RuneScape:Article of the Month/Fire cape
An article in the RuneScape Wiki does not necessarily have to be long in order to be good. As long as the essentials are done in great quality, such as adequate description of its subject, appropriate image usage, and abundant connections such as links, templates, and categories, any article should be considerable for Featured Article.
Therefore, I nominate the Fire cape article for demonstrating many of this. It has described what was necessary regarding a Fire cape, has many different images to represent its subject, and contains several connections with links to relevant subjects. It contains templates that would lead to other articles and goes into more specific details about the subject, categories that groups it with other similar objects, and even a disambiguation in case a user is interested in a different article of a similar name. It basically has done nearly everything an Item article would be expected to have.
This article has demonstrated many correct ways to implement the Wiki's features and style, and thus deserves attention given to it. A nice variety of users have edited on the article rather than a single or a select few users rushing it to attempt to obtain its featured status, making it truly one of the articles that can be declared a Wiki article that can be further improved by any user. Furthermore, if it succeeds, it would be the first Item-based article to be featured on the Wikia, a record worth to note itself. Tarikochi 06:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral/Oppose - It's got good info and images/animations, but it seems a bit.....messy.
I'll give it another couple of days to think about it.Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - This article is a mess, and generally hard to look at. It's neither well versed nor visually appealing. I personally find the over-abundance of animations tacky. One animation can be helpful...four animations is overkill, unprofessional, requires too much bandwidth, and is simply showing off. I agree that short articles should be eligible for FA, but this is probably the furthest from FA quality that I've ever seen. Endasil (Talk) @ 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - No. It's sloppy and has too many needless animations. Cool Spy0 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - A bit better now that the 40 animations are gone; but the article is still a joke. You only nominated it because you have one. Ice 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)