Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Featured pages/Featured pages4

Interrupt

accepted 11:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC), , Featured 23:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm renominating this one again. Here's a link to the previous discussion. I revamped the list of skills as Konig suggested in the talk page - to be similar to the way the skill lists are handled in the condition article. I have a picture for the article - http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:User_Razor39999_Dshot.gif But I'm unsure of how to exactly put it up so it doesn't start animating on the article page (3 MB is too much) and instead to have something as on GW2 wiki with its skill pages that have a link to the .gif image. I already asked one of the more picture savvy members for help, anyone else who knows how to sort it out feel free to do so. Btw I already mentioned on the talk page that a simple non-animated pic of an interrupt looks like a knockdown (interrupt animation is a fast kd animation) so that's why I decided on figuring out how to make a gif out of a video. Was looking through some other articles as well, might nominate them later, after/if I get the time to edit a bit. razor39999 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the technique section distinguish between PvE and PvP. I'd also like to see a section that covers counter measures (in both areas). If others think the article is otherwise ready, then it's probably best to work on those in a /draft version to avoid delaying a successful nomination.

I'd like to see 1-2 other editors give it a thorough read before voting "aye." I very much like how y'all have handled the skills section to keep the focus on the advice.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Added a bit about more PvE focused interrupting. razor39999 20:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was dividing the advice. In PvE, there's no serious energy-denial techniques and no infuser. PvE opponents bring few counters vs interrupts. Interrupting human opponents in PvP requires an entirely different set of techniques. There are some overlaps, but a great PvE interrupter might be little help in PvP; a great PvP interrupter might miss opportunities to stifle the opponent.

So, while some of the techniques overlap (choose carefully, practice), many do not. Regardless, decide whether you think this is important enough to address before considering feature-hood (if so, let's discuss on the interrupt page). Or decide that this can/should wait, in which case, let's create Interrupt/draft to deal with these issues without (ahem) interrupting the nomination process.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ye I thought you had something like that in mind, but I just wanted to add a first "blurb" of PvE specific info as a starting point. I'll be busy the rest of the night with guildies and farming tonics (damn Wintersday), but tomorrow I'll try getting a first few pointers separated for PvE/PvP on that draft page. On a side note, I only really play interrupts on my Mesmer and mostly in the non-serious arenas, so if anyone with more Ranger specific PvP knowledge and particularly GvG exp can chip in, that would be great. razor39999 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the initial split of the techniques in that draft page, any specific issues we'll discuss further on its talk page. razor39999 12:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Do you think this can be ready for feature by Monday? Need a next article and it would be preferable if we can get a non-lore focused one. -- Konig/talk 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if TEF is ok with the way I separated the tips on that draft page and wants to copy it like that to the main article, it's basically as ready as it will be. Maybe some overlinking left. As far as I'm concerned it's ok. razor39999 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just went ahead and copied the separated tips to the main article. Whoever wants to, feel free to dissect it further. razor39999 14:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's no opposition to featuring this by Sunday, I'll move to accepted for feature on Monday. (I know it's not much time but we need a new feature dang it!) -- Konig/talk 03:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Its okay i guess but i still feel its not a feature worthy page really --Nick123 12:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

whys that?- Zesbeer 13:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just a bit dull and raises the question do most of the people who look at this wiki attualy care about interupt page? --Nick123 15:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the value of featuring articles is to introduce topics to most of the people that they mostly wouldn't otherwise take a look at. I pay more attention to Lore now than I used to largely because Lore-heavy articles have been featured.

I agree that dull is a bad thing.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Featuring is more about showing good articles, not introducing topics to most of the people - though that is a valid reason to push a feature over another feature, and is most certainly a side-effect. Regarding dullness... Got nothing to say, really. I find all pages like this innately dull. But that's just how I am. -- Konig/talk 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Being dull/not dull isn't what classifies an article to be feature-worthy. The feature "qualities" are if it has enough info on the topic it covers and not having those "needs expanding" tags. And interrupting is an integral part of GW (particularly PvP), I can't see how anyone could consider it dull. Other games usually don't even have an interrupt mechanic and when they do, it's mostly an interrupt that doesn't force the cooldown of the interrupted skill, a feature I only saw in GW. It's a nice little mind game, you with your skills and the ability to cancel cast and the ranger/mesmer against you. Quite thrilling imo. razor39999 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Other than a notion that this is a "dull" topic, is there any actual objections to the way the article is set up now, or the way the tips are presented? Do we need anything else added there? I wasn't very active over the weekend so I see that human got featured over this, but if there's no objective reasons to not feature this I'll move it the day after tomorrow into the accepted section, and hopefully it will break the lore streak in time for the next feature. razor39999 13:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have 2 weeks of time, no reason to be hasty. Most people - especially with this project - don't show up every other day or less. Wait for next Monday to move to accepted if there's no objective complaints. -- Konig/talk 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, moving it on Monday. razor39999 20:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this supposed to have been featured since yesterday? razor39999 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

