, picture-filled, nice-to-look-at articles on the wiki. It has tons of guides on it too!

Discussion

• Support - As nom. --Coolnesse 22:13, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It's pretty decent overall. Halo^Talk 12:38, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything you'd need to/want to know and more.   Zap0i ^Talk  00:34, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Love the Godwars dungeon, maybe posting it will make me go there :) Pa1rick 04:16, June 4, 2010 (UTC) , June 3, 2010 User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 17:19, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Has everything needed to be a feature article, contains a massive amount of info. YES! Zaros shall return.... 06:40, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Support - What can I say, theres a lot of details, guidelines, pictures, it just makes me want to go there right now! -- Spine^Talk 16:55, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This is the most well writen page I have EVER seen on the RuneScape Wiki.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saintsrule58 (talk). User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 17:19, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. Sentra246 02:38, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Support-really good article, and I see not only me likes it, but many others as well. -- Unknown 22:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This article is one of the most used articles of all the articles on the Runescape Wiki. Not nominating it is a crime! According to me that is... MrZaros357 11:28, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Very full, detailed article. Prgmbeta 20:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great guide article! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 08:28, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Amazing Article!!! _{Sign Me}WcFrenzzy^{Talk Page} 00:25, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

August

Due to neither nominated article meting decent quality standards there is NO featured article for August 2010.--Degenret01 04:39, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape

Who said we couldn't make RuneScape itself featured? This article has lots of detail, picture and info about it!

Discussion

• Strong Support - As nominator. --Coolnesse 22:24, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
• Support Strong Oppose (see below) - It is a very well written article. Halo^Talk 22:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Per Yanks. That's why it's well written Halo^Talk 00:09, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

• Support- It seems to be nicely done. TyA 22:29, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Yanks. If we're not the ones who wrote it, it shouldn't be featured. 20:56, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I find it enjoyable... full of nubs though... and nicely written. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 11:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. Sentra246 11:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per the evil being. Sentra246 10:55, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty awesome article. Fully referenced, too =o Lil Diriz 77 ^Talk 22:43, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Such a great article that goes into such great detail Rhys ^Talk 03:01, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Surprised it was never nominated in the past. 222 ^talk 10:16, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

The images are the only thing which stops me from opposing. 222 ^talk 08:15, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

• Insanely strong oppose - A majority of that page was not created by RuneScape Wiki editors, but taken from an old revision of wikipedia's RuneScape page. The only difference is that their version of the page is much more refined then ours. (Compare RuneScape#Reception to wikipedia:RuneScape#Reception or RuneScape#Community to wikipedia:RuneScape#Community for obvious examples). I also wonder the legal aspects of placing some of the page on the front page, as that section would no longer be under template:wikipedia. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:33, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Like we say, RuneScape Wiki is not an encyclopedia. You can't simply define it as copied from Wikipedia.--Coolnesse 00:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yanks brings up a good reason  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 00:05, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Yanks. ajr 00:09, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Very well written. I wonder why it has never been featured on the Main Page for the past 5 years? Spine^Talk 21:55, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Use it every time I go Dungeoneering. Very unique article that properly defines a skill. --Djstupido_{# Edits} 04:47, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Smeging Wiki wont log me on Firefox. And Lil stole what i said Twig Talk 09:56, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Very, very, very, Strong Oppose - I think Yanks is super-right, and that's why I say NO! It's wrong. Jeffwang16 00:44, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Yanks. Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}  talk} 17:59, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Evil. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 18:03, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- Per YanksRed Dog31 23:45, July 19, 2010 (UTC) User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 23:53, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Yanks. If it was not mostly taken from a different source I don't think it should be featured as one of the best. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100613011903/runescape/images/e/e8/White_party_hat.PNG SaradominO_o ^Talk_Highscoreshttp://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091030212706/runescape/images/b/b4/Santa_hat.PNG 21:02, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Yanks. It shouldn't be featured if it isn't written by people who contribute to rs wiki. Macahurix ^{Talk HS} User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 19:13, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Take a look at Wikipedia's RuneScape article. Now, look back at our's. As you can see, we could use a lot of improvement - and even Wikipedia's article isn't a good one.  C Teng ^talk 15:52, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dungeoneering

A lot of editors have spent a lot of time covering different aspects of this new skill.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 00:07, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - as nom  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 00:09, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - Now that everything is outdated.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 05:42, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Trivia and gallery need to be cleaned up, there are too many subpages, overall I don't like it. --Coolnesse 00:53, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Coolnesse. Spine^Talk 21:57, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose/Comment - The trivia needs to be cleaned up for sure. The whole pages does for that matter. But the gallery is a wikia-wide problem. It should be fixed in the near future from what I understand. Halo^Talk 22:11, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
• Supah Strong Support! - very well written, and each section has it's own link for more info and tells some base info as well Thespaceer 16:56, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet - There are updates coming very soon, so it will become messy (it already is). I'd support after some of the article is cleaned up, and after the update comes out.   Zap0i ^Talk  15:16, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - it is well written but im a little biased because i added and cleaned it up alot :) Ulmuchiha 00:42, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet - It is brilliantly written, but some random hunch ^{I'm not joking} tells me not to support, yet. 222 ^talk 11:21, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet - There is about to be an update to Dungeoneering which means it will probably not be features article quality until a few weeks after the Dung 2 update Sentra246 11:23, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet - With the new update, we should spend time working on that section until next month and clean up other sections. But yes, I agree this can be a featured article. 71.186.58.64 15:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)6440371.186.58.64 15:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC) User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 16:35, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Per Coolnesse, also jagex just expanded the skill with a major update so now parts of this article are inaccurate, it wasn't ready even before the update it will be even messier post this update. Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}  talk} 18:02, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose-It's needs cleaning up and with this update it dosen't fit it yet Bbbbweb 19:27, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The skill just got a major update and its still new and much is to be learned. The page isn't ready just yet. Invincibility ^{|Talk| |Edit Count|} 07:24, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A second large update to the skill will be coming out rather soon, and we dont know what could change. The page isnt ready yet. Amascut ^{Ia Morte} 13:14, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. More information will come and the page could read better. It's simply not as easy to read as the other articles. Prgmbeta 04:42, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Super Strong Huge Support + Comments - It's good guide to everyone that's new to dungeoneering. Subpages are for better transparency, but galleries should be cleaned up. I believe it's better to have more subpages so you don't have to look for specific things in article itself Macahurix ^{Talk HS} User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 19:13, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Slayer

1st nomination

I believe that this article has improved from its last nomination by far. It has detailed pictures, a great walkthrough and trivia and is an overall top article.

Discussion

Strong support - As nominator. --Coolnesse 03:11, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Very detailed and great pictures through the page, most of the reasons it was opposed last time have been fixed and changed. Sentra246 09:18, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's well written, lots of pictures. Halo^Talk 16:16, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. Spine^Talk 16:43, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - it is very detailed has great pictures and provides an excellent walkthruogh Jchaplin2 (Talk) 19:42, August 4, 2010 (UTC) User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 22:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well written article, and one of the best quest articles IMO. ajr 03:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Sentra. 222 ^talk 10:22, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like it. It's well drawn out. Lil Diriz 77 ^Talk 08:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Above.   Wingcap 18:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC) User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 18:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)