Archive for new format featured articles
- 1 Passed
- 2 Failed
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.
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.09:18, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support - it is very detailed has great pictures and provides an excellent walkthruogh User has less than 50 mainspace edits -- 19:42, August 4, 2010 (UTC)Coolnesse 22:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I like it. It's well drawn out.08:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per Above. User has less than 50 mainspace edits -- 18:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)Coolnesse 18:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I did write most of this article, so there may a certain amount of bias in my nomination. Now, that aside, I do truly believe this article is worthy of recieving featured status. I think it portrays the amount of depth our articles can contain even in respect to relatively minor subjects. Typically the Keldagrim south-west mine is thought of as an extremely bare, unimportant area. However, I feel the article examines the area's historical background and gameplay elements on a level that is very in-depth but also wholly justified. It's not long for the sake of it. It also contains a variety of images, as well as a few good references, which I think are very underused. I completely stand by this article's quality, and I beleive that it sets a high standard for all articles here on the RuneScape Wiki.
Support - As nominator.19:57, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Here's something I can support. It has everything a fantastic article needs, solid references, a good spread of high-quality images and in-depth information. Why was there still a stub template at the bottom? 222 talk 00:18, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Well-written and could pass of as an article about a place that REALLY exists. Full support Serenity9786 00:22, September 5, 2010 (UTC) September 4, 2010
Support - Like no other Mine article. --Coolnesse 02:21, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Well written and lots of pictures.02:26, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - When I saw this, I was going to oppose immediately because I didn't believe that a mine could have any long/high quality article. However, after reading the article, I have to say it's one of the best I've read on the entire wiki. I'm quite impressed that you could write such a lengthy yet descriptive and engaging article on this subject. It has my full support. --LiquidTalk 02:27, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Support I was totally "A mine article got nominated? What?" And then I read it. Incredibly in depth and informative.--Degenret01 14:25, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Closed Passed.--08:51, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
This article is fully cited, has an extensive history section, has a storyline section instead of a jumbled, obsolete strategy guide, and has more than a dozen quality images. It should be the basis on which holiday event articles should be written. C Teng talk 01:46, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. C Teng talk 01:47, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good. 01:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - The Storyline is better than the strategy guide. Krayfish 01:56, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support, look well done. ajr 01:59, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support looks like an article worthy of being showcased. 02:25, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support - imho, could be improved, but what the heck. It is one of the finest articles on the wiki. --クールネシトーク 21:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Pretty good article. 16:30, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Nice article. ɳex undique 20:47, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
NeutralSupport - Comments:
- Lead: "Snowballs returned in this event, but, unlike the ones from a snow globe, they could not be kept." They returned from what?
- Info box: The common name of the quest is 2009 Christmas event, right? I suggest the name at the top of the info box be changed to reflect the common one.
- Explain what the picture in the info box is supposed to be.
- Storyline: "The partygoers revealed to players that the cupboards... " Change the revealed to reveal, and check the storyline very carefully for other cases such as this.
- "player talk to the Queen of Snow, who is also Santa Claus's wife." That can go in the above sentence instead like this: "The partygoers revealed to players that the cupboards are entrances to the Land of Snow, where the Queen of Snow, Santa Claus's wife, was throwing a Christmas party and feast for all citizens of RuneScape." Sounds better to me.
- "rewards them with a scarf for the imp and a very large candy cane for the player." How about this: "rewards the imp with a scarf and the player with a candy cane."
- Rewards: Describe what the list is for. For example: "The rewards for the event are listed below."
- The description of the candy cane reward is far too detailed. Shorten it.
- Music: "Music tracks unlocked:" Explain further.
- History: Development: Remove the bit about the candy cane. This is about the 2009 Christmas event, not the 2008 one.
- History: Announcements: "The 2009 Christmas event was the first event to have a blog written about it." Cite this or remove.
- "Mod Edam said that new characters would be released with the event, but Jack Frost and snow imps, characters seen in a previous Christmas event, would have small cameos." Why not 2008 Christmas event instead of previous Christmas event?
- Why are players speculations on the RuneScape Forums talked about? I suggest removing all of it as it doesn't add much to the article at all.