no every 2 weeks.- Zesbeer 23:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Afaik, humans started being a feature on the 27th or 28th of December, that's 2 weeks ago. razor39999 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

i stand corrected go bother a admin to change it.- Zesbeer 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to poke Poke yesterday. Turns out that I remind him every time the feature needs changing. -- Konig/talk 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Governments of Tyria

Accepted 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC), Featured 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I really like the rework I did on this and it's a barely visited page. I'd love to see this featured and compared to other lore articles, while it's shorter, it provides just as much information. Only issue would be getting a good image. Perhaps an few images of government meetings (we can get one of the Arcane Council for the asura section, and perhaps we could get an image of the Celestial Ministry in the Divine Path for cantha, and one of the istan government would be easy as well (though would probably have to be during a quest iirc). -- Konig/talk 08:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i think we get pics of thous people on there and we are good to go.- Zesbeer 10:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

thats pretty good never seen that article before tho it is in need of some pics :) --Nick123 10:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks just like an expanded list to me. For an article/section about each individual government, I would expect a lot more info (e.g. take Vabbi: The names of the three princes should be mentioned, their individual character, the fact that they have a secret hide out, maybe even that they go to public events together). In that sense it needs to be expanded a lot, or even split up into different articles.

However, the article is currently more organised along the lines of democracy vs monarchy vs etc. In that case, it should not be ordered according to race, but according to governmental style. Btw, out of the two options I rather first. --Xeeron 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"List-esk" articles have been excepted, and featured, in the past. That's not an issue. The article is less about the current government and more about the forms of governments (it was in fact called "Forms of Governments in Guild Wars" or something like that) - though if you want, I wouldn't be against adding information about modern rulers. I just avoided it as much as I could due to the fact that leadership could easily change in GW:B (as it has in Kryta). -- Konig/talk 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

With like a list, I dont mean that we should not feature lists, but that this should not be one =)

GW:B is should not hold you back, e.g. Kryta not only changed the ruler, but also the form of government at the same time. And they can only change so much, I guess we will see at most 1 or 2 changes over the next months or even years. --Xeeron 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, who leads felt better left to pages more related to the government, rather than a navigation/general government page like Governments of Tyria. I.e., who currently runs the Celestial Ministry belongs more on Celestial Ministry rather than Governments of Tyria, and the current emperor of Cantha belongs more on Cantha and Canthan Emperor. That's just my opinion though. -- Konig/talk 21:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've added three more images to the page, I think now this is ready for being accepted. -- Konig/talk 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looked through the article again. While I do think it's feature-worthy now, I would like to see if the introductory paragraph can be expanded to be about the Tyrian governments on a general scale. Basically, filler text which could work better on a main page than text about an individual government. -- Konig/talk 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's one opposition to this, which seems to me to be more of a preference for expansion than an outright disagreement. Anyone against moving this to accepted? -- Konig/talk 21:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

i think the intro of the article could have a little more beef to it what i would add i dont know maybe something just talking about what the different types of Governments there are like how there is a lot of monarchy's or something.- Zesbeer 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the intro text a bit. Could probably be given a bit more, but I don't know what else to add. If that's good enough, I'll move to accepted. -- Konig/talk 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you konig, i think it looks good.. personally i would rather see this page pushed for the next feature vs the interrupt just because nick dosnt like the interrupt page. - Zesbeer 14:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not have multiple "Of Tyria" articles in a row. If not interrupt - then human I say (which doesn't have any opposition outside you, which is more of a need to expand linked to articles so I'll move that to accepted by the end of the day if none appear). -- Konig/talk 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been accepted for almost a month, maybe time to feature it now? razor39999 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a little comment on the whole project itself. When the article appears on the main page, how about making the page title ("Governments of Tyria" in this case) a link to the page. As opposed to links in the text (the bolded link and "read more" at the end). Small change but would make it way faster to access the page IMO. --Piippo 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's already the case (and this should be on the talk page). It's a hidden link (i.e., it's a black colored link with no underlining, but still a link). -- Konig/talk 20:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I feel so stupid now. It's "hidden" indeed.--Piippo 13:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwen

Accepted 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC), Featured 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

now that the article is one i think it would make a good feature.- Zesbeer 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this one it seems pretty good, didnt notice anything obviously wrong when i quickly looked through it :) --Nick123 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

With Hearts of the North out of the way, I concur for it being featured. Just need to make sure it's in a good tense and not too "fluffy" like a lot of Santax's rewrites (no offense to him should he read this! - and by fluffy I mean going into such specific detail that it isn't necessary, such as the discussion that occurred with the mursaat article before that was featured). Don't think it has much fluff. -- Konig/talk 03:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is missing her textbox dialogue for during The Wedding. Until that's added: No. -- Konig/talk 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i did a rough copy pasta of the dialog on the wedding i left the tag up because i think that someone else might want to make it more gwen friendly/ have it match the format guide lines i am unsure of what needs to be done to it. i also added the conversation with sarah that she has in the underworld.- Zesbeer 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You added the wrong bloody dialogue. Quest scripts don't go on NPC pages. She, like everyone else (except Yakkington, who imo is bugged) in that explorable has a dialogue for when you click on her. -- Konig/talk 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

well your the one who brought it up so you should fix it because i dont think anyone else can magicly read your mind and find out the exact text you were looking for.- Zesbeer 03:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I did state what it was. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the Wedding quest, and won't unless I do all of WiK and HotN (closest done is dervish mule who's at the inquisitors). And it has been that way since I posted that, unfortunately. -- Konig/talk 04:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So what text is needed? The stuff she says in dialogue boxes during the wedding itself? I have the Wedding available on 8 of my characters, I'll just screenshot the stuff and leave it in her discussion page. Transcribe away. EDIT: NVM I read the discussion on Gwen's page, you need the short dialogue for when she's clicked on. I thought the opposite was the case just reading this discussion. Misunderstandings ftw.razor39999 12:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree, this should be included.MystiLefemEle 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Now it looks feature worthy. -- Konig/talk 01:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

← moved to Talk:Gwen

i know this talk has been moved but there is now an EotN spoiler on the main page at the bottom of the gwen bit and i dont know how to change it - danw

Not sure what you're meaning. the Great Destroyer part or the Burntsoul part? Or another part? Burntsoul's an enemy so it'd be obvious he dies. The Great Destroyer's rather obvious to be the enemy given the manual, though it's not revealed in game until about halfway through it via the vision. Only other thing I can see being a spoiler would be the revolution... Which doesn't talk about much (revolution against whom? for what? why? it just says Pyre has a revolution). -- Konig/talk 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

i was gonna say the great destroyer part as it is the end of EotN so it may be annoying for those who dont want to know, but i suppose his defeat was inevitable - danw18:43,10 february 2011 (UTC)

Ascalon (pre-Searing)

Accepted 05:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC), Featured 20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

its a interesting article and would highlight a part of the game alot of people skip out on...- Zesbeer 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a bit more could be added, tbh. I would also like a better labeled map, since that one's not fully explored (and labeled maps should be). It certainly can be feature worthy, as can most region articles, but I would prefer a bit of improvement if possible. -- Konig/talk 01:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

what areas do you speak of? as far as i can tell that map is true, there is a lot of area that you cant get to yes... - Zesbeer 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This image, to be clear - Wizard's Folly missing the westernmost edge (not much though), the Northernlands is missing half of the possible to explore area. And the highlighting is rather distasteful imo. Compare the map I linked to this one to see what I mean.

But that's just a minor detail. I'll go over this article to see if there's much to expand on in the intro text. Afterward, I'll probably be fine with featuring. -- Konig/talk 01:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article is ready to be featured. It fails to capture the richness of the area, how it differs from the other intro areas, and how that has established it as a home to a unique part of the player community. If you remove the boiler plate (locations, etc.), the article consists of a strong opening paragraph and about a dozen disjoint bullet points; we have landmark articles that are more substantive.

However, I agree with Zesbeer that it is an area that should get more attention. I'd like to see this article help to encourage visits from some of those players who tend to skip the area. I'll try to put together an alternate draft soon to illustrate what I mean.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it. It is hard to believe people would want to skip this. 98.235.28.54 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just did a big re-write. All that's left, imo, is changing out the labeled map. -- Konig/talk 04:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Body block

Accepted 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC), Featured 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If we can find an image for this, I think this would be feature worthy (note: may need a bit of work like most other articles, of course). -- Konig/talk 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions...? -- Konig/talk 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw this nomination way back when you did it, and yes I agree about this being fine as a possible feature. Still needs a pic though.razor39999 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

yea i am shocked that there isnt a pic of boddy blocking on there yet. very common tactic. but needs pic.(i say requres a pic before featuring mainly because of how widely used it is in the game.)- Zesbeer 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me once its got a pic :) --Nick123 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I found this which could easily go onto the page, but it's the same as tank which was featured, so I'm hesitant about that being the sole image. But do we even need an image? -- Konig/talk 05:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

got a better image for the feature it needs to be cropped but a very basic idea. i will do that when i have time latter after i have slept... Edit: never mid i did it now take a look: - Zesbeer 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

White Mantle

Accepted 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC), Featured 09:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Same as for the Shining Blade. -- Konig/talk 21:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks alright :) --Nick123 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like more say on this please. -- Konig/talk 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

seeing as i nominated this i am still in support...- Zesbeer 02:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of co-featuring SB and WM, but I don't think this article is ready. It's more thorough than the SB article, but it leaves out an important question: why did the Mantle suddenly go from protectors of Kryta (founded by a drunken gambler) to a fundamentalist religious order purging dissenters and sacrificing innocents? (Even if we don't know, we should include the question.) Some of the article is written in present tense (even about historical topics). There's some repetitive text (e.g. there's a lot of grip getting).

I like the intro. I like how we have included a list of NPCs (and perhaps we can also add non-foes) and unique weapons. I also like how the "we don't know" is handled in the closing sentence, using analysts doubt instead of it is unknown — this adds to the impression of a rich body of scholarly research and legions of political advisers, something we would expect from an area this rich in history and conflict.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for possible grammar issues via the present tense mentioned, I don't think the issues TEF presented is bad (the only other issue being the "why did they go uberevil?" question not being asked/answered - there's no given answer and adding the question would add no benefit to the page). As such, I'll try to fit this article into my week for going over and fixing said tense (i kind of wanna restructure it too). Afterward, unless there are further disagreements, to move things along, I'll move this article to accepted. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

if there are no objections this will be after body blocked then followed by shining blade. TEF, you have had a month to respond so i am assuming you dont feel the same way any more.- Zesbeer 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Respond to what? It's been a month since anyone posted on the topic. I'll review it again and get back to you within 24 hours. (I will never have any objections to the order, except as noted: some articles aren't meaty enough to include as featured unless they are relevant to a current festival.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

articles being "meaty" are not a reason to not accept or reject a articles see other articals and the reasons why they got accepted or rejected.- Zesbeer 01:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On topic: the White Mantle article looks very good. My concern remains the same: in the last paragraphs of the intro and background sections...the article switches from past tense to present without sufficient transition. This isn't important enough to slow down the process, but I hope we address it before it gets featured. What about something like the following (new/altered text in italics):

(intro, final 'graph) At the time of of Prophecies and the War in Kryta, the White Mantle must also deal with both the menace of the Orrian undead and rebels who resist the White Mantle's rejection of the traditional Gods of Tyria and who support the reinstatement of Kryta's monarchy. Many of these rebels have come together to form a group known as the Shining Blade, who resist the Mantle and strike out against them using guerrilla tactics.

(background, final 'graph) After their unsuccessful attack, most surviving Mantle forces split into two groups: one group headed into the Maguuma Jungle and into hiding, the others defected to the newly-formed Seraph. Analysts currently doubt that they will pose a credible threat again for a long time.

 — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

that seems fine to me. be bold....- Zesbeer 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I now actively support adding White Mantle to the rotation.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Shining Blade

Accepted 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC), Featured 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Previously nominated, they were rejected due to the War in Kryta beginning. With that well over, I think we could feature these now. -- Konig/talk 21:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me :) --Nick123 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like more say on this please. -- Konig/talk 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

seeing as i nominated this i am still in support...- Zesbeer 02:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is a tl;dr single paragraph. It's history written in the present tense. If there's a discussion of how the Blade was founded, I didn't see it. There are specific Blade NPCs that have critical roles in non-WiK storylines, but it's hard to tell from reading the article. There's no mention of their use of bounties to help rid the countryside of Mantle. And can't we say more about the Scepter of Orr than, "[it] is not known what she did with it, or for how long she held it?"

I like the idea of co-featuring SB and WM, but I don't think this article is ready.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know how the SB formed, just that it was to combat the WM; the SB technically didn't use bounties, the royal family (aka Salma) did - but that's a debatable topic; Regarding the Scepter of Orr and Livia, unfortunatly that's true at the moment. We only know she had it "for a time." Nothing else.

I wasn't sure if either this or the WM article was ready, personally, but I wanted to get some nominations rolling and it's better than it was. I have nothing against holding them both off to rework so long as we have other features (which, atm, is 4 weeks). -- Konig/talk 17:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of the grammar/present tense issue, there's not much to do with TEF's disagreements so after fixing that I'd like to see this moved to accepted unless there's further disagreements. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The only issue TEF mentioned (other than grammar) is the part about their founding, and we don't really know the details of it, so it's not really an issue. More importantly though, this should be a double feature, like the Kurz/Lux one we had way back. I would be strongly opposed if either this or WM would be single featured, they fit together. Maybe not as well as Lux/Kurz since those are equal in lore and game-play terms since we can join both, but in a lore sense WM/SB are equals and the "story" of one is incomplete without the other, particularly the story of SB. razor39999 11:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

lol no.- Zesbeer 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol wai no? Please expand your sentences, I'm not even sure if your "lol no" refers to it being double featured with WM or some other part of my statement. razor39999 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

seeing as i posted right after you it is in reference to you. l/k situation and this are not the same. merging the to articles and featuring at the same time would not work. having the feature one right after another would work.- Zesbeer 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a technical wiki reason that the articles would have to be merged? I thought it could be possible to have a sentence or two of each article's opening paragraph with the top "hidden" link being two links. Maybe Poke can shed some light on the technical side of this. razor39999 12:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Merged articles? Who said anything about merged articles? The L/K double-feature was one after the other. That's what Razor meant and I agree. No one said anything about merging, Zes. -- Konig/talk 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

how i read his comments was that he wanted them featured the same week which just seems logical seeing as the both articles have more then enough info on them to be featured on separate weeks back to back.- Zesbeer 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Razor said to do them the same way Kurzick/Luxon was done. I.e., back to back. -- Konig/talk 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually my memory has failed me on this one, I was sure Lux/Kurz were featured at the same time. So I figured there's a way for two to be featured simultaneously. Guess not, then. Consecutive weeks it is then. :D razor39999 12:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

if there are no objections this will be the next after the white mantle my reason for that is you run into the white mantle first.- Zesbeer 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just want to say that while I was going to set up the SB for the next feature (which Zes beat me to), I noticed a few annoyances I must of missed (somehow) before - the constant use of "the player" at the beginning then the sudden lack of, and there were still more present tense in the paragraphs. I went and did a rewording so that it was less of a summary of the storyline and removed the present tenses that I saw. So please do a double check for any issues. -- Konig/talk

yea when i went to feature it i didn't like the stuff that i copy pasted.. it might be a good idea to throw Mursaat (cus they are kind of linked to wm) up just so we can have some extra time to make some changes to the page.- Zesbeer 05:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Keiran Thackeray

Accepted 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC), Featured 07:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

i know he still is new but i feel the page has died down a bit from when he was introduced.- Zesbeer 02:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it but do we want spoilers on main page? --Nick123 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We've had spoilers on the main page before, I don't find it as much of an issue personally but there was a rage response from a rager in the past due to such. However, if this is accepted, than I nominate Devona, Aidan, and Cynn since they're of the same quality as this, Mhenlo (which seems to be on the fence) and Gwen (a previous feature). -- Konig/talk 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) one thing that has come up that i notice which will have to be changed is the consistency between hero and Hench articles; and that major consistency that i speak of is that all of the hench articles i have seen, have there locations hidden and i think the format should be carried over to this page.- Zesbeer 00:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not really a henchmen-article-only thing. Rather, it's a system that was introduced due to Mhenlo's article being so bloody huge when I did the location list correctly (rather than cheating with "All <region> outposts") so that all the proper categories would be added via {{NPC location}} - the hiding bit was made as compensation for the added length and was then carried over (first to the other four of the group then to the others). It was added to Gwen due to the length and should be added to others which has an extremely long length. Personally, I don't think the length is too long. The beyond areas is lengthy, but not that much. OH! And I found a reason why this shouldn't be featured yet. It has a section-stub. Currently, there's only images of him as a hero (post-lost, cleaned up) and during/prior to WiK; we're missing an image of him in his wedding tux and during HotN missions. -- Konig/talk 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

