UESPWiki:Featured Articles< UESPWiki
Featured articles are articles the site's editors deem to be of the highest quality and should be held up as an example for other articles. Articles are nominated for this status below. The site's editors then review the nominees for content, style, completeness, and overall quality and place their vote. High quality images can be nominated for featured status at Featured Images.
Previous nominations are archived here.
Featured Article ProcessEdit
Any registered member can nominate any article at any time. Nominated articles should be of high quality and meet the site's style guidelines. They will frequently be recently completed articles or articles that have just undergone a substantial rewrite, but older articles are also suitable candidates.
To nominate an article, list it on the bottom of this page with a three-tier heading, (
===Example===), and briefly explain why you think the article should be given featured status.
After an article has been nominated, any registered member can vote to support or oppose each nomination. Each member can only vote once for a given article, but a member may change his/her vote by striking out the original vote and replacing it with the revised vote.
To vote on an article, state whether you support or oppose the article for featured article status. A vote should be in bold, and all votes must be signed. For example:
* '''Support''': <Comment> --~~~~ or
* '''Oppose''': <Comment> --~~~~
Commenting with your vote is optional, but if you oppose a nomination, please state how the article must be improved to get your support for featured status.
If you are not yet ready to vote but would still like to add your thoughts, you may use:
* '''Comment''': <Comment> --~~~~ or
* '''Question''': <Question> --~~~~
And fill in your concerns or questions.
UESP Administrators will periodically make decisions on article nominations. Decisions will only be made if:
- The article has been nominated for more than seven days.
- Five or more votes have been placed.
- A clear consensus has been reached (either supported or opposed for featured status).
Nominations not meeting these criteria will be left open until a decision can be reached.
Articles whose nominations pass will receive featured article status on the front page for at least two weeks and receive a small bronze star () on the top right corner. If an article achieves featured status before the present featured article's two weeks expire, it must wait its turn.
Current Featured ArticleEdit
Previous Featured ArticlesEdit
|Oblivion:Jakben Imbel's House||14 November, 2020 - 21 December, 2020|
|Online:Moon Hunter Keep||11 October, 2020 - 14 November, 2020|
|Online:Tree-Minder Na-Kesh||4 September, 2020 - 11 October, 2020|
|Lore:Argonian||23 July, 2020 - 4 September, 2020|
|Lore:Imperial Legion||12 March, 2020 - 23 July, 2020|
|Lore:Grummite||21 December, 2019 - 12 March, 2020|
|Lore:Wulfharth||21 November, 2019 - 21 December, 2019|
|Online:Vakka-Bok Xanmeer||19 October, 2019 - 21 November, 2019|
|Legends:Solo Arena||19 September, 2019 - 09 October, 2019|
|Lore:Riften||16 July, 2019 - 19 September, 2019|
|Lore:Summerset Isle||16 November, 2018 - 16 July, 2019|
|Redguard:Observatory||12 October, 2018 - 16 November, 2018|
|Online:Earl Leythen||12 September, 2018 - 12 October, 2018|
|Lore:Sword-singers||9 July, 2018 - 12 September, 2018|
|Lore:Yokuda||1 April, 2018 - 9 July, 2018|
|Legends:Cloudy Dregs Inn||17 November, 2017 - 1 April, 2018|
|Morrowind:Balmora||10 September, 2017 - 17 November, 2017|
|Skyrim:Alduin's Bane||13 April, 2017 - 10 September, 2017|
|Skyrim:Mzinchaleft||28 February, 2017 - 13 April, 2017|
|Skyrim:Music||3 December, 2016 - 28 February, 2017|
|Skyrim:Construction||24 September, 2016 - 3 December, 2016|
|Skyrim:Ancano||3 September, 2016 - 24 September, 2016|
|Lore:Almalexia||28 July, 2016 - 3 September, 2016|
|Oblivion:Amusei||18 June, 2016 - 28 July, 2016|
|Lore:Sancre Tor||16 May, 2016 - 18 June, 2016|
|Lore:Snow Elf||15 April, 2016 - 16 May, 2016|
|Skyrim:Mountain Climbing||4 January, 2016 - 15 April, 2016|
|Lore:Necromancy||22 November, 2015 - 4 January, 2016|
