Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway:Featured articles/Archive

Archive.pngThis is an archive of past featured article discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current nominations page.


[edit] Non-elected

[edit] Successful nominations

[edit] Aragorn II

1 June 2008 - 9 April 2009

This is a historic moment on the TG Wiki. It's my honor to nominate Aragorn II for featured status. We probably need to clearly state what the rules are for this procedure. I assume that it will be similar to other Wikis, with in place voting over some reasonable time period. Hyarion, help us out here. --Theoden1 19:06, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree, this would make a great Featured Article, it has multiple images from multiple reputable artists, sound bytes, detailed history, both in the legendarium as well as portrayal in the film adaptations.--Quidon88 22:33, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree too. But "Personality" and "Portrayal in adaptations" need some work. I'll do Portrayal. -- Ederchil 03:27, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree. I don't see why not. -- Borondir 22:00, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree. I think it is a wonderful article and should be the featured article because it was made accurately and with much thought. Not only that but who better to have the featured article on than the King of Gondor and Arnor.--High King Fingolfin 7:14, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
  • I agree. I'm still not sold on the quality of it, as it still needs a lot of improvement. However it is about time for a new FA and Aragorn II is certainly one of our better ones. --Hyarion 03:05, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Witch-king of Angmar

9 April 2009 - 6 December 2009

This article was brought to my attention, and it turned out to be surprisingly strong. It has good segmentation, well-illustrated, good references, with a strong section on portrayals. It would make a very strong addition to our new FA collection.--Theoden1 19:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I whole-heartedly agree. This is a very long article which buckets of information and I think really shows us our ability to make long, detailed, accurate and engaging articles. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. I go along with both of you and think that it would be a perfect "Featured Article" due to its richment of details, good illustration and good style. -- Eldarion Telcontar 05:19, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. I think more people should read it and as the "Featured Article" many would do it. loved to read it. -- Bombur Ironfoot 15:04; 27 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree, though about everything I want to say about it has been said already, I chose this one over Gandalf because as has been stated, that article has already been a featured article.--Quidon88 13:11, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. I do think that this article is very well made because it is very well constructed. Also, even though it is a plethora of information it is well ordered. Overall it is a wonderful choice for the featured article.--High King Fingolfin 8:25, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Glamdring

6 December 2009 - 28 February 2011

I know it's scandalous, ego-pleasing self promotion, but I personally think my preci... Glamdring article would make a great Featured Article. -- Ederchil 16:13, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. It is an impressive article for a weapon, with complete information, both from inside and outside the imaginary world, which gives the reader a more complete image. Great references section! The pleasant writing style is on the plus side as well. ~~ Þelma 15:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. It is well cited. For that alone goes my vote. ~~ nikolet 03:33, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. I am astounded by this article's consistence and reference. Such excellence deserves to be featured.--Ingwe
  • Agree. Great article presenting all the facts and assumptions about the sword. A very thorough and nevertheless entertaining article. --Eldarion Telcontar 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Exellent article seperating facts and assumptions about the sword and presenting it in very fine detail.--Galdor of the Trees 18:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Huge amounts of images, sources, refrences, and information. This deserves to be FA material.--Galdor of the Havens 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eriador

28 February 2011 - 24 June 2011

Don't need to say much about Eriador, perfect example of good article. --Morgan 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Smaug

24 June 2011 - 23 August 2014

This article has developed pretty decently (kudos to User:KingAragorn for tracking all those refs!). Has it reached a FA status yet? --Morgan 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - (once the original research issue is resolved). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree --Amroth 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - though if I have any fault with it, it's that the Etymology section is a bit hollow. It's three sentences, three lines, three sources. It doesn't really form one whole. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree about the Etymology section. I added something from The Ring of Words, which "fleshes" out the first paragraph a bit. The Trāgu stuff is still a bit apart, and I was thinking of adding something along the lines of "While Smaug is the name recorded in the Red Book of Westmarch, the dragon's original name in the language of Dale was Trāgu.", but I'm afraid it would close to over-interpretation..?--Morgan 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Smaug has enough votes, shouldn't it be featured? --Amroth 14:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Radagast

23 August 2014 - 25 December 2018

Radagast seems to me to be a good canditate for featured article -- I can't see any reason why not.--Morgan 17:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
+1! And Smaug has been featured for a very long time now.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Amroth 14:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree, but I would like to see the "History" section fleshed out a little more. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree it is a well written article, it's interesting, and is something you don't normally hear about.--randomness 10:15, July 8 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Thorin

25 December 2018 - 3 July 2020

I'd like to nominate thorin I think its a well rounded article that hold to our standards if there are any objections let me know so I can fix them I think this would make a great featured article with the hibbit films just coming out Throrin Longbeard 13:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 02:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

[edit] Fingon

3 July 2020 - 2 January 2021

An article that provides a comprehensive history of this High King, which is fully referenced. The development of the character is fully sketched out, as is its etymology and genealogy. It meets all ten of the criteria listed above. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree. A very interesting character and because he is from the Silmarillion rather than the more well known books he is a an ideal choice that could draw a first time visitor into reading more of the wiki. --JR Snow 13:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree. Fingon is a interesting character not a lot of people know about. Unsigned comment by (talk).

I Agree. Ithilien Ranger 05:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Bliss

2 January 2021 - present

A thorough article which covers the plot, characters, publication history and critical reception to the book. The article is fully referenced, and meets all ten of the criteria listed above. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree. It required a lot of work and contains many references and is probably not known by many fans of Tolkien. If I have to decide between Gurthang and Mr. Bloss, I vote for Mr. Bliss, because it required more work and research to write this article. Gurthang only has the Silmarillion as a reference with only one more reference for the etymology and one more reference for other versions of the legendarium. --Akhorahil 07:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Unsuccessful nominations

[edit] Gondor

Gondor would be a good choice. It's extensive, covers many bases, and has the requisite references. It should be next in line to be voted on for FA status.--Theoden1 10:41, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Undecided - although well-written, I think it needs to be better referenced as we should only show off the very best articles that TG has to offer. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarves

I think they're not given enough credit nor enough recognition - they're the most overshadowed of the major races in Tolkien's legendarium.

  • Agree - I don't know if the banner at the top of the article matters, so if not it has my full support. Otherwise I vote for another Dwarves-related article. -- Breragor
  • Undecided - As an article it needs some work, as is clear with the {{sources}} template at the top. However I agree that as a race they are often overlooked. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  03:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - A complete lack of sources, the structure is a bit haphazard and it contains a few too many redlinks and spelling errors for my liking. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - I have been personally working on compiling all the information I can find on Dwarves in Tolkiens books, even if it conflicts with itself. Once it is compiled for my personal use I will copy it to this website. -- TolkienScholar91 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - See Mith. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Númenor

It has been over a month (and there are "disagree" votes up there ^^) so I figured it's time for a new nomination; Númenor.

  • Agree - I believe Númenor and its history to be some of the most interesting in all of the legendarium. For it is in this history that Gondor and Arnor (and many great things and people in Middle Earth) are rooted. --Breragor (TalkContribsEdits) 18:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Lack of sources, and I think the article is poorly structured (and contains fanon). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't there be a banner on the page then? Look, it's about choosing Númenor as the article (i.e. whether you think it deserves such recognition) and NOT the article itself. This is a perfectly fine article, it's not a stub and not horribly written, so just take it easy, Mith. On this page you have disagreed with every article unless you wrote it! --Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
How do you even find the Locations Portal? Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
I made it. Also there's a link to it on the Main Page. All portals are currently under development. Please don't remove "{{unsigned|Breragor}}", just sign your posts as you managed to do when you nominated Númenor yesterday. Thank you. -- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  22:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] J.R.R. Tolkien

It's about time the featured article was changed - this has many pictures, details, and sources.

  • Agree - The man himself deserves credit. If this article is not in good enough shape, I'm not sure what is. Unsigned comment by Breragor (talk • contribs).
  • Disagree - I feel bad about disagreeing again (as you pointed out I've disagreed to everything else), however, this article has some glaring faults:-
    1. It's not our article - it's Wikipedia's;
    2. As the largest (by far) Tolkien wiki, I feel that each and ever article we have should be better than all our competitors. Our article is significantly lacking when compared to the current Wikipedia article (which has been featured);
    3. No references at all: it contains an unused - and partly disordered - bibliography;
    4. It's barely been improved over the last six years, which is why we have the article J.R.R. Tolkien/temp as a plan for future development.
Unfortunately, for all the above, I feel this article cannot become the featured article.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)