Forgotten Realms Wiki:Featured article nominations

This thread is for nominating, discussing and voting on featured articles to go on the Featured article template. An article that reaches at least 3 votes in favour, including one administrator vote, will be promoted to featured article status.

Please nominate an article in the following format: ==Article Name==
 * Nominated by:
 * Disclaimer:
 * Vote:
 * For:
 * Against:
 * Pros:
 * Cons:
 * Requests
 * Verdict:
 * Requests
 * Verdict:
 * Verdict:
 * Article Name: The name of the nominated article. This should be a direct link to the article.
 * Nominated by: The editor who originally nominated the article for feature status.
 * Disclaimer: Please note if you wrote the article yourself or otherwise had a strong hand in it.
 * Vote: The current score. Please add 1 if you are for it, subtract 1 if you are against it.
 * For: List your name here if in favor.
 * Against: List your name if in not in favor.
 * Pros: Give a dot-point list of reasons why the article should be featured.
 * Cons: Give a dot-point list of reasons why the article should not be featured.
 * Requests: List anything you feel should be done to the article that would make improve and/or make it worthy of featured status.
 * Verdict: The final result of the vote: 'approved' to be a featured article; 'pending' or blank if it's still under discussion; or 'refused' if it's currently irredeemable without major reworking. The verdict will be decided by an administrator after thorough checking.

For Nominated, For, and Against, just list your user name: User:__. For Pros, Cons, and Requests, give a reason following by a short signature. Your user name will do.

You may change your vote if you are satisfied by changes to an article, or find some problem with it. Please relocate your name to the correct category, update the current vote, and note the change somewhere.

Extensive discussion of requested work on an article should be taken to that article's Talk page.

World Tree cosmology — Approved!

 * Vote: 3
 * For
 * Moviesign, BadCatMan, Darkwynters

instead of – Moviesign
 * Against
 * Disclaimer: I rewrote nearly all of this article. – Moviesign
 * Pros
 * big article, copious references, fancy image map, demonstrates use of the "notes" template, fairly complete coverage of the topic, mostly Realms specific. – Moviesign
 * Excellently written, complete and cited. – BadCatMan
 * Amazing image map, excellent coverage of a key part of the setting. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:24, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Multi-edition resourced, clean and organized Darkwynters (talk) 18:52, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Cons
 * Topic is not universally appealing, only the one image, not strictly in-universe due to nature of the topic. – Moviesign
 * Real-world point of view (references to sourcebooks, editions, players): I think we should maintain an in-universe POV for in-universe articles (is there a policy for this?). – BadCatMan
 * This has been addressed. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:24, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests
 * Perhaps this could be altered for a mainly in-universe POV, while real-world information could appear in an appendix with the notes? More pictures could be included by showing images of specific planes from the 3e/3.5 era. For example, File:Barrens of Doom and Despair.jpg could be shown as a thumbnail beside the Barrens of Doom and Despair section. – BadCatMan
 * Added image. Will look for more. – Moviesign
 * Because of the cosmology retcon, there is no in-universe way to explain the sudden shift in cosmology details (like switching from Ethereal Plane to Astral Plane for journeys to the Inner Planes) because WotC didn't give us one. The article attempts to bring a sense of real-world continuity to an in-universe discontinuity and I believe relegating the meta-info to the appendix would leave behind a jumble that doesn't make much sense on first reading. – Moviesign
 * Moved the retcon explanation to the Notes section and re-wrote a few sentences to be more in-universe.
 * Added another image. – Moviesign
 * Good work! I've added another image and am going over it with some copy-editing, expanded a note about the retcon. That's in progress. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:24, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * There were three locations which need citations and I removed a lot of duplicate links... of course, if you feel these links are needed, feel free to undo my work :) Darkwynters (talk) 18:52, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Added missing citations. BTW, I think the space between the body of a ref tag and its terminator is considered good XML practice, i.e., is preferable to It's the same for
 * Added missing citations. BTW, I think the space between the body of a ref tag and its terminator is considered good XML practice, i.e., is preferable to It's the same for
 * Verdict:Approved as a Featured Article! — BadCatMan (talk) 02:26, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

The Vast

 * Vote: 0
 * For
 * Moviesign


 * Against
 * BadCatMan


 * Disclaimer:
 * Pros
 * big article, excellent infobox, copious references, demonstrates use of the "notes" template, well organized, seems exhaustively complete, Realms specific. Even unfinished this is an excellent article. – Moviesign
 * Cons
 * "Fauna" section only has two sentences (I had to really reach to find even that much of a con). – Moviesign
 * I'm not finished with it yet. :) – BadCatMan
 * Requests
 * There's some one-liners at the beginning I haven't sorted out yet, and I want to expand on the introduction; make a cities and towns overview; write a bit about the local orcs and goblinoids; a section on general mysteries and adventure opportunities. Plus I need to work on the recent history. My Vast work is on hold while I concentrate on other projects. – BadCatMan

Nine Hells

 * Vote: 1
 * For
 * Moviesign


 * Against
 * Disclaimer: I rewrote much of this article. – Moviesign
 * Pros
 * big article, copious references, good infobox, demonstrates use of the "notes" template, attempts to cover all versions of the plane over three cosmology models. – Moviesign
 * Cons
 * topic is not universally appealing, could be improved with more material from newer sources, only the one image. – Moviesign
 * Requests
 * Requests

Zhentil Keep

 * Vote: -1
 * For
 * Moviesign


 * Against
 * hash, Darkwynters


 * Disclaimer:
 * Pros
 * Big article, well referenced, popular topic, extra images. – Moviesign
 * Big & reasonably comprehensive – hash
 * Cons
 * Quite a few red links. – Moviesign (Withdrawn)
 * The timeline in Ruins of Zhentil Keep upon which a lot of the article is based was deliberately written with a pro-zhentarim bias. Red links. – hash
 * Missing sources; needs clean up and organization - Darkwynters
 * Requests
 * Cross-reference with other sources so the article is truthful. – hash

Mithral Hall

 * Vote: 0
 * For
 * Moviesign


 * Against
 * Darkwynters


 * Disclaimer:
 * Pros
 * Big article, well referenced, well-known topic, gallery – Moviesign
 * Cons
 * Some subsections fall below the three-sentence rule/guideline. – Moviesign
 * Organization; entire sections need citations; needs more clarity in wording - Darkwynters
 * Requests

Kalach-Cha

 * Vote: -1
 * For
 * BadCatMan


 * Against
 * Darkwynters, hash


 * Disclaimer:
 * Pros
 * Huge (biggest real article on the wiki), complete, popular topic — BadCatMan
 * Popular — hash
 * Cons
 * No pictures, huge wall of text. B canon, but that's not a real drawback. The main problem is the language: it's very vague, severely overuses "would" statements, uses awkward his/her and he/she genders, and generally suffers for trying to accommodate the branching storylines of the game and player customisation of the character. — BadCatMan
 * Too comprehensive - lots of information that doesn't need to be there; Lots of red links; unattractive. — hash
 * Organization; needs to be reworded; no sources for specific game references - Darkwynters
 * Requests
 * This needs an edit to improve the language (hey, that's something I can do). Pictures can be included by taking scenes from the game and other character (essentially, the article is as much a synopsis of the game as it is a biography of the character). — BadCatMan
 * Feels like I am playing a game, not reading about a person and his history - Darkwynters

Larloch — Approved!

 * Nominated by: BadCatMan
 * Disclaimer: I wrote this. :D — BadCatMan


 * Vote: +4
 * For
 * BadCatMan, Darkwynters, hash, Moviesign


 * Against


 * Pros
 * Big, complete, fully referenced, pictures — BadCatMan
 * Comparatively few red links; comprehensive; well-referenced. — hash
 * Excellent research of topic and uses multiple sources - Darkwynters
 * Cons
 * That much text needs to be interspersed with more pictures. Perhaps we can find a fan artist who wouldn't mind us hosting their work? — hash
 * Requests
 * Verdict: Approved as a featured article! — BadCatMan

Procampur — Approved!

 * Nominated by: BadCatMan
 * Disclaimer: I wrote this. :D BadCatMan
 * Vote: +3
 * For
 * BadCatMan, Darkwynters, Moviesign


 * Against
 * Pros
 * Big, complete, fully referenced, pictures and quotes. It's a bit of a wall-of-text, but I broke it up with section breaks and the few images I could find. — BadCatMan
 * Cleanly written and organized; editor clearly demonstrated his appreciation of the subject - Darkwynters
 * Cons
 * Perhaps its over-referenced? I need to do something with the unnamed temple of Deneir; it sits there rather awkwardly. — BadCatMan (Temple of Deneir: fixed. I'm happy now.) — BadCatMan
 * Requests
 * Verdict: Approved as a featured article! — BadCatMan
 * Verdict: Approved as a featured article! — BadCatMan

Plane of Shadow

 * Vote: 1
 * For
 * Moviesign


 * Against
 * Disclaimer: I wrote most of this article, except the Appearances section. – Moviesign
 * Pros
 * Fairly big article, well referenced, nice infobox, opening quote, covers the changes from 1st to 3.5 edition and has a nice intro to the Shadowfell. – Moviesign
 * Cons
 * No images. – Moviesign
 * Requests
 * Requests

Dethek — Approved!

 * Vote: 3
 * For
 * Moviesign, BadCatMan, Darkwynters


 * Against
 * Disclaimer:
 * Pros
 * Unusual topic, lots of attention-grabbing images, well referenced, Realms specific. – Moviesign
 * Educational, useful. — BadCatMan
 * Exceptionally well researched, multi-edition citations, great images, overall a very interesting page. Darkwynters
 * Cons
 * Not very long. – Moviesign
 * It's written in present tense, and not all of this seems to be cited. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:33, May 28, 2013 (UTC) Addressed: I have changed it to past tense, removed or altered speculation, and checked and supplied citations. — BadCatMan
 * Requests
 * It would be nice to see some official images that illustrate Dethek writing. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:33, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added an image of a runestone. — BadCatMan
 * This is after the article was approved, but I added an example from the background image used on some 3rd and 3.5 edition sourcebooks – Moviesign
 * I added an image of a warhammer bearing the runes. — BadCatMan
 * Verdict: Approved as a Featured Article! — BadCatMan (talk) 13:56, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * Verdict: Approved as a Featured Article! — BadCatMan (talk) 13:56, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Elemental Plane of Fire — Approved!

 * Vote: 3
 * For
 * Moviesign, BadCatMan, Darkwynters


 * Against
 * Disclaimer: I wrote almost all of this article. – Moviesign
 * Pros
 * Fairly big article, heavily referenced, nice infobox, in-universe perspective, nice images. – Moviesign
 * Excellent work, well written, pictured, and detailed. — BadCatMan
 * Expertly researched, extremely detailed, superb article - Darkwynters
 * Cons
 * Baldur's Gate section is kinda lame. – Moviesign
 * This is very Core at the moment, and lacking in Realms-specific material. — BadCatMan (Withdrawn)
 * Requests
 * Can we find more Realmslore relating to the Plane of Fire? — BadCatMan
 * I have supplied some Realms-specific material pertaining to the Plane of Fire. I withdraw this as a Con. — BadCatMan
 * Verdict: Approved as a featured article! — BadCatMan
 * Verdict: Approved as a featured article! — BadCatMan

Wheloon

 * Nominated by: BadCatMan
 * Disclaimer: Almost all written by me.
 * Vote: 3
 * For: BadCatMan, Moviesign, Eli the Tanner
 * Against:
 * Pros:
 * A complete and detailed article, a core area of the Realms, covers both sides of the Spellplague, has images. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:29, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well researched and about as thorough as you can get. A fine example. – Moviesign (talk) 03:20, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly one of the best examples on the Wiki and an article I often refer back to for reference.--Eli the Tanner (talk) 10:45, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Cons:
 * A few related articles I still need to make. — BadCatMan
 * Made 'em. — BadCatMan
 * I changed my mind about red links, they should not be a con. – Moviesign
 * Some paragraphs do not meet the 3-sentence rule and read more like bullet points&mdash;a minor con. – Moviesign (Withdrawn)
 * The 3-sentence rule only applies to whole articles, and is a guideline for whether to include sections or not. It doesn't apply to paragraphs. Some of my paragraphs are a bit small or are one-liners, but only because they cover single, specific topics, which is the purpose of a paragraph. Regardless, I'll try to join a few. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:08, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests
 * Adding a few more images, if possible, to help break up the text maybe (minor)--Eli the Tanner (talk) 10:45, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Verdict:

Realms of the Dead

 * Nominated by: Moviesign
 * This could be a "Featured Source", if you think it more appropriate.


 * Disclaimer: I have not read this book. – Moviesign
 * Vote: 1
 * For: Moviesign
 * Against:
 * Pros:
 * Long, detailed summaries. Tie-ins to almost every corner of the Realms. Work spans every edition. – Moviesign
 * Cons:
 * Not quite finished yet. – Moviesign
 * Requests
 * Summarize last three short stories for the win! – Moviesign
 * I'd like to see an index of references to things that appear in the book, such as at Darkwalker on Moonshae or Realms of Valor. This would be more appropriate as Featured Source anyway. — BadCatMan
 * Verdict:
 * Well, having left it too long, I needed a featured source in a hurry, and this was the closest. Accepted. — BadCatMan (talk) 14:09, June 29, 2013 (UTC)