- "Many users on the RuneScape Forums commented on the delay of the release of the event. The 2006, 2007, and 2008 Christmas events were all released on either the 16th or the 18th of December, but the 2009 Christmas event was released on the 21st. The 2009 Christmas event is the latest released Christmas event since 2004." Why are players comments on the forums notable? In addition, the last sentence needs to be clarified.
- "A few days later, on 24 December, Mark Gerhard and Andrew Gower gave Christmas wishes to the RuneScape community in a news post." What does that have to do with the Christmas event?
- History: Glitch: "and then quickly switched to another weapon (the most popular one being a godsword)," Cite that the godsword was the most popular one or remove.
This list is not completely exhaustive, there are still other problems in it I've chose not to mention because this wiki isn't Wikipedia. I may have further comments later. Smithing 16:06, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Yay! Actual comments! I've done pretty much everything you've said; just a couple things:
- Info box: From what I've seen, it's always the official name, not the common one, that goes at the top of the infobox. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
- Glitch: I assumed that since the godsword was the item mentioned by Mod Edam in the FAQ that that could count as the citation. C Teng talk 14:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- It looks pretty good.
- Info box: It doesn't really matter, I just find it makes more sense if the title of the article matches the title on the top of the info box.
- Development: Why is the bit about the candy cane still left?
- Glitch: Nowhere in the citation does it really suggest that the godsword is the most popular.
- Additional comments: The Criticism and Awards section should not be part of the history section, but rather a Reception section.
- Criticism: Can you also find some positive comments (from a reliable source)?
- References: I notice only reference 7 has the archived from the original mentioned, although others that were archived do not. Make the references consistent. Smithing 21:20, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- And one more thing, I still think this sentence can be clarified further: "The 2009 Christmas event had the latest release of any Christmas event since 2004." Smithing 21:57, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Candy cane: Clarified so that the paragraph is more relevant to the 2009 event than the 2008 one.
- Godsword: Ahh, I was thinking of the wrong citation Fixed. Not very important anyway.
- Positive comments: Aside from the RuneScape Awards, you're not gonna find any. The FAQ only addressed complaints about the event, and that's really the only reliable source left.
- Reference 7: That'a a problem with the template, not the article itself. You might want to ask Gaz to fix it; it shouldn't be too tricky.
- Late release: Okay yeah, I suck at wording. If you can think of a good way to clarify that annoying sentence then go ahead, because I can't seem to be able to. C Teng talk 03:07, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Made some changes. I think it's good enough to be featured now. Smithing 21:48, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- It looks pretty good.
- Support - Good article. Orbwiki107 16:51, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- support That C Teng is one smart wikian. You list problems, he fixes them instead of opposing. Good work C man.--Degenret01 03:38, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - It's a lot better than I expected. Matt (t) 06:46, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Closed - The article will be featured. 08:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
This is one of those surprisingly detailed, informative, lengthy, well written historical type articles. It details the history if this item and its' effect on the current state of Gielinor. It is a clean article and is one of our better works. (I was actually led to this by one of our contest entrants going into detail about how good it was.)--Degenret01 06:21, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Surprisingly in-depth and detailed. Matt (t) 09:34, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Comments: I made a few minor changes to the article.
- Do a copyedit of the whole article.
- Lead: Include some history and background in the lead section.
- "is a quest item used in the quest Temple of Ikov". The word "quest" is in the sentence twice, and makes it sound a little repetitive. I'd recommend removing the one before the quest name from the lead.
- What's the [sic] doing after the item's name?
- "You" may not be the most appropriate word to use. Consider replacing or removing it.
- Background and history: "the temple" is in the second paragraph of the section four times.
- 3rd paragraph: "And" is not the best way to start the sentence.
- 5th paragraph: "including the most other Mahjarrat". Don't understand what is meant by that. The word "And" is used to start a sentence in the paragraph as well.
- 8th paragraph: The "you" is not the most appropriate word to use there.
- I'd recommend rewriting other parts of this section as well.
- Current role in the game: 3rd paragraph: Add a citation for the quote, per RS:SG/C.
- "attain near godhood". What is meant by that?
- 4th paragraph: Instead of just posting the link, consider adding additional parameters, in case of link rot.
- Cite the "This was probably Lucien." part, or remove it.
- Clarify the final sentence of the paragraph. The use of the word "you" may not be appropriate in the sentence as well.
