RuneScape:Featured articles/2012

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.

Passed

5 articles have passed but dont seem to be here, needs to be added

While Guthix Sleeps

I saw that WGS was one of the AOTM. I have tried to re-work a major part of the walkthrough, and I think the final result is quite appealing, with a lot of details.

• Support - As nominator. Alchez 13:45, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It looks like a very informative article. Hair 14:49, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I have made some adjustment, but great work!! Fswe1 07:02, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Support -

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:54, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Looks much better now. --クールネシ^トーク 12:28, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - This article will be featured. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:01, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Notes: Previous nomination found at [1] and delist at [2]. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:05, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Amascut

Face it - this article was truly appalling. After some work, it's become well organised, with extremely detailed sections that were well written. Now that it's passed a QA of sorts, I feel it is up to scratch to become a featured article. Can't really think of any more reasons - it's nearly perfect. If you can think of any bad points, please tell me.

• Support - As nominator. Fswe1 14:03, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Don't fail me, or else I'll eat your soul. It's really good, long and detailed. Many images help it. User:Jr Mime/Signature 14:07, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well detailed indeed, maybe you can write a bit more on followers but its definitely deserves feature User:Chiro9 14:15, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The chatbox seen just below here looks a bit out of place. I'm also wondering whether {{Infobox Deity}} could use an alias parameter based on the large number of pseudonyms Amacut assumes throughout the desert quests. However, seeing as all the aliases are covered and I actually learned something new, this is more than worthy of being featured. I would like to see an image that isn't the one in the infobox used to go with it if it appears on the main page though. maybe a transed version of File:Lady Keli (unhooded).png?

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

I was thinking of Keli's unhooded chathead and definitely not that tomb depiction in her infobox. :P I could add a parameter to Infobox Deity right away (well, after school), since other gods have aliases too. Fswe1 06:42, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Article is pretty amazing. Impressed by what the authors did to make it what it is, Good job! Hair 05:57, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Lots of fantastic content :D! Haidro ^(talk) 07:45, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Close - Amascut will be a featured article. -- Spine^Talk 23:11, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Failed

A Towering Feast

Reason: Well written, detailed and informative. Plenty of images and a nice gallery, and a great trivia section. I dare even say that it is considerably better than the 2009 guide. All in all, colourful, appealing and good quality writing.
Image: File:Imp chathead Grayzag's hat.png or File:Wizard Sinterklaas chathead.png.

• Support - As nominator. Fswe1 16:44, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning to oppose - I think it's a quite nice guide, but that's it then. I don't really think anyone is still interested in this article now that the event is over, and it's not that spectacular either. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:32, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Being gone should not be a reason for something not to be featured if it's well written etc. I mean, 2009 Xmas is still featured, isn't it? Fswe1 12:28, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE -The event is over. No need to feature an article which is quite usless now, unless you're looking to find out about past events. techguy1001^Talk 03:26, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't a good reason to oppose. We have images that were from events that are currently featured. We also have past events that are featured articles. Hair 22:05, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Very informative. Hair 22:05, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - There are many problems I see with this article. Just looking at the lead section, I can see that it is missing some important information. For example, the event's plot and the fact that "A Towering Feast" is the event's official name. I also think that the prose of the lead could be improved, and that it should mainly be written in past tense, considering the event is over.

However, I feel that the biggest problem with the article is its walkthrough section. The walkthrough is written as though the readers can still do the quest, which is not the case. It would be better if it was written for its current target audience (so like a story or such).