got the weding pic so now i just need a pre hero, during wik, and during the solo hotn missions?- Zesbeer 13:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre hero and during WiK are the same model, there's four total:pre-HotN missions, HotN missions, post-HotN missions, and wedding. -- Konig/talk 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

i added another one i don't know were you want to get the image of the other one from so ill let you do that.- Zesbeer 12:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the last image, actually. -- Konig/talk 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Desert

Accepted 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC), Featured poke | talk 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it has enough intro text to be feature worthy, and it has some nice history to it, unlike most regions. -- Konig/talk 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this article meets or exceeds the requirements for being good, but I don't think it meets the criteria for being special. 80-90% of the page is composed of bullet points and maps. The remaining 10-20% has 157 words copied from the manual and 177 written by us. I think the two paragraphs are interesting and (as Konig says) include some nice history, but I don't see anything that makes me want to see the article appear on the main page. (Maybe I don't understand the criteria used to nominate articles.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like more opinions on this please. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

TBH if Pre-Searing got featured, this deserves to be featured as well, since it's about the same sort of quality with the lists of explorables "bloating" it. razor39999 11:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

just because something has lists doesn't mean its not feature worthy and there was ample time for you to disagree with Pre-Searing being featured.- Zesbeer 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood, I'm not against this or against Pre-Searing being featured. I made an improved labeled map for the Pre-Searing article, because, according to Konig, that was the only thing missing for that to be a decent feature. I wouldn't have done it if I thought the article wasn't feature worthy. It's just that explorable area lists in articles like these do make them visually unpleasing. But that shouldn't be a reason to not feature them, since you can't have a complete article without those lists. razor39999 12:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ok well there is nothing stopping you from uploading your "improved map".- Zesbeer 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It already was. Though he made an error - He labeled Green Hills County as "The Green Hills." -- Konig/talk 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just copied the location markers from the old one, it had "The Green Hills" as well. Don't have a char slot or the patience to actually go and map out the Pre-Searing in full myself. :P I'll see if I have the map still saved somewhere, I'll reword that marker. EDIT: Meh don't have it saved with all the layers separately, and I don't feel like relabeling it all again, gonna have to stay with the error, unless someone else wants to do it.razor39999 12:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not sure if this should be moved to accepted or not - the only objector was TEF and his reasonings would contradict already featured articles and is disagreed with by at least 3 others... -- Konig/talk 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I still stand by what I said earlier, if Pre-Searing was worthy, this is too. It's an ok feature. razor39999 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My god I love the lore of this place! I want it featured just for that, haha. Sadly, I think it doesn't have that much going for it besides the first couple paragraphs, the rest is just lists. But if Pre met the requirements and got featured, this should be as well. ~Farlo Talk 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Storybook

Accepted 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC), Featured 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

it would be good to remind people about these.- Zesbeer 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No disagreements, but a question: What would be the picture used? Perhaps someone can 'shop an image of multiple books together? Say, five of them in a circle? -- Konig/talk 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

as it has been stated no picture isnt a issue but i could Photoshop all the books lined up if needed.- Zesbeer 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Id say that if you made a picture like that it would be ready to feature :) --Nick123 12:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this thing again, I would prefer if it could be a little longer but not necessary. Either way, where's that picture? -- Konig/talk 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

that picture is in my lazy ass that's where. it is like it has been stated having a picture isnt a requirement. - Zesbeer 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this. Sounds Risky | 11:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Zesbeer: No, an image isn't required, but for an article with so little text, it'll help greatly on the front page and an article which doesn't need an image got featured with an image that's not even on the article (and doesn't make sense to the article without a caption), by you none the less.