- Trivia: Cite the "looked no different than a normal staff" part, or remove it. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:15, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I would support it even without changes. It really doesn't matter to me if everything is done completely perfectly. --クールネシトーク 09:32, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Extremely detailed and informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- Weak support - It's detailed alright, but I just wonder if there's extra stuff to add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhys Jones (talk) on 15:54, September 3, 2011 (UTC).
- Wow, was I drunk when I typed that? So grammatically embarrassing... :( 16:40, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Really well written and has a great layout. Nothing much that can be improved. 02:36, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - well written, and interesting Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 00:11, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
This article really stuck out at me, it is really interesting and detailed read, and has a lot of well supported history of the tribe, as well as serveral decent pictures, Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 05:03, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Extensive, detailed, tons of pictures. Essentially per nom. --クールネシトーク 14:32, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Very well written and informative 15:11, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Well written, informative, and interesting. 15:29, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - *nods* Matt (t)
- Support - Looks good. 06:23, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Quite simply awe inspiring 15:53, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
ReviewingComment - It looks visually appealing, I'll tell you that. It will take me some time to review it. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:56, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Brilliantly written. Comments:
- 'Their name, in the ancient goblin language, translates to "Goblins of the Strong Spears."' Source, please. I don't know the ancient goblin language, and I'm pretty many others don't as well.
- What's with the unnecessary capitalization of parts of the section/sub-section titles? Someone needs to take a look at that.
- Do a copy edit of the article. I've already noticed some references separated from a sentence by a space.
- Return of Bandos and End of H.A.M. Conflicts Why not mention Zanik's crossbow, rather than crossbow? Look for other things like that in the article.
- Biology and Appearance This section needs some references, because someone's outlook on appearance may be different from another's. Smithing (talk | contribs) 16:23, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I just read the entire page, and I doubt there is a better article on the wiki. Amazingly written, as well as having a great layout. 03:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - It is very well written well, and interesting. Hair 11:24, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
[[RuneScape:Featured articles/archive50#Nex|first nom]]
I am re-nominating Nex because I think the article improved quite a lot since its previous nomination, and because it is well written and has a great history section. It also has a good tactics section.
- Support - Why not?, i dont think i have seen such a detailed boss article in a long time, and its defitnetly alot better than suppa chuppa's version:P Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 21:56, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Brilliant article, although a bit devoid of images. I also seriously support that vandalised version to be our featured article the whole day during April Fools. Replace the "el goodo stuff" by apple juice though for our younger viewers under 18; basically everyone.17:42, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Heck ya I support! What the heck would be better than featuring the article of the now-and-forever unsurpassed master of combat in Runescape? Scaper12123 14:02, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Good article, nothing wrong with it that I can see.09:28, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
A short and sweet, classic quest guide. It's highly informative, and contains a lot of nice images. A pleasant read overall, and it would be good to see the first quest ever released as one of our featured articles. It also has a very comprehensive section on its development and release, which very few guides do, along with a thoughtful paragraph regarding its reception and sequel, and a high number of references. Although short, it's one of our better quest guides, and deserves to be featured. Ronan Talk 17:18, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all, it looks even better now. Why did you remove the links to the ingredients, though? Ronan Talk 16:32, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Support Short and sweet - I like it!Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 18:53, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Yep. Matt (t) 08:58, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Cute. Let's hope that in the 200th quest the BIBOMANCER RETURNS!!! He who derives his power from... DRINKS! 17:28, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - 11 references, interwiki's, good article! Orthanc107 16:28, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - As nominator. Can't believe I forgot that. o.o Ronan Talk 21:40, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Good detail, isn't just a giant list, got some good development history. Only thing wrong with it that I can see is that picture of the Gowers near the bottom 03:13, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, what exactly is wrong with the picture? The quality of it? Smithing (talk | contribs) 03:58, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
One of our best, if not the best, quest guides in my opinion. It is long and very detailed, well written, has plenty of images (if only all quests were like that) and overall is a nice read, whether you have not, have or are doing the quest. It is also new content and putting it on the main page will give players a good idea of the wiki's quality. ("Wow, is that guide already this good? These guys are sure great.") To prove that, while I was taking images for the quest, a player actually approached me and asked what I was doing and when I said that I was making images for the wiki and planning to do a cleanup on the quest guide, he sincerely thanked me for it and thanked the wiki for the great guides (and other articles/images) which have always helped him. A bit off-topic, but you need to know.
- Support - (wasn't that obvious?) As nominator. 06:28, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - This is the true result of collaboration. It's brilliant. --クールネシトーク 13:02, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not yet, It's still full of grammatical and factual errors, we don't know the drakan fight inside out yet, so we can't say for sure the max hits, the cache glitch still exists which makes some of the pictures look ugly, there's way too much trivia which blabbles on about worthless non-trivial stuff... I think we need to give it a month or so until we nominate it. 15:55, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- There may be some overlooked typos, but I did not witness any severe grammatical errors or factual errors. Can you give an example? 17:37, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - It is a very detailed guide considering how long the quest has been in the game for. the quest is lots of fun too. Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 17:40, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - The last part of the article seems very disorganized, and most of the article is written in short, simple sentences. Honestly not the kind of writing that should be featured. Suppa chuppa 17:45, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Re-arranged the battle part, I was planning to anyway. Had some trouble with the collapsible table though... help. 18:33, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - It's a great quest, and a very well written guide in my opinion. Ff7hb 18:35, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - First, this quest was released four days ago and it is being edited pretty frequently, so it is unstable. It is incomplete and needs more info, especially on development and release. I'd suggest looking at the Cook's Assistant section and summarizing info from the [[The Branches of Darkmeyer/Pre-release|pre-release]] article. The quality of writing could also use some improvement. For example, "the quest" sounds really redundant near the end of the lead section. In addition, what is the point of having the official description, when you can and already have summarized it yourself in a more encyclopedic manner? The trivia section could use some cleanup, and includes some non-notable info and speculation. The references are bare URL's, and need to be more descriptive. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - It is a good article, but I agree with Smithing. New articles shouldn't be featured articles as they are constantly edited and usually change quite a lot, as this one still will.03:35, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Changed to Support - Good article now that the newness is gone. 23:51, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Hell no - Do the supporters even understand what a good article is? While it does have good info, the content is a bit mixed, and it is in no way at all a superior piece of writing. No offense, but for the most part it could have been written by 5th graders. We want superior writing for featured articles. That is the whole point. And too much trivia needs to be fixed up. --Degenret01 22:59, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I uhm... don't go to school where you come from... How old would a 5th grader exactly be...? =/
06:39, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
- 10/11. Suppa chuppa 06:40, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. Consider be a bit older. 06:41, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
- 10/11. Suppa chuppa 06:40, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Very well written in a short matter of time, decent images by me, Fswe1 and Battleben, very good walk-thru. My friends in-game have even complimented on how well-written the article is. -- SpineTalk 03:41, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - It is a fantastic article. Adam Savage 00:24, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - While it is a very good article, i think it could be much better. Giving the fight with vanescula a seperate section, seperating the gaining status section between tiers and such would improve it hugely. After that is taken care of i would strongly support though.
- Support - Now that its cleaner i support this :D. Its a great article. 17:06, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Support- I love that quest and i love the article just as well 12:31, September 11, 2011
- Support - The quest is suitibly epic, and there was a lot of build up and antisipation to Branches of Darkmyre. I think it would be something nice to put on the front page. Scaper12123 20:22, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but you seem to be supporting this because of the quality of the quest, not the quality of the article. Featured articles are meant to be the best articles of the wiki. Smithing (talk | contribs) 22:48, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral - While yes, it is a good article, I'm gonna have to go with Smithing on this one and say that FA is for the best we have to offer, not just well done ones.--Touhou FTW 04:25, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - The "newness" of the article is now gone and since there have been days the article remained untouched at all, I kindly ask those that used the now dead argument "too new and edited too frequently" to reconsider. 12:28, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support- This is a very well written article with a great amount of accurate information. It has all the details of the game, history, and monsters. Has great files to go with the article. A great article overall. Hair 01:12, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Support One of our best activity articles for sure, amazingly detailed readWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 01:21, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Conditional support - First split it so that the monsters get their own articles and the race of Pests as well. I tried that once, but my computer crashed after an hour of writing.17:02, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
'Support, Great article overall . --26 Vetrax 99 04:59, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote this article a while back to be more encyclopedic. It hasn't changed much since then, and I feel that it's still a very well-written article with relevant images, proper spelling and grammar, and lots of very useful information about the shield. And look, I even managed to completely avoid use of "the player"! --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Very neat and informative article. Images are well-placed.16:57, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I think the gif of the dragonfire shield being charged should have an increased fps before the page becomes a featured article. Soilder198 19:52, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Just read through the article and it's very good, found everything I needed to know.04:26, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Support - SureWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 02:06, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see how in-depth and detailed this article is. This article covers all areas of Draynor and the surrounding area, goes into great detail and has lots of informative pictures.
Support - I leikWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 02:57, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Even better after my cleanup. Great article.15:40, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I especially like the pictures. Soilder198 06:26, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Nice piece, helped me when I was a nub
Oil4 I made this 17:14, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I find it annoying how there are many sections with 3 lines, and how each one has a rather large image aligned to the right. It makes part of the article seem crowded. ɳex undique 04:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
I find that this page is like a great big tourist guide about the Duel Arena, giving loads of information, pictures, trivia, etc. Purely awesome.
- Weak Support - As nominator. --Coolnesse 19:52, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Although I disagree that there are not enough pictures, 222's other points are acceptable. --Coolnesse 02:19, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, but there are not enough pictures - only a small grouping at the start to middle of the article. Also, there is an incomplete section (Tournaments) which doesn't have many internal links either. Finally, the article isn't that well presented, with extra spacings occasionally as well as the odd out-of-place image. 222 talk 06:31, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Great article, just some minor flaws that can easily be fixed. Runeman54 19:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC)User has less than 50 mainspace edits --Coolnesse 20:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per 222. 02:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
Closed/Failed--04:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Too early. September hasn't ended yet. --Coolnesse 12:26, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
11:21, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Well set out, lots of useful images to help describe stuff. Not many articles better than this.10:28, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Support and comment - It is pretty good. Tidy and informative. But I hope you realize that by nomming it so late in the month means it probably won't get featured. Candidates need 7 supporters to be featured. It will be a miracle if you can get 5 more. Matt (t) 02:19, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
- We don't go by months any more. ʞooɔ 08:41, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Changed to Oppose - I h8 long boring lists... JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 15:36, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
Very strong oppose - Check the requirements out again, especially "well written". No offense, but the opening paragraph is no where up to the quality we like on featured articles. That paragraph is all sentence fragments and tidbits, it lacks any real substance. The rest of the article bounces between well written and more sentence fragments. Lots of pictures, but maybe almost too many. When 2/3 of the article is a list of locations it is informative, but again, not what we like in a well written featured article.--Degenret01 10:55, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think this article is great, well written, has a quite nice balance of information and images, a nice order of the sections... Just very nice article. And it might be a little short, but it has a much better layout, and much more order and balance than most articles on the wiki. All other articles should take the Monastery article as an example imo. Compliments to the creators of the article.
Oppose Just too boring, no real impact.--Degenret01 09:51, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
Excellently written. Should be featured.
Support - Detailed and good pictures.04:11, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
- Four does not meet the standard of seven.--Degenret01 09:22, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think this article is well written, has a good history section and good trivia. I think it is well written, and could already be featured on the main page, despite the age of the article.
Oppose - Currently, although the article is comprehensive, the strategy section is missing. --Flajuram 11:49, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - The article is good, yes, but it is still missing some lore. This lore includes Sliske's role in reawakening Nex with the aid of Ashuelot Reis (the ghost banker in the Ancient Prison). You can find this out by speaking to Ashuelot in the Ancient Prison, or by going to this thread on the Runescape Forums: 16-17-920-62156003 "The Sliske/Nex Conspiracy".--Lord Drakan 00:16, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - As much as I love that epic pic *cough*, there is no strategy guide whatsoever (naming the attacks does not count as a strategy guide) and it's missing a lot of lore, like the above person said. If you speak to Ashuelot Reis you'll realize how much lore it's missing. I just don't think it's ready yet. (: 20:33, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - This article is comprehensive for a new article, but it is no where near the standards of other featured articles. Nex, has a very short History section, which is mainly based on the news article Jagex released. Other commenters have also pointed out Nex's inadequate strategy section, right now the best strategy there is, is a link to a Youtube video. Finally, the article does not have enough images equally spread around the article, many parts are just plain text, while there are cluttered sections with too many images. Give Nex a few months, and I'm sure it will be developed to a much higher standard. 222 talk 00:30, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - Lots of information and its well written but could do with better special attack pics than just the ones that come from either a mass or youtube video, as for a strategy guide well that could easily be made from the rs forums theres plenty of guides by now so until those are resolved ill stay neutral i dont think those points are enough to oppose it, unlike those who will oppose for lack of a strategy guide, and not enough to support it either03:33, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - As much as I like the article since I helped write some of the material, the article is far from complete. There is still a lack of a thorough strategy guide on how to effectively deal with each of the forms. Also, some effects of Nex's attacks are still unknown. With that said, I don't believe the article is quite ready now.12:37, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Per above. The article is not close to being complete. Parts are still unwritten, and the article is way too lacking for it to be featured. Suppa chuppa 15:13, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
This page is really well written, detailed and has a good amount of good pictures. It is definatly one of our best articles and deserves to be featured. It only failed the first nomination because of a lack of votes.
Support - As nominator.03:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - There are too many problems for this article to become featured. E.g., the last sentence of the lead is grammatically incorrect; unnecessary capitalization of items, such as skull sceptre and combat bracelet; cabbage port is not dismaburgated; controversial material is not cited, for example: "Contrary to popular belief, both Edgeville and Gunnarsgrunn are towns within Misthalin, rather than within Asgarnia." Can the article also be expanded to include notable activities or events that occur in the area? See the RuneScape:Style guide and RuneScape:Style guide/References and citations. This is a good article, however, but just doesn't pass standards set by this wiki. Smithing 21:01, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the capital errors anywhere on the page, but I removed the speculation. Also, I don't think that statement needs to be cited. People can look on the world map included above. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 07:52, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
- That's because I took care of the problem myself. And the example problem I mentioned was already taken care of. I still oppose because it appears the image you are referring to is outdated, and the article requires expansion (it needs to include more information on some of the sites, such as in Varrock and Lumbridge [which are featured articles] and more info in the quests section [where the quests can be started]) but the article has definitely improved significantly since I first commented (I'm a tough reviewer, as you may have noticed). I'll support if the problems noted are taken care of. Smithing 08:27, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
"Articles will be listed no less than two weeks and no more than one month."--Henneyj 22:43, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should remove the time limit. You can see this project is not commented on very much, and this way it's not consensus but more silence. Maybe the wiki does agree this should be featured, but they just don't comment on it. The fact they don't comment doesn't mean they (dis)agree, so noms should last longer.. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 07:52, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
- The time limit is pointless in my opinion; I've seen a discussion on a on Wikipedia last seven months regarding a featured article before it was closed. Smithing 08:27, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - It has good parts, but there are some big flaws as well. I see many grammatical errors and a few horrendously bad sentences (such as the first sentence of the Allies and Enemies section, which I am going to fix immediately). Also, several of the sections seem to be underdeveloped or out-of-place, including the Allies and Enemies section. They just pale in comparison to the History of Misthalin, which is written nicely with many details.19:25, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - The time limit has passed, and this has not met the mandatory seven supports for a determination of consensus. Even if it had seven supports, there would still be no consensus to feature this article. --LiquidTalk 23:34, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
This good article. Three references. Orbwiki107 17:02, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
This good article. Please vote! Orbwiki107 13:34, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's unorganized, looks like a rather bad walkthrough,
and it has too much unnecessary trivia.ɳex undique 21:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I've cleaned most of the trivia, but the rest of the article sill sucks. ɳex undique 20:52, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - The guide isn't detailed enough for my liking. Matt (t) 06:49, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - References are minimal, there is no information on the actual history and release of the event, the walkthrough section is messy and obsolete, and there's still plenty of trivi-ugh. Not at all what a model holiday even page should be like. C Teng talk 22:10, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - This is one of the things I dislike about guides: long lists. We should reword all of this kind of list guides to be a description of the quest, and what should be done. This is definetely not featured article worthy to me. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 02:45, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Closed - Article will not be featured. --LiquidTalk 16:41, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