In addition, I would recommend that the accuracy and spelling of the article be checked, because I found several unnecessary capitalizations and some possibly out-of-date information (i.e., "At the Adventurer's log Quest Status, upon completion of the Christmas event, is still marked as "In Progress". As of 1 January 2012, this is yet to be fixed"). I'll be willing to do a more thorough review once these problems have been addressed. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:08, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ye're right. I updated the lead, trivia and tenses in the trivia. Now rests to change all tenses into would. Anyone care to help out? Fswe1 13:00, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to feature this article. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 00:56, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Skill Mastery

This article is extremely well-written and completely assisted me in deciding which skill I would master, and how I would do it. It is one of my favorite articles and I would love to see it become featured. techguy1001^Talk 03:20, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The formatting is horrendous. Fix that, then I'll maybe I'll change to a support. In the mean time, the images push the table down and some are way too big. Hofmic Talk 03:28, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

-Alright, fair enough. I'll be fixing it before this time tomorrow. I'll post on your userpage when I do. techguy1001^Talk 03:40, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The bulk of the article is just a list. ɳex undique 04:49, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Blocks of texts, tables, block of text, table. Also the start of the article looks bad with the text crammed into the centre Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 15:46, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to feature this article. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 16:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Zamorak

The page Zamorak is very informative, well layed out and includes a very good history and also shows all the affiliated items that people would associate with Zamorak. Also, the trivia includes very good facts and there is a sectoion for noteable induviduals which is very good. It includes alot of pictures, some of which would be very hard to find as Zamorak does not feature in the game, and overall I would give it 10/10

Cyberen 14:00, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It's mostly a long list of individuals and items that are connected to zammy. There is not really much info on the page. I don't think this article is good enough to be a featured article. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 14:16, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The majority of the article is just lists of people or items. The history section might be good, but we shouldn't give an article featured status for one section. I don't believe it should currently be a FA. ɳex undique 01:59, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:45, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Matthew. Fswe1 14:36, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Fswe1. Hair 15:13, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. --クールネシ^トーク 19:50, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. Pkerofguthix ^(talk) 02:20, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all Cire04 ^Talk 01:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - This article will not be featured. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:01, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Scams

Scamming is highly popular in RuneScape. Our article on scams, which explains most if not all popular scams, is one of the most informative articles that our users can read. People who are educated about scams will have a harder time falling for them, and this is to everyone's best interests.

Aside from this, I've recently rewritten the article. I improved the writing in each scam description and sorted them into rough categories. I also enhanced the descriptions on some popular gambling games, such as hot/cold, to demonstrate how these games can be considered scams in that the odds of winning do not favor the players. Admittedly, the article could use more images, but I am a wordsmith rather than a Photoshopper.

So my twofold reasons for a feature: The importance of educating players on how to avoid scams, and my excellent writing skills. Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:20, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

[Can't tell if serious] Strong oppose - I cannot support having an article titled "Scams" featured on our main page as some of our highest quality content. Ronan ^Talk 15:32, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Why? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:46, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - It's well written and good quality, but it's just a list. And a very long one. You seriously wish to have an article called Scams amongst our best content featured on the main page, which has thousands of views a day? *checks calender* No, not April... Fswe1 16:08, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - There is undue weight given to the types of scams (it appears 90 to 95% of the article concerns itself with just the types of scams). Rather, I think the types of scams part should be shortened to include just general types of scams committed with several brief examples. I also think that the article should include more information on what Jagex has done against scammers and to prevent scams from occuring, and more information on what rules of RuneScape scamming is against. Smithing (talk | contribs) 16:32, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that sounds like a good idea. That's bias in favor of Jagex and, although we are the wiki about RuneScape, we aren't RuneScape itself. --クールネシ^トーク 13:11, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Please explain. I'm just offering suggestions that would make the article as informative as possible by broadly covering more of the main aspects of scams related to RuneScape, not just the tips to avoid scams. This would in no way be bias in favour of Jagex, it would just help improve the article by making it more informative. Smithing (talk | contribs) 14:29, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, my brain wasn't working this morning. --クールネシ^トーク 18:32, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It's really just a huge list of various scams. Nothing extraordinary about it that makes it stand out from other articles and it definitely does not conform to the standard of our other FAs. ɳex undique 23:35, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Like the others say, I don't think a long list is good enough to be FA. It is informative, but just not the way a FA looks imo. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:26, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Honestly, it's very poorly written. I have trouble reading it without swallowing vomit. MolMan 18:05, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a poorly written long list. Nty. Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 18:08, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Scams will not be featured at this time. ɳex undique 18:28, July 15, 2012 (UTC)