@Risky: That works better than previously discussed, I think, as it shows the inside of a book. -- Konig/talk 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Use Risky's pic, it's innovative and shows a bit of how the books look in game when reading them with the whole page flipping etc. razor39999 01:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mhenlo

Accepted 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC), Featured 16:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Previously nominated and rejected for being long lists. Expansion was added, so I figured I'd see what opinions are now. -- Konig/talk 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a lot better than before. I'd like to see the same thing done with the other long data sections as was done with locations.

• Quests is a similar laundry list and could be compacted.
• The skill section is extremely long (b/c of M's many appearances). We could compact it by using skill bars (instead of vertical lists) or putting that info into a table (yeah, I know we don't do that with other NPCs, but it would work for them, too).
  • The evaluation section could use some copy-editing; I'll give that shot now.
• The quotation section is also longer than appropriate IMO; the show/hide technique would work for that, too.

That said, I like the intro and the rest of the layout. Address the the fact that it's 7-screenfuls of data, but mebbe 1 screen of information and I am likely to change to support.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like more opinions on this please. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

i think its fine and disagree with the layout shit that tef wants.- Zesbeer 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I see that I forgot to comment on TEF's opinions earlier: I don't see it as an issue. The quests list isn't terribly long, and the skill section definably should not ever be compacted - and vertical lists looks better imo - and the dialogue section is not needing shortening. Length shouldn't ever be an issue except in the form of "too short." -- Konig/talk 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not sure if this should be moved to accepted or not - the only objector was TEF and his reasonings are disagreed with by 2 others (and tbh aren't that big of a deal)... -- Konig/talk 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Length isn't the issue; 7 screenfuls of data isn't a comment about length, it's a comment about signal:noise ratio. Lots of disconnected quotes, dialogue, individual skills ends up looking more like a set of spreadsheet tabs than an article. I think the article, as it stands, is harder to read than it needs to be... and that makes it, imo, not ready to be featured. There are plenty of ways to address that besides the suggestions I've made.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how the quotes, dialogues, and skills are "disconnected" - they're all grouped up together based on location. It's done the same as Gwen and Keiran Thackeray, first featured and second accepted without this complaint. In fact, I'd say that those two look worse than Mhenlo, simply due to the collector dialogue and the Underworld dialogue script (respectively to the article). -- Konig/talk 06:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

/signed, pretty good and I really like the layout for some reason. ~Farlo Talk 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal companion

Accepted 02:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC), Featured 07:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

i know there is a dispute tag on the page but i am trying to get it resolved, also this was nominated before.- Zesbeer 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the dispute tag remedied before featuring (what was the issue with that anyways?). -- Konig/talk 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

still don't know apparently it has something to do with the table theirs a section on the talk page.- Zesbeer 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is far from ready. It's got a lot of good information (and data), but it's hard for people to find it (at least, according to some of my guildies).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

.... REALLY hard for people to find. ORLY i wounder if thats the ENTIRE POINT of the featured pages project. OH WAIT IT IS.- Zesbeer 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think TEF meant it's hard to find the correct information to put on that page. But if I'm wrong and it's the page that's hard to find... indeed that's the point of this project - well, one of them. -- Konig/talk 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

that might be the case but how he worded what he said i gathered that he meant hard to find he said "according to some of my guildies" thus meaning a hard to find page. but i could be wrong and if so sorry.- Zesbeer 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that the information is on the page, but it's difficult to make use of it. Guild chat frequently has questions about animal companions that are covered in this very article. (And yeah, I'm talking about people who have read it, not the ones who don't bother.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Its look good to me, so you want to make it look simpler? with clearer points? --Nick123 12:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If TEF goes through with making it simpler, I'd say its a simple feature. If he doesn't, then it must not be that big of an issue, so I think moving this to accepted within a month would be fine, objections? -- Konig/talk 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mad King Thorn