This is good article, much references. Orbwiki107 16:55, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Much references, long article, good article. Please vote! Orbwiki107 13:47, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just from scanning through it, I can see that it definitely requires expansion (iPhone games section etc.), there are bare URL's and it requires copy editing. Smithing 21:33, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - What Smithing said. Matt (t) 06:50, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Last time this was proposed to be a featured article Evil Yanks pointed out that this article is almost directly copied from an old revision of the page on wikipedia. The article has not had any major changes in the past year, so still has the same problems it did last time it was nominated. 11:05, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - If we would just get the current version from Wikipedia, then reword it for our wiki, we would probably be up-to-date again and this article would look a lot better. (then we gotta keep it up-to-date too of course) Then we could start considering this article to be featured. Not for now though. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 02:47, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Closed - This article will not be featured. --LiquidTalk 16:43, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
Good article. Please vote! Orbwiki107 14:18, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't even take this one seriously. Half of the damn article is trivia, and the actual content is minute.--Degenret01 14:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Degen. And the actual content in the article is so small, it's nothing. The subject sucks too. ɳex undique 21:12, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - When I saw this article was nominated, I expected a lot more than two paragraphs and a small trivia section. Matt (t) 06:44, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is only one image on this article, and about half of it is trivi-ugh. C Teng talk 22:13, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Content from the lead needs to be organized in sections, and most of the article is trivia. Smithing 01:08, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - No wai. 09:12, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Trivia, infobox, oh wait there's some text too - no thanks. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 02:48, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - It would be nice if you could provide a reason. Smithing (talk | contribs) 21:15, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I think this should be nominated because it plays a small role in runescape and yet this article has alot of info
--MoonsOfNeptune 22:27, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Slight Support - For a tool mainly used in a single skill, It has quite a lot of meat on it. 22:42, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - There's nothing that makes it stand out from a lot of other articles we have. It has an okay (maybe good, at most) amount of info on it, but not too much. I definitely wouldn't call this one of the best articles on this wiki. ɳex undique 23:26, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - has a list of fish you can catch with it, a incomplete list of locations that offer harpoon spots, and shop stock. there really isnt much more to add to the article, but it defently isnt the best the wiki has to offer, and the subject sucks, and wont likely attract many readers. Wer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 07:16, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poorly written section on where to use the harpoon, and the stock section seems a bit like somebody's just compiled a list of fishing shops with nearby banks. 02:59, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - I just re-wrote small parts of it, but it is still no where near one of our best articles (and wasn't before I modified it either). 07:56, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nope sorry. --クールネシトークトーク 11:52, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
I think this article should be featured because it has a lot of info for a small role in runescape
- Oppose - Small lead, a few sentences of maintenance, a chart, a list, a few sentences on the dragon pick, and then bad trivia. It shouldn't be noted as one of our best articles. In fact, it probably needs help. ɳex undique 23:28, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - there really isnt anything in here thats featured worthy, ins manly a chart with alot of aweful triviaWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 07:11, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - I've tidied it up quite a bit, but it's not good enough to become a featured article. That huge table in the middle of the page just makes it rather ugly 03:11, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - Compare it to Keldagrim south-west mine, an even smaller role in RuneScape. 06:20, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - How can this be considered a good article? 11:03, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - --クールネシトークトーク 11:52, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
The article is very well written, informative, and contains an extensive amount of history, but is not to long to lose the attention of most readers. It is because of this that i think it would be a wonderful article to feature on the front page.
- Support - As nomWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 14:57, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think it's too short to be a featured article. It has a good history, but it needs more. Featured articles are supposed to be the best on the wiki. ɳex undique 15:03, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Slight support - Not all of our featured articles have to be a pain to look at when you see how long they are. Ronan Talk 14:20, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that they do. But the only thing that distinguishes this article from most other NPCs is a history section. ɳex undique 17:44, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, Rsa, I didn't mean that sarcastically. However I genuinely feel that the article's length doesn't take from its possibilities. It should be quality, not quantity. The article is well structured and comprehensive, with nice images to boot. I thought it was a pleasant and informative read all round. Ronan Talk 20:32, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that they do. But the only thing that distinguishes this article from most other NPCs is a history section. ɳex undique 17:44, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - History is just about all this article has. I don't quite like the fighting tips section. --LiquidTalk 08:10, October 30, 2011 (UTC)