Zelda Wiki:Featured Article Nomination/Archive

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Previously Featured Articles

Stalfos (July 7, 2007)
ZeldaInformer (August 1, 2007)
Lake Hylia (October 2, 2007)
Zant (October 16, 2007)
Dark Link (November 5, 2007)
Link (December 15, 2007)
Princess Zelda (January 28, 2008)
Link's Crossbow Training (February 13, 2008)
Dodongo (February 15, 2008)
Moblin (February 18, 2008)
Majora's Mask (Boss) (March 8, 2008)
Pedestal of Time (April 6, 2008)
Triforce (May 17, 2008)
Midna (June 12, 2008)
Master Sword (June 17, 2008)
Gerudo (July 21, 2008)
Darknut (August 30, 2008)
Golden Goddesses (October 15, 2008)
Veran (November 24, 2008)
Goron (March 12, 2009)

{{hide|header=Warping (April 30, 2009)|content= Finally a lengthy page not concerning characters or games. Informative and concise enough to be a resource for all of the series applicable titles. Interesting to read and get the whole picture of the function as gaming progressed. As a bonus, it could serve as an example of what other articles spanning throughout the series could be.Axiomist (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support
  1. I'm for it. It' got a nice amount of images, very lengthy in size, nicely laid out, etc. I think this would make a great featured article. Alter  {T C B H } 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. The article is well written and very detailed. Refreshing, considering it is not concerning characters or games. Totally feature worthy.User:Mandi/sig 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. The article is written well, decent length, and has plenty of details. Considering it isn't concerning any of the characters or games, this is very good. Kybyrian (T C) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Decent length, good grammar usage, and very good referencing. Regardless of not being a character or place it is deserving of being featured in it's own right. --Nathan 06:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. A few months ago this article was scrappily written and badly laid out, however the work that has been put into it by some dedicated editors has made it great. The images are relevant and good quality, the content it well written and everything is covered. Definitely featured material. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 12:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. This article is written extremely well with few/no mistakes. It's unique in being that it isn't just a normal enemy/character/dungeon/game/etc., rather it describes how warping is used throughout the series. Shnappy 07:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. The article has more than enough info! It is well written and provides a complete explanation of all varieties of warping in every game. EzloSpirit 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. I think it is a good detailed read and it has good grammar and punctuation--Link6767 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  9. The article is well written with lots of detail and great pictures. It is worthy of being a featured article. - ShellShocker 12:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  10. The author worked hard on it. It's a pretty full article. Make it happen. Noble Wrot 04:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments


{{hide|header=Sacred Realm (February 14, 2010)|content=

Although it was mostly written by one single member, this page has become an article to be proud of. Excellent writing skills detailing every single appearance of the Sacred Realm, well-placed pictures that go along with the section involved, and it's got sources to back up almost every single statement. Truly an outstanding article. Dany36 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support
  1. This page is worthy of being featured because though it has been mostly brought up to date by one individual, there are many who laid the groundwork for that up scaling. It also has become quite a page to behold as opposed to its original version, which is great for a page about such an important piece of Zelda Lore. -- Xizor 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. I am pleased with how it turned out, and it looks very nice with the references in place. -- Link87 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. This is exactly the caliber of article that ought to be featured. The read never seemed redundant, references are exactly where they need to be, the layout with the images is even impressive. Congrats to the writers for such an amazing feat, it's truly become a valuable resource for LoZ fans seeking info on the Sacred Realm. Axiomist (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. I'll throw my chips on this one. It reads nicely, isn't repetitive, and has good images/layout. It does seem to be a little biased when it comes to the timeline, but it may just be me. Anyway, good page. Alter  {T C B H } 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Yeah. This page is well written, organized nicely, not to mention more than enough references.User:Mandi/sig 06:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. This one is lengthy, not repetitive, informative, and whatever theories contained on the page are backed up with plenty of references. Considering it's one of the more important pieces of Zelda lore, it's remarkable.Ganondorfdude11 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Is well written, well set out, images are great quality, and everything is thoroughly referenced. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 04:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  8. The article has superior flow and readability, with precisely-cited references, for a Zelda region that still hasn't been properly explored in the games! User:Cipriano 119/sig 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  9. This article has really seen a lot of overhaul and fixing from what I've seen in its history. We can't deny how great it's become, and I think it would be a wondrous addition to the featured lineup. Very informative to the readers, and a great long article to show off ;) But in all seriousness, I give this my full support.Justin(Talk) 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  10. Vote number ten! As stated above, the article is lengthy, a "good read", and just down right impeccable. This is the kind of article ZW needs, and should be a good role model for what other articles should be like. Also, it shows editors what we mean by "quality", and should give other wikis a "run for their money!" Austin (NIWA Operative) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. I can't really support this one. It is way too story like. It's wording is too overly elaborate, it's way too dramatized, and it still seems like it is too wordy. It needs some serious work before it should be featured.User:Matt/sig 18:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments

The article is really well written, especially for being mostly a single users work. However, something that annoys me, and it annoys me really overall at ZW, is the quotes and references. As I mentioned here: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Talk:Sacred_Realm I feel that quotes that are referenced in the article should simply be in the article, not at the bottom creating more work for the reader. The article references them many times. The best example I can give is when The Great Deku Tree says blah blah... your interpreting for the reader what the GDT said instead of just quoting me what he said. It would cut out usless sentences of explaining it and replace it with quotes. As a reader, it's annoying you are making me do extra work and interpreting quotes for me. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but that's how all articles are on the wiki, that's not anything unique. And all it takes is a simple click of the mouse to go straight to the quote, that's why we put the link in the text. And as far as interpreting it, that's for people who may not understand the actual quote or may misunderstand its meaning. There's really no way to change those things, those are given for any article on the entire wiki. We're actually making less work for readers I would have thought by helping them understand what the quotes mean and by not making a mess of the main text by putting them in the references section where they are a simple mouse-click away. Link87 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware that's how all articles are done, and I find it too annoying. This place isn't for that discussion - I suggest taking it to that pages talk page where I brought it up. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This is about the article's merit though, not about precedents. I respect that you don't like the reference precedent, but that has nothing to do with this article's merit. Link87 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a featured article needs to necessarily be 100% perfect. It can have some work that might still need to be done, but there is nothing objectively wrong with this page at all. --Xizor 23:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no Xizor. To me if were going to feature something, it should be as close to perfect as it can be, don't you agree? You wont "feature" a section of your site unless it is close to perfection, right? Same case as I view articles. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 09:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No article, or anything for that matter, is going to be 100% perfect Nathan. This is about as close as it gets, and to expect it to be absolutely perfect is unreasonable. Link87 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Bomb (March 13, 2010)

{{hide|header=Sage (May 9, 2010)|content=


TP Sage Render.png

With the work of the Zelda Wiki community, this article has become a well written, and informative page. Quite an accomplishment to everyone who contributed.User:Mandi/sig 04:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote.png Support
  1. It seems to me to be rather well organized. And it has a very appealing overall layout. And it certainly fits the other criteria.User:Matt/sig 23:37, March 28, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I would vote for this one because it goes more in depth in Sages than Rauru's page does. --Skermefaten 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Skermefaten
  3. Very good article, articulate, and an excellent example of what subject directories could be with the links to the main article and well written summaries on each topic. All images are relevant, clear and useful. And a solid mix of references to boot. Axiomist (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Very organized, and quite easily read. It flows well, and the pictures couldn't be placed onscreen any better or more relevantly. →Kochjr 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. Well written and organized, it really delves into all of the Sages and it more than qualifies for featured status.--Kresh64 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. I think it was very nice and showed more info.--Link6767 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. I think this was a good article, written well and good info. A very good article. Well written.User:Supermann61 11:48 May 8, 2009
  8. I think sages are a pretty cool guy. Eh seals Ganon and doesn't afraid of anything. - S.B.44 [T] 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  9. I think that it is well written, along with a lot of great information. Nice job. User: Psychoboo13
  10. I like it. Has a lot of good information and images. - AtrumLevis  (My Talk Page) (My Contributions) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.png Opposition
  1. I really can't give this my approval. What is there is well written, but there are, as has been noted in the neutral comments, some clearly missing aspects to it. While what we have is really good, it's not the full and complete picture. I simply can't ignore that and be neutral, or support it. The article is not complete, and thus I gotta say no. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.png Neutral Comments
  • I've spotted what I consider to be quite a large omission in this article; there's barely any mention of Princess Zelda's role as the crucial Seventh Sage (or Maiden) in ALttP, OoT and FSA. I'd suggest that this needs to be rectified, or at least discussed here, before this becomes Featured. Adam [ talk ] 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UT
  • The current content is great - however it is lacking as Adam mentions. It is up to featured standard but needs more I feel. I feel there needs to be more pictures; namely Fado, Medli, Makar and Laruto, with some more details on them. Furthermore, an example of this lacking is in the Twilight Princess section, which no where mentions them residing in the Arbiter's Ground's Mirror Chamber. Adam is right that it needs more 'Zelda' and may be worth covering the Sage-Oocca relationship potential, under theory of course.There is also lots of blank space. {{:User:Melchizedek1866/sig 07:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Adam and Mel, the current content and organization is great, but perhaps a bit more information on Zelda's role would definitely sway me to vote for the page. Link87 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Negated.png Negated/Retracted Votes
  • The article needs some more references and quotes from the Japanese versions of the games to highlight version discrepancies between the sages' roles. First, they were not Princess Zelda's tutors in the Japanese version of TP.Ganondorfdude11 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) - Voted negated as it is not a valid opposition - it's more neutral. Just suggests more things to add to the article, of which, all the mentioned has been added.User:Melchizedek1866/sig 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Fishing (November 30, 2010)
Hyrule Castle (August 29, 2011)
Four Sword (21 December, 2011)
Kakariko Village (July 12, 2012)
Ikana Kingdom (December 12, 2012)
Ghirahim (May 26, 2013)