Forums: Helping Hand > Nominated Feature Articles

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

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.

Nomination ProcessEdit


A feature article should meet the following criteria:

  • Complete: The article should give everything about the subject. There should be a complete account from the standard sources, and common and important information should appear. It doesn't have to be utterly exhaustive, with every tidbit from every obscure source, but ideally there should be some little tidbits of lore to spice it up and surprise the expert FR fan.
  • Correct: We should be able to confirm that every fact presented is true and accurate by examining the sources. That goes hand-in-hand with...
  • Referenced: The article should be fully referenced.
  • Formatted: The article should be fully formatted in wiki article style, sectioned out, and infoboxed, with a past-tense, in-universe POV, and good English text.
  • Important: The article should be on a reasonably well-known topic that ties into the larger setting, comes from multiple sources, or is just famous to readers.
  • Big: A medium-to-long article demonstrates completeness, and short ones are too easy to make look good.
  • Illustrated: Pictures and quotes really spice up the article, breaking up walls of text, and make it look good. It also stands out on the main page.
  • Demonstrative: The article should demonstrate all appropriate practices, policies, templates, and wiki code to budding editors. It should also demonstrate our usefulness to players and DMs (for example, presenting a fully developed community to play in or NPC to deal with). It could also demonstrate how to balance lore from different editions and media.

Nomination FormEdit

Please nominate an article in the following format:

  ===[[Article Name]]===
  ;Nominated by:
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.
Please note if you wrote the article yourself or otherwise had a strong hand in it.
The current score. Please add 1 if you are for it, subtract 1 if you are against it.
List your name here if in favor.
List your name if in not in favor.
Give a dot-point list of reasons why the article should be featured.
Give a dot-point list of reasons why the article should not be featured.
List anything you feel should be done to the article that would make improve and/or make it worthy of featured status.
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.

Voting ProcessEdit

For Nominated, For, and Against, just list your user name: [[User:__]]. For Pros, Cons, and Requests, give a reason following by a short signature (three tildes ~~~).

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 tally, and note the change somewhere.

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


Nine HellsEdit

Moviesign, Darkwynters, SilverTiger
I rewrote much of this article. – Moviesign
  • 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
  • excellent organization, expertly sourced, and interesting subject matter - Darkwynters (talk) 18:38, August 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • Well formatted and referenced article. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:19, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • topic is not universally appealing, could be improved with more material from newer sources, only the one image. – Moviesign
    • I added two more images to help break up the wall of text. —Moviesign (talk) 13:59, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • the article does lack specific references to the Realms, though it does include Forgotten Realms sourcebooks - Darkwynters (talk) 18:38, August 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • Missing essential associated articles (two of the Hells are missing). ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:19, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Lacking: No appearances, no quotes etc. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:19, May 12, 2019 (UTC)

Zhentil KeepEdit

hash, Darkwynters, Possessed Priest
  • Big article, well referenced, popular topic, extra images. – Moviesign
  • Big & reasonably comprehensive – hash
  • 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
  • Notable Locations has almost no information. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:14, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Most sentences/paragraphs missing references. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:14, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Only one image and no quotes. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:14, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • General page is untidy in most places, isn't up to the standard of a Good article. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:14, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Cross-reference with other sources so the article is truthful. – hash

Mithral HallEdit

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


Darkwynters, hash
  • Huge (biggest real article on the wiki), complete, popular topic — BadCatMan
  • Popular — hash
  • 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
  • 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


Nominated by
I just discovered it was a Featured Article in the past. I haven't looked at it yet.
Jandor, Regis87
Possessed Priest
  • At first glance, it doesn't seem that bad. — Jandor (talk) 16:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Not fleshed out enough to be a Featured Article. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:03, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Mainly only relies on two sources, VGtC and the novel. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:03, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs missing at end of paragraphs (and other places), inconsistent formatting in locations. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:03, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Needs general tidying. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:03, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Appendix and all subsections missing. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:03, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Being a quite popular area of FR (Cormyr, although I'm not that fond of this area yet), we should also look it more thoroughly for possible easy refreshes-updates-enrichment. — Jandor (talk) 16:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


Nominated by
I rewrote most of this article. – Moviesign
  • A fairly well-rounded article that hopefully sheds some light on the confusion of the many Mystras. – Moviesign
  • Quite a few nice illustrations – Moviesign
  • Well written and fleshed out, a very important goddess. — BadCatMan (talk)
  • Subject is from pre-Time of Troubles and is therefore 2nd-edition with limited sources, not very modern, and might have limited appeal. – Moviesign
    • Mystryl/Mystra is important to the setting in all her incarnations, and this Mystra's actions continue to have importance (making the Chosen, raising gods, etc.) — BadCatMan (talk)
  • I have laid the foundation, but this article needs fleshing out with information from the novels before it's feature-worthy. – Moviesign
  • Much of the history is based on adventure sourcebooks and not the novels. Please discuss at Talk:Mystra, especially whether this is a con or not. I honestly don't know. – Moviesign
    • Yeah, there's a lot more history and personality to her in the novels. I touched on this at the Talk page. — BadCatMan (talk)
  • Someone please add info and flavor from the novels. – Moviesign


Nominated by
I wrote this. —Moviesign
Regis87, Possessed Priest
  • Another unusual town with quite a bit of detail. —Moviesign (talk)
  • Quotes and a glossary to break up the wall of text. —Moviesign (talk)
  • So much detail! Daranios (talk) 17:28, May 13, 2018 (UTC)
  • Well referenced, highly detailed in all aspects. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 11:43, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • The town doesn't exist anymore, so not exactly a current topic. —Moviesign (talk)
  • Despite the good effect of the quote boxes: No images aside from maps. I guess there are none? Daranios (talk) 17:28, May 13, 2018 (UTC)
    • There are only two primary sources that reference this town, and, sadly, neither of them have any images. Thankfully, Ed gave a good deal of "atmosphere" in his articles. —Moviesign (talk) 21:51, May 19, 2018 (UTC)


Nominated by
Moviesign, Possessed Priest, Sirwhiteout
  • The infobox image is low resolution. —Regis87 (talk)
    • Generally, low-resolution files are required, because of copyright, but in this case, it is indeed a poor-quality scan, so, yes, the image should be replaced. ~ Lhynard (talk)
Changed the picture with a not enlarged one to lower resolution. May I ask whether it is alright? Saya222 (talk) 19:33, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
Yea looks much better! --Regis87 (talk) 20:34, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
agreed ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Infobox uses a confusing mix of refs in the headings and in the text. ~ Lhynard (talk)
    I hope, that it is solved. May I ask whether it is still confusing?19:32, May 14, 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, much better; thanks! ~ Lhynard (talk)
  • ToC is too long.
    This can be fixed by using ; for 4th-level headers instead of ====. ~ Lhynard (talk)
    Done.19:32, May 14, 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks! ~ Lhynard (talk)
  • Quote boxes aren't being used properly.
    They are not meant for excerpts from novels in an out-of-universe fashion; they should be for quotes in an in-universe fashion. The source field should not be listing a book; it should be giving a speaker, followed by a typical reference footnote. ~ Lhynard (talk)
    I hope, it's solved now. I kept it to quotes where characters are actually speaking or thinking. May I ask whether that is alright?19:32, May 14, 2018 (UTC)
    There are still a few issues with them, which I can fix myself. I'll try to do that a bit later. Thanks for putting in the work so far! ~ Lhynard (talk)
Thank you very much for looking over.
Saya222 (talk) 04:50, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
I fixed them up. The points to keep in mind are:
  • They should only be from a single speaker—no conversations.
  • They should not have quotes; those are added automatically.
  • They should be "in-universe".
~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation.19:13, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the punctuation/style is not correct/standard for an article here, particularly in the headings.
    For example, all the hyphens should be colons or en-dashes or em-dashes. It would be better to remove them altogether. Instead of a heading of "Relationships - Allies", just have "Allies". Some of the headings are not needed at all, such as the subheadings for all the different ability types. Just keep them in separate paragraphs. ~ Lhynard (talk)
    I found out, that "wasn't" and "weren't" were used and corrected it. But that was certainly the most minor of problems. May I ask what other style-policies were offended? I guess a grammar problem is meant with punctuation problems. I will try to figure and solve them.19:32, May 14, 2018 (UTC)
    I was actually OK with the contractions, although they aren't often used in formal writing, that trend in English seems to be going away. It actually was nothing to do with grammar; I meant punctuation/style. These are also things that I can clean up on my own. ~ Lhynard (talk)
Thank you very much.
Saya222 (talk) 04:50, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
I performed a thorough copy-edit. There were actually a lot more grammatical issues than I had noticed at first, but no worries! ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for correcting them.19:13, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • In the notes, avoid links such as "here" and "this question". A webpage should always be explicit in link text. Provide the name of the location of the link and provide the text of the actual question asked. ~ Lhynard (talk)
Tsammarco was so kind to do it.
Saya222 (talk) 19:33, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Much of information is repeated in multiple sections. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Too much detail for my taste in some places—for example, letting us know an assortment of his key spells would suffice; there is no need to go through so many spells explaining what he can do with them, since that information is easily found elsewhere and is the same for any one else. Nevertheless, I am no longer against this becoming a featured article—in fact, I just awarded it GA status—but it is too wordy and overly detailed for me to consider it one of the wiki's very best in its current state. My preference—but I am only one person!—is that our very best articles be both complete and concise. That being said, it has clearly received a lot of great work from two editors. Thank you and good work! ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. So it means, the next tasks would be to:
  • cut the stuff that could be read on the linked pages like the passage "cast disguise self, nondetection, invisibility, and mislead, ... to become invisible while leaving a decoy" despite having the spell appear on the head of the Ability-section?
  • adding general information like an explanation for Remote Sense owned by all deities on a page and cut it from the Vhaeraun page, adding a passage like see also deity#Abilities#Remote Sense?
If I'm correct I could try it out, though it would take some time.
Saya222 (talk) 19:13, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Minor change needed: Some titles missing references. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 12:11, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
I changed it to the format of the elven and gnome pantheon. May I ask whether it was the right one?Saya222 (talk) 18:33, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:46, June 4, 2018 (UTC)