|Dragonborn:Dragonborn (quest)||15 October, 2015 - 22 November, 2015|
|Online:Pets||8 August, 2015 - 15 October, 2015|
|Skyrim:Erandur||1 July, 2015 - 8 August, 2015|
|Skyrim:Sheogorath||29 May, 2015 - 1 July, 2015|
|Daggerfall:Vampirism||27 April, 2015 - 29 May, 2015 (revoked October 2016)|
|Skyrim:Balgruuf the Greater||25 March, 2015 - 27 April, 2015|
|Lore:Skyrim||23 February, 2015 - 25 March, 2015|
|Lore:Sheogorath||20 January, 2015 - 23 February, 2015|
|Lore:Imperial Legion||15 December, 2014 - 20 January, 2015|
|Skyrim:Frostflow Abyss||27 September, 2014 - 15 December, 2014|
|Skyrim:Arniel Gane||27 August, 2014 - 27 September, 2014|
|Lore:Tiber Wars||27 July, 2014 - 27 August, 2014|
|Skyrim:Thonar Silver-Blood||24 June, 2014 - 27 July, 2014|
|Lore:Potema||28 May, 2014 - 24 June, 2014|
|Skyrim:Isran||24 April, 2014 - 28 May, 2014|
|Skyrim:Lost to the Ages||22 March, 2014 - 24 April, 2014|
|Lore:Nerevar||22 February, 2014 - 22 March, 2014|
|Skyrim:Chillrend||22 January, 2014 - 22 February, 2014|
|Dragonborn:Neloth||22 December, 2013 - 22 January, 2014|
|Lore:Scourge||20 November, 2013 - 22 December, 2013|
|Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)||20 October, 2013 - 20 November, 2013|
|Oblivion:Glarthir||19 September, 2013 - 20 October, 2013|
|Dragonborn:Lost Legacy||19 August, 2013 - 19 September, 2013|
|Skyrim:Ulfric Stormcloak||18 July, 2013 - 19 August, 2013|
|Skyrim:Darkness Returns||18 June, 2013 - 18 July, 2013|
|Dragonborn:The Final Descent||18 April, 2013 - 18 June, 2013|
|Skyrim:Irkngthand||16 March, 2013 - 18 April, 2013|
|Shivering:Jyggalag||11 February, 2013 - 16 March, 2013|
|Skyrim:Easter Eggs||9 January, 2013 - 11 February, 2013|
|Skyrim:Dragon||29 November, 2012 - 9 January, 2013|
|Skyrim:Delphine||29 October, 2012 - 29 November, 2012|
|Skyrim:Thalmor||28 September, 2012 - 29 October, 2012|
|Skyrim:Legate Rikke||27 August, 2012 - 28 September, 2012|
|Skyrim:Cicero||24 July, 2012 - 27 August, 2012|
|Skyrim:Forsworn||3 May, 2012 - 24 July, 2012|
|Skyrim:Forbidden Legend||30 April 2012 - 3 May 2012|
|Lore:Khajiit||30 March, 2012 - 30 April, 2012|
|Skyrim:The Black Star||21 February, 2012 - 30 March, 2012|
|Skyrim:The Only Cure||10 December, 2011 - 21 February, 2012|
|Lore:Vivec (god)||20 November, 2011 - 10 December, 2011|
|Oblivion:The Path of Dawn||16 October, 2011 - 20 November, 2011|
|Shivering:Syl||30 July, 2011 - 16 October, 2011|
|Daggerfall:Journey to Aetherius||30 June, 2011 - 30 July, 2011|
|Morrowind:Vivec||30 May, 2011 - 30 June, 2011|
|Books:The Infernal City||28 April, 2011 - 30 May, 2011|
|Shivering:Golden Saint||January 2011 - April 2011|
|Shadowkey:Glacier Crawl||November 2010 - January 2011|
|Morrowind:Seyda Neen||October 2010 - November 2010|
|Lore:Septim Dynasty||July 2010 - October 2010|
|Oblivion:Janus Hassildor||May 2010 - July 2010|
|Oblivion:Arcane University||February 2010 - May 2010|
|Lore:Black Marsh||December 2009 - February 2010|
|Oblivion:Rosethorn Hall||October 2009 - December 2009|
|Oblivion:Adanrel||May 2009 - October 2009|
|Oblivion:Creatures||January 2009 - May 2009|
|General:Playing DOS Installments under DOSBox||November 2008 - January 2009|
|Morrowind:Armor Artifacts||September 2008 - November 2008|
|Oblivion:Houses||July 2008 - September 2008|
|Oblivion:Artifacts||June 2008 - July 2008|
|Oblivion:Traps||May 2008 - June 2008|
|Oblivion:Classes||October 2007 - May 2008|
|Lore:Daedric Alphabet||November 2006 - October 2007|
|Lore:Khajiit||August 2006 - November 2006 (revoked August 2011)|
Nominations and VotesEdit
A great little Skyrim NPC page with full in-game and technical documentation. This is a Creation Club article and I think it's a brilliant example of what needs to be done to document this new content in an older namespace. I think featuring a finished page like this would be a good way to encourage others to get involved in editing Creation Club pages.
- Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Per nom. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: I understand the desire to have more featured CC articles but this article doesn't have much on it, even if it is complete, many finished eso npc pages are on par and have the same amount of info for example. This is why the wiki could use a Comprehensive or at the very least Good Article system that so many other wikis have; this article is by no means bad, its just not featured material The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: I agree with The Rim of the Sky. The blank space speaks volumes. Retroambassador (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: Ditto the above; it's complete, but it's not the sort of page I envision when I think of a featured article. -MolagBallet (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hircine has gotten a major revamp for his lore page since the December 7, 2018, https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Hircine&diff=1890205&oldid=1887468 vs https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Hircine. Compare it to the current page, it was previously a page with about 4 paragraphs and a only 3 artifacts transcluded for a total page worth of 6,271 bytes. Currently, Hircine's page sits at 61,053 bytes, now detailing Hircine's aspects, his cultural interpretations, a history section going from merethic to the fourth era, and there is also the amount of related supplemental material that has since been created alongside it that helps the page. For example, Hircine's page now links to the Great Hunt page, has been expanded from 3 artifacts to 6ish (technically 8), and links to many other associated pages such as the Bloodroot Forge that didn't exist before, therefore complimenting the page. I feel that the article lets the reader know that while Hircine represents the hunt, there is more to him as seen in sections such as his role in Reachmen beliefs.
- Support: As nominator.Zebendal (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support: I support this, because of all the work that has been put into it.--TheVampKnight (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: I support this. Not only it shows all the new lore related to Hircine but also is way clearer than before --Tyrvarion (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Very well written article. I support.Dcking20 (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Good work, really in-depth and great use of images from a variety of sources Imperialbattlespire (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Now that I've had time to look it over, I can see that the information presented is accurate and flows logically. This is an excellent example of what a Featured Article should look like. -MolagBallet (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support: looks rather good now The Rim of the Sky (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The Khajiit page was previously featured in September 8, 2006, revoked of its featured status sometime in 2011, and was reinstated as a featured article in March 31, 2012. This was all prior to their cultural expansions in the Elsweyr chapter released in 2019, therefore I propose that it be refeatured as it has since gotten a major overhaul. Compare the lore of when Khajiit were reintsated with their featured status in 2012 https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Lore:Khajiit&oldid=920759 to current the current page https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Khajiit , and you will see a huge amount of content that has since been added as a result of ESO's expansion into their culture. 2012's 34,280 bytes to 2020's 77,092 bytes. We now have proper pictures for the majority of the Khajiiti furstocks, an updated pantheon, creation story, claw-dances, and a ton of other content which furthers it apart from the page in 2012. We have truly given this page much needed love and the Khajiit lore page is arguably the best and most thorough racial page out of all the other race pages because of this expansion. If this page wasn't already featured prior, I believe it would easily win featured status, but because of the major overhaul I feel it needs to be refeatured. We already have precedence for refeaturing articles with the Imperial Legion page as an example.
- Support: As nominator.Zebendal (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support: I support this because of how much has been put into it. Especially the religious sections,and its a great example of what a race page should be. I would love to see similar work done on the other races, like Orcs for example. So those pages can be expanded upon greatly--TheVampKnight (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: FA status has not been revoked since its reinstatement in 2012. I'm not outright opposed to re-featuring an article after a major overhaul or expansion of the topic, but having this page as a FA for the third time seems excessive. I am sure there are more pages on the wiki than just this one that deserve some time on the main page. —Legoless (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: I concur with Legoless. It's already been featured twice; this article is expected to be good and is expected to be updated as new information comes out. Everyone already knows Lore:Khajiit is good. I'd personally prefer to feature articles that have been built up from nothing or articles that are of high quality but have been overlooked. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This page is an excellent example of what a city page should look like. It has a detailed description of the layout of the city and its people have been completely documented.
- Support: As nominator. -MolagBallet (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Because its good that its a detailed description with the layout and all being documented. --TheVampKnight (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Suffers somewhat from a wall of text approach to the intro, but this is an immaculate ESO city page. —Legoless (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Until we get a bot or program to copy the markers from the eso map onto the page (see Online:Lambent Passage#Maps for an example) this page won't be perfect The Rim of the Sky (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
A lot of work has been put into overhauling the vampire page this year what started out as adding in missing information like alchemical vampirism, went to a full on revamp/overhaul of the entire page, Not only my efforts but the efforts of people, like MolagBallet and others that contributed hugely to it. Not only is the vampire page now fleshed out. But lore that was not added in, from newer and even older titles has been added into the page. For readers this gives them a much greater understanding of what a Tes vampire is.
- Support: As nominator --TheVampKnight (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)<
- Comment: I think it still could use the addition of a tiny amount of content. I am planning on adding a section about the architecture of the first vampires found in blackreach, and how places like Greymoor predate the arrival of the Dwemer, as noted in Greymoor Keep loading screen. And how the vampires went down to blackreach sometime between the Merethic Era and 1E 221, which the Nighthollow clan existed by then. Additionally, I feel the main body could use a bit more images.Zebendal (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: Most of the content is fine, but I have a few issues with it. The first (and most important) is that there's a citation needed tag on that page, and I don't think we should feature a page that's missing verification for anything.
The second issue: there's a lot of information there, and plenty has been added since I last went in and overhauled it. Problem is, I didn't finish my initial overhaul, and the way I did that makeover was very sloppy. I have yet to personally verify every bit of information present in that article for quality like I have with even longer articles like Lore:Molag Bal. I haven't voted on Lore:Hircine yet for similar reasons. Lore:Vampire and Lore:Hircine are very long, and I haven't had time to run a fine toothed comb through them (or run it through again, in Lore:Vampire's case) as I have with Lore:Namira and Lore:Molag Bal. I'm not going to support a nomination for a page just because it's long; long pages leave room for editors to leave more errors, and errors are something I want the article to not have if or when I support it.
Lastly, I think we could improve upon Lore:Vampire's formatting in some way. I want to preface this by saying that I don't think the formatting isn't completely garbage or anything like that. One issue with its formatting is that there are a lot of subsections beneath subsections in that article, making for a long table of contents. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself. My issue arises in places like the Characteristics section. I agree with giving all the different kinds of vampires their own little thing, but bloodfiends, harrowfiends and the like have such short sections, and it gives the page a look that doesn't appeal to my graphical sensibilities. Image placement is another issue I have with the page. It's too wall-of-text-y in some places, and in others, the images would look better in different positions. I am responsible for some of the things I have complaints with, some points of contention were provided by others. The bottom line is that the page's formatting isn't wholly appealing.
To me, featured articles are kind of like a home when you've got guests coming over. I don't want guests to come over to my house if the bathroom they're going to be using isn't clean. The Featured Article slot is an open bathroom door with some sort of homey indication that guests should enter it. Lore:Vampire is a giant bathroom, and one that I'm not ready to let some friend's mother-in-law use because I haven't yet had the chance to make sure the sink is clean.
TL;DR: A page's byte count does not indicate its overall quality. Lore:Vampire isn't bad, but I feel like it isn't done baking, and we should leave it in the oven for a minute before serving it to others. -MolagBallet (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: For the reasons listed by MolagBallet. Additionally, from just a brief glance at it, the page makes some less than great choices. Immediately, the choice of image at the top of the page is extremely poor, as it provides a poor example of the average vampire. Then moving onto the body of the text, I have an issue with how the page documents things from the game. Look at this:
- From the article. Imperial culture views vampires as destructive monsters to be hunted and destroyed. Romantic notions of noble, virtuous vampires persisted in Imperial traditions through the Third Era, and vampires were thought to pass unrecognized in the Mages Guild and the Imperial aristocracy.
- The original quote that that was based on. Imperial culture regards blood vampires as destructive monsters to be hunted and destroyed. However, romantic notions of noble, virtuous vampires persist in Imperial traditions, and vampires are thought to pass unrecognized in the Mages Guild and the Imperial aristocracy.
- By simply removing that "However" and throwing in "through the Third Era" changes the meaning greatly. This is definitely a nitpick, but with a page this long, it's easy for bias and other issues to crop into the writing.
- Next I have a major issue with the page structure. The page starts out on providing some overhead information onto vampires, which is decent practice. It then moves onto specifics about some forms of vampires, before moving onto general characteristics of vampires. This order should be reversed. Provide broad overhead information, then get specific. Additionally the "Origins" of vampires is inexplicably underneath the header "religion", a section specifically focusing on religious practices unique to vampires. Origins would be a good contender for one of the first sections on the page, not the eighth and in a section that it doesn't belong in. THEN we move onto bloodlines and clans, when we have already listed various forms of vampires separately as top level header, now we move onto how it should have been done in the first place. Some basic restructuring I would consider is putting characteristics at the top, moving all of the top level individual vampire forms as sub-headers to a new "Variant" section that goes next to the bloodline and clan section, put "Origins" as the section after "Characteristics", boot "Religion" down towards "Artifacts".
- Next, I want to note that a lot of the sections are quite long (I have yet to review every line of this page), but they lack images to accompany them. When we have three paragraphs of text on bloodfiends, we can have an image of a bloodfiend to accompany their section. A gallery really should be more of a last resort to get an important image on a page that couldn't be inserted otherwise, not the default choice.
- Beyond this, the page still probably should be carefully reviewed, line by line. I haven't done this at this time, and I could eventually get around to it, but I have other things to see to. If these issues are addressed, I could see myself supporting this article for featured status. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 01:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Sanguine as many of us know does not get much content or lore compared to the other Princes. I did a bit of an update earlier this year to give it a revamp. But its not I that needs credit for that but all the others that found information that truly fleshes out the page in ways I didn't even think of. Because of the work that several people have been put into this revamp as well as how fleshed out it is compared to where it was. I think its a page worthy of being nominated.
- Support: As nominator --TheVampKnight (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)<
- Support: With how little lore there is on Sanguine, I like how people managed to come together and create this page.Zebendal (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: The page is complete and the formatting is fine, but it doesn't stand out to me. It's not a bad article, but it's not one that I would hail above all others as the perfect example of an article. I think Lore:Namira is a far better article, and I don't feel that one deserves a featured status just yet. -MolagBallet (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think the article could still use more work and general cleanup to be considered for Featured status. I just had a quick glance and had to outright remove a reference for being an inaccurate literal interpretation of the source material. The page is in a much better state than it was previously but I can't support it for FA. —Legoless (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)