Zelda Wiki

Want to contribute to this wiki?
Sign up for an account, and get started!

Come join the Zelda Wiki community Discord server!

READ MORE

Zelda Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Zelda Wiki
Zelda Wiki
11,666
pages
in: Featured Content Voting

Zelda Wiki:Featured Article Nomination

Revision as of 20:40, 22 November 2009 by Noble Wrot@legacy41959850 (talk | contribs)
Sign in to edit

Where to start.
Getting
Involved

Zelda Wiki's discussion center
Discussion
Center

Image request and support center.
Image
Requests

Zelda Wiki's book of knowledge and regulations.
Help
Guide


Here, users can nominate and vote for Zelda Wiki's next featured article. Any article worthy of being featured exemplifies the Wiki's quality standards, and goes above and beyond what is expected in a normal encyclopedia entry. Featured articles should:

  1. Have exceptionally fluid American English grammar and spelling.
  2. Be lengthy, yet detailed.
  3. Be well organized (as in subdivisions).
  4. Cite sources, and cite them properly.
  5. Be properly categorized.
  6. Contain the most up-to-date information possible.
  7. Have no template requesting improvement, merging, deletion, or any template that may in some way state the article is not of excellent quality. In this respect, there should be no duplicate of the nominated article, nor should the article be a duplicate of another page.
  8. NOT be copied from Wikipedia, or from any site that does not run the Wiki, under any circumstances!

For help on the correct format used to add nominations or votes, see the Featured Content Help.

Rules:
Scoring and conditions for passing a nomination:

  1. All nominations start with an initial score of zero.
  2. A supporting vote adds 1 to the score.
  3. An opposing vote subtracts 1 from the score.
  4. An article needs to achieve a score of +5 within 4 months of the nomination date in order to be featured.
  5. A nomination automatically fails if the score drops to -3.

Voting:

  1. You may only vote once on any particular article.
  2. You may not vote on any articles you have nominated.
  3. Votes should be added beneath the relevant header (either support or opposition), with # at the beginning of the line. The current score must be updated to reflect this new vote.
  4. Supporting votes should include a brief message stating why the article should be featured.
  5. Opposing votes must specify how the article fails to meet one or more of the qualifying criteria described above.
  6. All votes MUST be signed using ~~~~ If you do not sign, your vote WILL NOT be counted!


Current nominations

Sage

File:Sage.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 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. User:Axiomist/sig 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
Symbol oppose vote 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 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. User:Adam/sig 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:Melchizedek/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 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:Melchizedek/sig 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Twinrova

File:Twinrova.png

Matt pointed this one out to me recently, and now that it's complete with full references, I think it definitely meets (or exceeds) all the requirements. A very well put together article about one of my favourite bosses of OOT! User:Adam/sig 18:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote Support
  1. Well, the article is well written and organized, and has lots of references. It looks interesting enough to be featured. User:RupeeLord/sig 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. This is another one that was basically a stub when I got here. Now it is so much bigger, better. And with cool pictures we didn't have we back when. A very good article indeed. Plenty of references now. That's good. Must be featured.User:Matt/sig 20:01, May 2, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Very well written, very well laid out, and plenty of references. It is very well sized and has great pictures. This one is a must-feature in my opinion. Shnappy 15:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. It is well written and has good pictures. It has references and is looks very interesting. It is 'featured worthy'. Well done to everyone who wrote it. - ShellShocker 09:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. I vote this gets up. There doesn't seem to be an issue about the section and it gives a lot of info about Twinrova. - AtrumLevis  (My Talk Page) (My Contributions) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Well organized, has enough references. Needs to be featured.User:Mandi/sig 06:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote Opposition


Symbol neutral vote Neutral Comments
  1. I think it is a GOOD passage but cloud need more detail about them...--Link6767 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I think the page needs just a little bit more work before becoming featured, although it's well on its way. A little bit more info for MM and OoX will earn my vote. —Alter  {T C B H } 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. I feel some of the things are a little... off. Take the Majora's Mask section. It's rather small, and a little bit misguided. Maybe I am being a stickler with these featured articles, but if a article is to be featured it should be pretty much 100% true to the facts. They played a pretty big role in MM, yet are barely mentioned in passing. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Negated Negated/Retracted Votes

Twinrova is sooooo easy. I hate her! Gammadiologist 20:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Vote negated due to opposition guidelines at the top of the pageUser:Mandi/sig 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Realm

File:Triforce.jpg

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 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. User:Axiomist/sig 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:Melchizedek/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)
Symbol oppose vote Opposition
Symbol neutral vote 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)

Tingle

TRR Tingle 2

This article is very lengthy and well-written, and has plenty of images, all of which are nicely placed. There are also several sources. I think this would make a great featured article, seeing as how many people have contributed to (and vandalized) it. —Alter  {T C B H } 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote Support