Dark SeldarineEdit

Nominated by
Regis87, SilverTiger
Possessed Priest
  • Very thorough, fully referenced, good infobox, uses notes, and is organized.
  • A model for other pantheon articles; this particular pantheon has had its fingers in many events over the centuries.
  • Could use some more inline images.
    • Ditto. The article is a wall of text, which scares many readers away.
  • ToC is too long. The best articles should avoid using 4th level headings. Instead of ====, we should be using a semicolon to bold the sub-sub-sub-headings.
  • We should avoid headings with links and instead use {{Main}}. Similarly, I suspect that some of the content could be moved to sub-articles to make the current article less overwhelming in length.
  • Article is essentially a wall of text, no images, border boxes, or even quotes (for which there are several) to split up the article. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 11:53, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Keptolo should be fleshed out or removed (major red link and connections red link). Realms or not? A drow deity, as is Vulkoor, but no strict Realms relation. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 11:53, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Appendix lacking: no appearances, gallery, external links. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 11:53, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • I just upgraded the article to GA status. However, I don't think it is quite up to par to be a Featured Article, though my things against it are minor and fixable. (Also, I am really picky about what makes a Feature Article, so please do not take it personally!) ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:08, April 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any more information about Zinzerena's return? Also, there is a really weird parethesed note in the second paragraph of the Second Sundering section.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:19, April 7, 2020 (UTC)

Neverwinter (game)Edit

Nominated by
Regis87 (talk)
Possessed Priest, Lhynard,SilverTiger
  • Full Index
  • Very detailed write-up on the various plotlines in the game
  • Detailed write-ups about the modules
  • Updated frequently as new material is released
  • Lots of images breaking up the walls of text
  • Is a video game, so not 100% official canon
    • Even if true (which it isn't, unless it contradicts something higher in the hierarchy), that is not part of the criteria to discriminate a featured article from a non-featured one. ~ Possessed Priest
  • The index is nowhere near full or complete ~ Possessed Priest
  • Despite being a long article, it is not at all completely covered (this game has a wiki with more pages than us!) ~ Possessed Priest
  • Inconsistent sections. Some modules have date tags (such as Module 1), others do not (such as Module 7): i.e., Released November 2015 vs no tag ~ Possessed Priest
  • Wall of text and a lot of red links in the index. It might be possible/advisable to link some things (such as characters) as redirects to the game's own wiki.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:19, April 7, 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is way too large. The modules should be their own articles. ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:20, April 7, 2020 (UTC)
  • Paragraphs are not cited properly. ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:20, April 7, 2020 (UTC)
  • The article cannot decide whether it is written in-universe or out-of-universe. ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:20, April 7, 2020 (UTC)

Approved NomineesEdit


Okay, I'm going to kick this off with a few nominations from the Special:LongPages list. Please add your vote and the For/Against, Pros/Cons as you see fit. If we get to +3 with at least one admin vote, then it becomes a featured article. Agreed? (Removing the rest of my original post because it is now redundant.) —Moviesign (talk) 05:34, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Moviesign (talk) 23:25, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Movesign! Nice work. I've added a few sections: Vote (the score you give it, whether −1, 0, +1), Request (what needs to be done), Disclaimer (whether you've worked on it or fully read it). More detailed discussions of what needs to be done should go to the article's Talk page.

For the record, this follows on from Forum:Featured articles!, where I outlined some suggested criteria for a featured article.

I'll offer my services as a technical editor to go over articles whose only problems are language and grammar.


These two I shoved in the featured article template as placeholders, but I'd like to do this properly and by-the-book.

— BadCatMan (talk) 07:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
(I will be editing this post as I get the time to review the nominated pages)
hashtalk 13:39, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Since each article is going to be mentioned multiple times with additional pros/cons, I thought I should remove the "+1" out front of the name and we will just tally the votes as they come in. If you want to keep the running total, I'll put it back.

Moviesign (talk) 14:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. This may get very complicated.To keep everything in one place and orderly, how about we arrange things in sections by nominated article? For example:


Then we just place all discussion re: a particular article within that section? That better help us keep track of votes (in only one spot) and current discussion, and enable editors to quickly work out what needs to be done months or more later.

— BadCatMan (talk) 14:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

BadCat, great idea :) Since I just took a look at Mithral Hall and Zhentil Keep... they both get a -1 from me... Procampur and Larloch get a +1... I would write pros and cons, but I'll wait until we have a general organization of this page :)

Darkwynters (talk) 19:42, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I've restructured the thread so that the nominated sections sit independently of our forum post boxes, so they're easier to find. I've also tried to make it ordered and neat, and given an introduction and instructions. Kick me if I lost anything.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:19, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

A bit of a bump. Moviesign's Elemental Plane of Fire needs one more vote to make it happen, so someone please have a look at it.

(I'm focusing on examining and helping one feature-worthy article at a time.)

— BadCatMan (talk) 09:38, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Just noting that Moviesign's World Tree cosmology has seen some action and needs one more vote to be made a feature article. I've also put forward my own Wheloon. No offense to Moviesign, but I've been avoiding Nine Hells and Plane of Shadow. Although they seem very good and feature-worthy, I don't want to see too many planes dominating our featured articles and would like variety at this stage. You're a victim of your own brilliance. :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 08:39, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Realms of the Dead, it would be more appropriate as a Featured Source. I wasn't going to worry about us voting on these, because it's comparatively easier to judge the quality of the summaries and link indexes and basic facts. But I would appreciate people pointing them out to me. :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 13:07, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's make a forum thread for featured source recommendations?
Moviesign (talk) 13:30, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your post. Then I left this too long and needed a featured source for July. I picked up Realms of the Dead after all. And now I've made the forum thread.

— BadCatMan (talk) 14:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I found a hidden featured article on the Geography Portal. If you scroll down you can see that Marsember is listed under the Featured Article heading. So, I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention.

Moviesign (talk) 14:11, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

I just love how we keep discovering things on this wiki's deep dungeon.. You did well to bring it up..

— Jandor (talk) 16:25, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yet another "featured article" is mentioned on the Portal:Deities page. I just happened to have updated the infobox on the Red Knight page a short while ago, but I didn't look at any of the text. If anyone knows about his deity and wants to spruce up the article, please do. Our featured articles should be the best quality we can muster. Oh, and is the Deities Portal good? It looks like it has the 3-3.5 stuff on the left and the 4th ed. stuff on the right, which I think is a good thing since we have lots of 3-3.5 players who are not going to 4th ed. anytime soon.

Moviesign (talk) 13:56, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
There's a fair bit more that could be added to the Red Knight page. Given the standard we're now pushing with Mystryl and Ilmater, the Red Knight just doesn't rate as a Featured Article any more, IMO. Similarly with our new Featured Article system and standards, the rest of the old ones marked at the portals no longer qualify: Portal:Sourcebooks: Elves of Evermeet (it's just a regular sourcebook page); Portal:Novels: Bury Elminster Deep (a regular novel page); Portal:Magic: sphere of ultimate destruction (unreferenced, present tense, sparse on detail); and Portal:Geography: Marsember (looks good, but not as obsessively detailed as Wheloon and Procampur).

Personally, I never use the Portals, and don't see the point in them, but I already know enough about the Realms and the wiki to search for stuff directly. However, I'm aware some users to use them. But the Portal pages need to be continually updated with each new release, new edition and change of circumstances in the setting. Another thing to overhaul, I guess. :(
— BadCatMan (talk) 02:26, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
February will be upon us before you know it. Please look at the nominations above and vote. Then spiffy up your favorite article and nominate it. By agreement, it takes a vote total of 3 (yeas are worth +1, nays are worth -1) including a +1 from an admin for an article to become a Featured article. I'd like to set a goal to fill out the slots (that is, have 12 different featured articles) by the end of this year.
Moviesign (talk) 16:51, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
Bump. Please write, review, clean up, nominate, and vote for articles that best represent our wiki. :)

Edit: Any registered user may vote! DW, you edited the page but didn't vote. Hurry up, it's already April in Australia :D —Moviesign (talk) 01:58, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Moviesign (talk) 22:37, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
I really hurried to write that summary up. :)

Of course, with today being April Fool's, maybe I should have written something funky like on Wookiepedia. Uh, maybe not that article. ;)

— BadCatMan (talk) 03:53, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

HAHA... of course, I yelled when I read this... it is a joke, right *DW quickly downloads all of the Wookeepedia articles onto his hard drive, thus destroying his entire computer system*

- Darkwynters (talk) 02:27, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Any more featured articles, and we'll need to switch to a fortnightly schedule! :)
— BadCatMan (talk) 11:36, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
Can we do fortnights? Assuming we keep growing the FA pool, what should be our scheduling policy? We could just take 365 and divide it by the number of FAs and let each one be on the main page for that many days. Retire older FAs? Pick each month's FA from small pool? (i.e., October's FA would be chosen from all those FAs marked for October). Cycle through all available FAs, one per week? Ideas? Suggestions?
Moviesign (talk) 14:13, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Crap, I wrote my post, the computer crashed, and I lost it. Okay, more quickly.

I was thinking of using CURRENTWEEK, and arranging our articles accordingly, every four weeks (monthly), every three weeks, every two weeks (fortnightly), etc. The code to fall back to a previous week might need to be updated to fall back two or three weeks though. Or we could compress our current batch of articles into 6 months, then repeat them in the next six. Weekly keeps the main page updating regularly and keeps it fresh. It should also be the easiest to code and the most future-proof (up to 52, which will take us a few years to reach).

— BadCatMan (talk) 11:39, August 30, 2014 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on when images are to be placed in an article or in the gallery? I'm guessing my recent orb wraith article is too small?
--Eli the Tanner (talk) 20:51, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
Since this was a general topic, with a big answer, I shifted Eli's question down here to conversation. I'm answering here and elaborating on my answer to Terrorblades at tressym.

I say leave it to editor's/writer's judgement. That is, go with what looks best or suits the article. I prefer images embedded in the article as thumbnails in order to break up a big wall of text (as feature articles often are). It looks better and is more readable, like the layout in a sourcebook. A gallery I think would be best if there are more images than would be sensible to put in the article, or if you want to collect a bunch of images of a type together. For example, the map gallery at the end of the Vast. I think galleries need to have multiple images to be worthwhile.

Finally, a tabber in the infobox is best when something has multiple editions and has a distinctively different appearance or style in each. A cycler in the infobox is good when you have a lot of different, primary images of a subject (particularly a main character) that all deserve to be shown.

Orb wraith is only a medium-sized article and has only other image. I'd make it a thumbnail in the History section, but on the left it kind of distorts the layout or on the right it gets a bit lost sitting under the infobox (as a small image under a big box, it just looks odd). Maybe if History was expanded it could accommodate the image more comfortably.

One neat trick I've seen is to have infoboxes that accept two images, for example, at here and here. That way, the infobox can display two primary images, and one that sits beneath can be of equal size and balance.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:00, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
That "altimage" is a interesting thing, i tried something diffirent havign two images on a singular "Image" space... it didn't look that good but I think if we removed the white line in the middle it might work out better. But its probably no articles that will use the two in one image...
Terrorblades 's Far Realm logs dated 12:27,\ January 16, 2015 (UTC)
Re: Summary for the article about Eilistraee, would the introductive section of the article itself work? As requested by User:BadCatMan, I wrote that as a general overview of Eilistraee's personality, history and goal, which is what I think a FA summary would include.
--Tsammarco (talk) 14:18, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
Probably, although I might leave out the pronunciation guide, but that's just me. I'm sure BadCat will have some ideas and may even rearrange the order in which FAs are presented. Oh, and you might want to choose/suggest the best image for the summary thumbnail.
Moviesign (talk) 14:29, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
I've created the summary, using the introductive section of the article itself: Template:Featured article/15 (even if the link keeps showing as red). Hope that it is ok
--Tsammarco (talk) 20:02, September 7, 2015 (UTC)
That was good. As Moviesign said, I've re-ordered the FA articles to make Eilistraee our current feature. Congrats!
— BadCatMan (talk) 11:34, September 8, 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to get a bigger pool of Featured Articles so they update the Main Page more often. Please work up and nominate your favorite subjects! Can I get some love on Cathedral of Emerald Scales, Delzimmer, and/or Khôltar? Please don't make me vote for myself. :p
Moviesign (talk) 16:41, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.