Accepted 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC), Featured 08:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

to be featured on Halloween or with new Lunatic Court content

While Halloween may be over, since this article got a rewrite, I figured I'd nominated this article. -- Konig/talk 09:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

i see no reason why not... though i feel like a little more info could be on that page...- Zesbeer 10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a few more yays or nays before accepting/rejecting please... -- Konig/talk 21:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say no because i personally dont find it as interesting as the other pages that have been featured and if we are to feature it i would say do it over halloween :) --Nick123 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it has some serious formatting issues and could use a once-over with GWW:NPC. After that, I'd have no problem with it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see this article as feature-worthy. It's a fine article, but not any more special than dozens of other similar articles.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) an article doesn't have to be "special" it just has to be well written and not have any work tags on it.- Zesbeer 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Added the only thing I noticed missing from the format guide that Santax suggest. -- Konig/talk 02:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The requirements are: no tags (or implied tags) and consensus that an article deserves mention on the main page. I, personally, think an article needs something special to meet that second hurdle. For example, Dwarven Ale and Moon Shell meet the first requirement, but I don't think either is worthy of a prominent spot.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

i really think the article is fine, and unless you come up with a real liget reason as to why we shouldn't feature it then i say full steam ahead it will be good to have more then one article for the Halloween time.- Zesbeer 12:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a legitimate reason: 11 months of the year, there are more interesting articles deserving of the prominent spot; it is only feature-worthy when Guild Wars celebrates Halloween.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, why not do what we did when we accepted other articles such as miniature, Costume Brawl, Rollerbeetle Racing, Dragon Arena, and Dwayna vs Grenth - have a note of "accepted to be featured on xyz event." Unless you have a reason to not feature it even on Halloween. -- Konig/talk 18:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with an event-driven feature cycle; I didn't know that was an option. Timeliness is often all it takes for something dull to become notable. (e.g. the US Vice President is usually forgotten...until the Prez visits the hospital for a flu shot.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Any opposition to moving this to accepted with a tag denoting for either Halloween of when the Lunatic Court's content comes about? -- Konig/talk 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I support this.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Halloween is upcoming, I support this idea Tomoko 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Guide to earning Hall of Monuments rewards

Accepted 22:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC), Featured 09:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's coming along and is nearing some kind of "completed" state. Lots of wonderful info for Guild Wars 2 and the HoM put together pretty neatly without being too much of a list. There might not be enough for a header paragraph though. ~FarloTalk 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Introduction area (the title is unnecessary) has enough text I think. Questions comes with: What's a good image to use, are the images in the section headers necessary, and is it complete? The first I can only see the top image being used, the second I say no, and I'll let you answer the third. Imo, move the images to just under the section heads, remove ==Introduction==, and just double-check for errors or missing information and then I'd agree with feature. Not prior though. Konig/talk 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Something I noticed as I went to remove ==Introduction==; File:User Saxon File-HoM Points.png is used on a main article. Main articles, especially featured (and auto-protected!) ones should not be user images. Konig/talk 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

agreed with konig, though i think the images the sections in some places are a bit off, i don't know what i would use to replace them.- Zesbeer 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

With the image, we can just re-upload it into the general namespace, unless there's some reason against that; I think Saxon just copy/pasted it from his user page and didn't bother uploading it again. I took about 5 minutes putting those images in the sections, so yeah, there are probably better ones, I just picked one that somewhat related to the section that had a white/clear background. If it'd make it look better, we can remove the images, but I think some images help it, and I didn't like how it was before. ~FarloTalk 01:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a great page, only thing I'd like to see different is a larger image on the top section, because it looks fairly empty in my opinion.--Mark, het Beest 08:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As the page is still "under construction for improvement" (that is, it's complete but it's being sprusened up) - once the work on it is complete, I say it's feature worthy. Konig/talk 08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the nomination, and lot of the work has already been touched up. I just fixed a few things myself. For a main article pic I would either use the first image in the article, or some other eye candy that will draw readers in. Other then that, great work guys, looking good. --Moto Saxon 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

now that the page has been reworked i can say yes. as for the image i think the one there would work fine.- Zesbeer 21:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Any other feed back, or is it ready to be accepted? --Moto Saxon 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather this wait until the article is finished, before it gets accepted. We don't want it to be mistakenly featured when it's still in the works. Kaisha 17:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's always been finished. It was just being tidied up. Farlo, a few other and myself have tidied it over the past few days. --Moto Saxon 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Best let it be finished with being tried up then.Konig/talk 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. It has been completely tidied up, unless anyone has further suggestions. --Moto Saxon 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

lets wait a week and then if no one has made huge changes to it i think we will be good to go i think we just want to see the dust settle. - Zesbeer 21:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

After sitting for two weeks with no major changes I'd say it's feature worthy. What is the next step? I'm not to familiar with this aspect of the wiki yet. --Moto Saxon 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

2 more months and still no chirps O.0 --Moto Saxon 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)