RuneScape:Article of the Month/Fifth Age

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search

Fifth Age[edit source]

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. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 00:10, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

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

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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

Support - Per everyone scoot4.pngscooties 01:45, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Definitely one of the more informative, well-written articles on this site. Scythe.png Ravenhol ~ Talk Thieving hood.png 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.

Silver sickle.png Asparagoose

04:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC)