UESPWiki:Featured Articles

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.

Archives of previous nominations can be found here.

Featured Article Process

Nomination

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.

Voting

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.

Decisions

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 one month and receive a small bronze star () on the top right corner. If an article achieves featured status before the present featured article's month expires, it must wait its turn.

Current Featured Article

• Skyrim:Mountain Climbing 4 January, 2016 - 4 February, 2016

Next

None in queue.

Previous Featured Articles

Article	Dates Featured
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
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 (quest)	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 Votes

Lore:Sancre Tor

Short and sweet, the Sancre Tor lore article examines the conflicting founding myths from a neutral standpoint and summarises the game events pretty well. It's a textbook example of what the LPP can achieve (although having said that, it does need to be fact-checked by a second project member). The final vn tag was removed today, so I figure it deserves a nomination.

• Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: It's really well made. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 22:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's a great article about an interesting location but the LPP tag needs dealt with before it is ready to be featured. Other articles have been held to this standard and opposed for this reason in the past and LPP pages should be no different even if the tag is less noticeable. Once this has been dealt with, I'll gladly support featuring this otherwise excellent article. Forfeit (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Lore:Skyrim was featured without having ever even been given an LPP tag. The purpose of that project is to clean up old, pre-2012 lore pages which didn't match the new guidelines. The check is a largely irrelevant step in the process, which is why the tag is hidden. The Sancre Tor article's continued participation in the project shouldn't really affect its FA chances if there aren't any obvious flaws. —Legoless (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • What about what was mentioned in this conversation though? If what Jeancey suggested is what checking means for LPP articles, I would think it would be important for a page to go through this process before being featured to ensure it's 100% complete and accurate. Even if there aren't any obvious flaws, some less obvious errors may be noticed and corrected during this checking process or missing information could be filled in. Just because Lore:Skyrim didn't go through this process doesn't mean that this was for the better as the article may have benefited from being checked. An article like Skyrim:Ulfric Stormcloak certainly suffered from being featured without a checking parameter because no one noticed the lines of dialogue missing from the article that would have been caught if it was checked through a project, leading to an incomplete article being featured. Forfeit (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I would disagree. Missing a line of dialogue is a very technical and significant flaw; making sure that an article is "correct and sourced" is pretty standard procedure for wiki articles regardless of their participation in a project. To equate the LPP with gamespace is to misunderstand the purpose of the project, and to exclude a page from a FA nomination because it doesn't have a box ticked seems unwarranted (especially when other lore articles have not been and are not held to such a standard). —Legoless (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Another well-written article, and also quite inspirational to read, for me at least. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lore:Wars

Looking through the archives, I'm actually surprised this article has not been nominated at all in the past. It's very well written and well laid out. Each war is well-described, both those that do and don't have their own dedicated articles. I feel the only thing that the article still could use is mention of the Planemeld (since the Oblivion Crisis is listed), but even without it, it still meets the requirements of FA status.

• Support: As nominator. Schiffy^(Talk) 04:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: It definitely looks like a lot of effort has been put into this list. However, it's not really an article.. it just lists the historical events. So I'm unsure whether to support or oppose. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lore:Snow Elf

Another well sourced and well written article. I thought it deserved a nomination.

• Support: As nominator. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: One of my favourites. It meticulously documents the information from Dawnguard and Skyrim, while still paying respect to the older, more obscure lore. —Legoless (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good to me. Comprehensive, well written, and about an interesting topic as well. Forfeit (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with the above, it looks like a great article. Again, inspirational for those who are trying to start writing articles, this sets a good standard. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)