Warcraft Wiki talk:Featured article/Archive02

Classes & Races

I think we should have classes in there, just a a bit of help, and races for a bit of lore. I am not very good at making suggestions, but there is my idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shigamori (talk · contr).

I've looked at your suggestion and have viewed every class and race page separately. Here's my report:

The druid article is good

The hunter article is badly lined out

The mage article is short, and the section weren't done good enough

Paladin, I dislike that black table, and an article with a cleanup template can not become featured until its prose is reworked

Priest; this article has a redundant quest section, and it doesn't have external links

Rogue, also no no external links section, and the title isn't bold

Shaman, *gasp* no pictures of totems?, also, the section headers were poorly done

Warlock, the section 'Macros' needs to go, and an external links section needs to be created

Warrior, too short

Human, nice

Dwarf, rather short

Night elf, nice

Gnome, the big quote is unprofessional, and the section names aren't logical

Draenei, section "Controversy, confusion, and retcons" has gotta go

Orc, no WoW screenshots

Undead, "Opinion and analysis" should be removed

Tauren, nice

Troll, nice

Blood elf, get rid of "Dark Destiny" and "Controversy"

I hope that helps. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 04:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll look at those and try to make them good enough to feature Shigamori (talk · contr)

The info from dark destiny section of blood elves simply needs to be merged somewhere else in the article, not elimited entirely. It is a valid piece of information.Baggins 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For further discussion of any of the above listed articles, please make a new section! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

European forums

Good enough ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kos (talk · contr).

• Oppose. "She's cute. What else can you say about her? Well, she's witty, atleast more often than not. She's also very often quite irritating. She might be some kind of a cross between a Gnome and a Troll." That quote should sum up what kind of horrible POV and non notable information is in that article. This article is definetely not good enough. Also, it wasn't necessary to mess with the layout of this page. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't this the place of featured articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kos (talk · contr).

Yeah, the nomination in the correct section now (I moved it), but for future reference please don't list new nominations on the bottom of the page and use level 3 headers (===) as opposed to level 2 headers (==). Otherwise, welcome to the wiki :) APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Apollo. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Apollo, also --Sky (t · c · w) 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Irrelevant to WoW as a whole, article is disorganized, offers no new and/or interesting information. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be relevant to WoW. It just has to be well put together, which it obviously is not. :P --Sky (t · c · w) 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be relevant to WoW? What's this Wiki called again? :P -- TUSVA ~ T | C 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From the main page, and I quote: WoWWiki is a wiki dedicated to cataloguing Blizzard Entertainment's Warcraft Universe (with a focus, though not priority, on World of Warcraft), covering the entire Warcraft series of games, RPG reference books, strategy guides, novels and other sources. It would seem it doesn't have to be about WoW. However, this is a moot discussion, for the page hardly meets FA standards. ;) --Sky (t · c · w) 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that quote ;) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Melean

I just made this page it isnt about my half-elf character Melean it tells how that character inherits the name from the ancient Night Elf General of the Kaldorei resistance in the War of the Ancients. Its not just mere coincidence that he picks up a name like that since it belonged to an ancient Night Elf General.

Mainly this one is about the Ancient Night Elf Warrior and at the end it tells how it became that the half elf inherits his name.

--Melean 00:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Needs a bit of work.
  • Fanfic/PlayerCharacter tag needed.
  • Rename without the (night elf), unless you have other characters named Melean.
  • Reorganize the headings (it shouldn't be in increasing levels of headings)
  • You have your character as an "almighty" renowned person. RP no-no.
  • Not to mention the images colliding and making the paragraphs wrap around images. There's an issue of style here.

—Pzychotix (talk · contr) 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have just now a few questions. 1: How do you make the Fanfic character tag 2: What do you mean by reorganize the headings 3: And what do you mean of images colliding

Now stuff I state 1: Night elf part means he is the night elf form. I have another character named Melean as a half elf thats why i have the (Night Elf) tag. 2: What you you mean as im making him an almight renowned person Melean 02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongest oppose you could imagine. Apart from the problems Pzychotix raised, I don't think that this article should even be in the main namespace. This character is roleplay-based and hasn't been introduced into any of the Warcraft franchises by Blizzard. And no, unless you can pull a Leeroy Jenkins or Alamo, your character is unlikely to become "renowned".APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 08:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I just don't think Rp characters should be featured. Stopa 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Grollok

I am making a video on WoW Model Viewer and this is one of my major characters, the great Orc warrior Grollok, what do you guys think, he is not renowned as like "The Greatest Warrior since Grom Hellscream" in the story he is a hero but not like Thrall, what 'da ya guys think?--Melean 00:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: - Fanfic, silly, and speculation articles do not belong as featured articles, regardless of quality. Yet again.--SWM2448 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fucking NO already: People, noone thinks your fanfic characters are important/funny enough to get them on the front page, get over it already Stöpa^(talk) 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Netherwing dragonflight

The article itself needs a bit of work, but I think it could be a good FA =) --User:Psyker7/Sig 22:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oppose. This article actually needs a lot of work. It doesn't have a bold title, it has capital letters where they shouldn't be, it doesn't have a picture but does cite one as a source (which by itself is already kinda weird) and lacks a lot of lore info. My three suggestions are: 1) wait until 2.1 comes out watch as more and more information on the Wing becomes available.. 2) improve the article and 3) please don't nominate articles for FA if they 'need a bit of work' (which is an understatement in this case). Featured articles should display WoWWiki's finest work, which this article really isn't (yet).APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 02:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oppose Stressing what Apollo said: ...needs a lot of work. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 03:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Changing my stance to neutral, as it doesn't hold any special importance above any other faction page. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've given Netherwing a big update, and merged in stuff from the nether drake article. It needs fleshing out, but should be a readale guide now. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 22:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • An update on this - the only problem is that too many red links makes this unusable atm. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive and tidy - though could do with more of an introduction. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Still opposing, but for a different reason. This article now encompasses an awesome guide, however there is no lore information at all. Can't someone dig through all the quest dialogs and come up with something decent?AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with AMBER^(RΘCK). --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Remarking as support - there's now an intro, and the page is pretty tidy. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Teron Gorefiend

This article might need a little clean up, but this is a great character with lots of lore behind him. He is the focus of (imo) the best BC quests, and he is boss in the newly released Black Temple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlucero (talk · contr).

• Oppose. The article has no references, doesn't clarify why Gorefiend ended up in service of Illidan, has a section which contains only one sentence and lastly it has images that say "(before patch 2.1)", but doesn't clarify what the post-patch 2.1 situation is.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Definately needs an overhaul, but could certainly be a future candidate. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It doesn't clarify what the post-patch 2.1 situation is? yes it does. Read the text of the last pic.--SWM2448 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: needs to be cleaned up and reworked in some areas. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if this was what you were looking for, but I fleshed out the biography a bit (based on in-game and book info) and also explained the meaning of "pre-Patch 2.1" and "post-Patch 2.1". Hope this is satisfactory. --Joshmaul 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support: The article has been improved massively since I last commented on it. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gem

I am new to the whole FA thing. However I find this article well laid out, and extremely useful. I'm not sure exactly the qualifications required to become a FA, so I thought I would just nominate and see what others think User:Tecnobrat/Sig 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Useful, useful, useful. Three hoorays for this article.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Useful... and not much else. It's more of a link farm than anything that could possibly be improved, except with the addition of more gems, or a patch changing the existing ones. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - note that this page is already linked on the sidebar. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The very first paragraph is basically wrong: A gem is generally an item that can be placed into a socket of another item to give that item additional bonuses, powers and/or procs. A gem is not an item that can be placed into a socket, but may be an item that can be placed into a socket. It was supposed to be called a jewel. Strictly speaking, a gem is a raw ingredient from mining or [Prospecting]. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:10 PM PDT 24 Oct 2007

• Support: I agree, it is useful and would make a good FA. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Switching to support, due to the new way features articles work. It's pretty clean and concise, even if a lot if just links. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Adys/What Wrath of the Lich King is not

Feedback? :P --User:Adys/Sig 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I am very amused. It's definitely different from the sort of articles I've seen here before, but seems pertinent to the immediate post-BlizzCon 07 WoW fan environment. --Jiyambi t || c 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: - Fanfic, silly, and speculation articles do not belong as featured articles, regardless of quality.--SWM2448 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I like it, but I worry that it could become a focus for vandalism. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Sandwich. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Many People Blaming this Game Sucks Its a fun artical and its NOT Vamdalism Dragonnagaofthewater 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - He did not say it WAS vandalism, he said because it has no factual grounding it could easialy BE vandalized. --SWM2448 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Ok But it Can be become a focus on Vandalism but we dont know yet because it isn`t featured Yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonnagaofthewater (talk · contr).

• Oppose: No. Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 10:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I love this one too much too see it vandalized! Perhaps if it could be made uneditable, to preserve it's originality from random people trying to "improve" it, then I would accept this. -Ose 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Hah! Its great, funny and indeed truthful. The problem: Is it really worth frontpage time and that informative in regards to overall WoW lore or gameplay? I thought not.

• Oppose Not exactly the type of article WoWWiki would want as their feature article. Silly articles are nice, silly articles are funny, but WoWWiki isn't about silly articles... Vampyrefyre (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Death knight

Though most of it is still speculation (and will be until someone gets to the point to make one), there seems to be a lot about the Death Knight (that will be) in-game. I think this is the biggest piece of info since the announcement of Outland and the new races - everyone seems to be talking (and debating) a lot about what to expect...so why not put it on the front page, eh? --Joshmaul 07:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Just not good enough yet by the fact that we have nearly nothing on it; how runes work, what the other spells will be, etc. Iirc, it already is featured on the front page in the news box, just not in the FA box. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems that, at this point, a lot of information about this new hero class is still in speculation rather than fact. It would be great if there are solid info present. Maybe some time in the future when there are more confirmed information - Constarcy, US: Fenris 2:30PM Aug/28/2007

• Comment Revisiting this - the article is much improved now, any opinions on the current copy? Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm oppose to this until the expansion goes live. SuperN (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Seems like a fairly appropriate time to add it. It's pretty well fleshed out, though could possibly do with a bit of cleanup. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Siege weapon

There have been worse suggestions. It is coming in WotLK. It is one of my favorite topics and I wrote most of it. Who does not like siege?--SWM2448 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is not enough in-game info, maybe it will be good enough when the expantion comes out and you know for sure about them and how they are played. It is too much of a bullet-pointed list, too.--SWM2448 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• What the fuck? You propose an article, only to oppose its nomination afterwards? I don't get it. Oh, and yeah; naturally I opposse because this article is not elaborate enough.AMBER^(RΘCK) 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Temporary Oppose :Just not Enough Game Info lets wait until it comes out K? Dragonnagaofthewater 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support: There's not a huge amount of info, but there's only so much you can say. It does however, importantly, link to and describe the various types found in the expansion. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)