Symbol oppose vote Opposition
  1. Nothing against Tingle, I love the guy. I think the article overall just isn't as informative as it could be. There is very little information on the Tingle's own games, which to me isn't acceptable even though they never made it stateside. Not only that, I can't help but feel certain areas of the article are underwritten, and it may be do to the general distaste for the character (that is, people not really wanting to work on this article as much as others). I may need to give this piece some personal loving, but I just don't think it's ready. Maybe next month. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote Neutral Comments

Fishing

File:Tpfishing.jpg

One notable aspect of Zelda Wiki.org is our method of placing similar content from varying games into fewer articles. Fishing is an article representing that, our inclusion of references, relevant images, cross referencing related pages, up-to-date info, and despite having brief how-to sections; the article never seems dominated by with a guidish style. Fishing is certainly worthy of being the standard for all other mini-game articles to follow. User:Axiomist/sig 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote Support
  1. I'll go for it. It's been edited by many users, is very detailed, and has a lot of good info without being excessive. --Xizor 07:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. This article is well written and has sufficient references. Deserving of being featured.User:Mandi/sig 22:35, October 30, 2009 (UTC) 22:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote Opposition
Symbol neutral vote Neutral Comments
  • First off, I want to support this, because I think the article's great. But I'm still concerned about the status of this article alongside others (mainly Fishing Hole). I know others have shared these concerns, which have mainly been discussed here and here. The two key suggestions were either to create a Fishing template which could be used on various different article (e.g. Fish, Fishing Rod, Fisherman) to unite the information, or to merge Fishing with Fishing Hole. Personally, I think either or both would be good, because as it stands I'm not entirely happy with the way the information on the subject of Fishing is distributed. I've held back on adding Merge templates for the moemn, as that would disqualify this article... User:Adam/sig 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm with Adam. It's a very good article, but it's a little messy when it comes to related pages. There may be some merging that needs to be done first. —Alter  {T C B H } 15:35, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
  • Both articles have been extensively reworked since the last comments on those talk pages, I'll make the case to merge the Fishing Rod content into Fishing, and get that template going. I think a sidequest article would help diversify our featured articles, so they don't look like Featured Characters :p User:Axiomist/sig 02:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheikah

File:Impa2.png

The Sheikah article is one of the crown jewels of the Zelda Wiki. Not only is almost every sentence properly referenced, the article's flow is suave and it covers all its bases - from theories to in-game detail. The enticing placement of pictures (and there are a good bunch of them), and the article's easy-to-follow structure make it an role model for all other race articles. This article is fantastic! User:Cipriano 119/sig 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Vote Support
  1. We put in a lot of time and effort on it, but it did turn out very nice in the end. We also had contributions from several editors, and that made the project all the more fruitful. Link87 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. I might be a bit biased because I worked on this one, but it is a very high-quality article. Ganondorfdude11 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Looks good to me. The writing style actually made the page interesting. I like the big words here and there. +1 —Alter  {T C B H } 00:27, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote Opposition
Symbol neutral vote Neutral Comments
  1. I must say Alter, that's the most supportive sounding opposition vote I've ever seen. I suggest you either reword it to make workable opposing points, or consider if you placed that in the right section ;) User:Axiomist/sig 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Fixed it for him. ;) Link87 01:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. Heh heh... I meant to do that... PUT IT BACK!!! lol Good catch. I mighta killed that nomination or something. —Alter  {T C B H } 02:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Bomb

File:Bomb.png

Not so long ago, this article was an embarrassment to Zelda Wiki. It was nothing but an unorganized mess. Axiomist asked me one day if I could improve it, so I've worked hard to take what I know about bombs, and what others knew that I did not, and I built this article up to meet the standards for a featured article. It is informative, to the point, has appropriate images, and has tons of references. I took it pretty seriously. I believe that this article, along with any others about themes and subjects that have endured throughout the Zelda series, is very important to the Wiki, and it would be nice to see others in the shape it's in now. I've had plenty of help putting it together, so it's mostly rock solid. The enemy lists at the bottom of the page are a little arrangement I came up with and Axiomist organized to be tidier. Lists like these will show up on other item pages, so consider this a ground-breaker.

Support Vote Support
Symbol oppose vote Opposition
Symbol neutral vote Neutral Comments

Featured Articles

The featured articles are listed in this format:

  • Name of Article (Date it became featured)

Articles that have been disqualified are in the format:

  • Name of Article (Date it became featured) (Date disqualified)

  • Zant (October 16, 2007)
  • Link (December 15, 2007)
  • Veran (November 24, 2008)

Voting Archive

(Failed Nominations)

Community content is available under GNU Free Documentation License unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement