Talk: Featured article/Previous nominations

Previous (successful) nominations for Featured Articles.

Garona Halforcen

• Support. I just edited the page to work out some minor style issues, and I personally think this article is really complete now. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 02:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

This article has now been featured User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Illidan Stormrage

• Oppose, for now. I've tried to work out some weird stuff but the article is not there yet. First off, this article isn't very well referenced; I see multiple instances of {{fact}}. Furthermore, I'd like to know who styled him "Lord Illidan". APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 02:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Wow, this is perfect now. Support. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 02:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support, it's had a fair few changes since the above, and I've spent some time improving the article today. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 14:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support, This artile was the first to pop up in my mind even before i entered WP:FA  D ♠ T ♣ C ♦  15:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support, You are not prepared! <- Still gives me chills. Silly reason I know. I did read the article and it is interesting. User:Kitan/Sig 15:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support, Kirkburn force me too User:Kiltek/Sig 06:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support, Seems well done and well outlined, very 'polished' page. User:Reskar/Sig 16:59, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This article has now been featured User:Kirkburn/Sig3 11:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Deathwing

Also known as Neltharion. I was bored; we were working on it; I was then like, cool, why not?--Sky (t · c · w) 02:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• Support. Yeah, why not? APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 09:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support, its pretty complete now, has most info from Warcraft II, and later sources, even a bit of lost warcraft II adventures for good measure. So its pretty indepth coverage.Baggins 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks pretty complete and tidy to me! Pity we lack more relevant imagery, though. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is to be featured soon APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lament of the Highborne

Nice summary of an easter egg in a quest :) APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 09:05, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• Support. I like the idea of this since it's 'different'. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 22:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support. Yeah, who says featured articles have to be about people? Would be good to fill in the Red quest links though (and now that this note is here, maybe I'll remember to sometime later). --User:Fizzwidget/Signature 02:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support But only after the red links are filled, as Fizz said. Tbh, not every FA should be a person...--Sky (t · c · w) 03:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support Fill and nominate, tbh. Seems like a great idea. --User:Adys/Sig 03:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
• Oppose A minor easter egg, hardly notable like previous FAs. Jeoh talk · stalk  15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What makes you think that only big Warcraft stars like Illidan and Garona could get their own FA? I mean sure: the Lament of the Highborne is not as wellknown as their characters, but that is on itself not a reason to reject its nomination. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A minor easter egg... yeah, uh, have you seen some of the random topics that wikipedia uses for FAs? An FA just means that the article is well presented, not that it is a notable part of Warcraft. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Just because an article is popular doesn't mean it's Featured Article material. Featuring an article means that it is so impressive, thorough, and certainly important enough to be singled out as a major piece in a Wiki. While the Lament of the Highborne article is certainly nice, it's too obscure, unpolished, and irrelevant to the rest of Warcraft to be given a major spotlight such as this. At least not while there are other articles that relate to far more in the Warcraft Universe. Toasty McGrath 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to draw your attention to the main page. I quote: Before being listed here, nominated articles are reviewed for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style on the talk page. End of quote. Nowhere it says that articles are checked for importance to the Warcraft universe. You are not giving a valid reason to oppose. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 07:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, then by that merit an equally valid article could possibly be  [1-10] Lazy Peons if someone just added a picture of a sleeping orc worker. Where is the line drawn? Toasty McGrath 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A few things. First off, you're jumping to conclusions there.  [1-10] Lazy Peons would NOT be complete with its current text and a picture. It will need a map with all the locations of the peons, an introtext, a video of someone completing it, a guide describing the quickest way to finish this quest and, of course, it could do with some external links. Also, I'd draw the line where WoWWiki is not able to come up with more info than Thottbot or Wowhead for a particular subject. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, you've convinced me. I withdraw the opposition. Toasty McGrath 07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the most indepth article. Although not much you can do to expand it. But still I don't think its up to the quality of some of more "complete" articles out there.Baggins 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There's quite a bit of information that I've found out. Look at the talk page over there. I'm currently incorporating the information into it right now. *edit* There, how about now? Pzychotix 09:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is definately much fuller than the originally nominated article. I like it! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support, Well laid-out article, an interesting piece of WoW that many players may not be aware of, but is not too esoteric. Has lore-relevance as well. TUSVA ~ T | C 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is to be featured soon APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Medivh

Well done if you ask me... but something feels.... Missing.. I can't quite place it. Regardless, without Medivh(or the Guardians of Tirisfal to begin with) The Warcraft world would be a very different place. --ArthosRa 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Needs a tidy, quotes could probably have their own page, but overall I like it. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Moved most of the quotes to Quotes of Medivh. Left something not quite NPoV in the quotes section to introduce it, as well as his farewell quote. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured User:Kirkburn/Sig3 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthas Menethil

• Support I was really impressed with this page, thought it was well written, good grammer, and nice pictures. User:Reskar/Sig 17:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
• Minor oppose. Nice article, but the quote section is rather messy (has two different layouts). If someone has an idea to turn the section into something pretty (for inspiration, look at Illidan's article), I'll change this into support. Oh and by the way, new nominations go at the bottom. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 03:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Comment - definately needs some work on the quote section, but mostly good. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - agree, he has a lot of lore and was featured prominently in w3, but the page does need some work IKT 06:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think its pretty well done, need to add a little more and add a little more lore, like where he appears in WOW like in Naxxarmas. Beyond that well done. --Melean 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wall of text - more sections, quotes need cutting down. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support good article, very well-written with good pictures and artworks. It also gives some good background information relative to the upcoming expansion. The article can use a reference section and "See also" section, though. Constarcy, US: Fenris, 3:45PM Aug/30/2007

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goblin

You'd be nowhere without us! User:Fizzwidget/Signature 03:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

• Oppose. The article doesn't really seem complete to me. Furthermore, it's not referenced at all..I'm sure there's more info on this subject in WC-books.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 03:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
• Support. Well presented and laid out, but sources recommended. I'm not sure there is much more info out there (at least not in the novels). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority of this article is lifted form the RPG. I suggest it be removed form the FA list until fair use issues are resolved. --Tyrsenus t c 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Karazhan

I don't know, I guess I just grew rather fond of keeping an eye on the page after I totally redone it. (check version before my edit...) // Patrigan | ^Talk/ _Contr \\ 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article indeed. APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very well-polished article, relevant to what many players are doing currently. I say feature it. -- TUSVA ~ T | C 12:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dungeon layout section is messy, trash mobs appear both here and on subpages (choose one!), loot section needs polish, wrapping caused by the image at the very start is ugly. -- Starlightblunder 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Minor oppose - for now. I agree with Starlight's comments, there's some info that could be cut down and tidied. Apart from that, a reasonable amount of info. Perhaps could do with more lore? User:Kirkburn/Sig3 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It has grown on me :) User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[Ashbringer]

Informative, dispells and clarifies rumors well, and may actually be in-game soon. --Tyrsenus t c 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - would certainly make a good candidate in the future, but at the moment, it needs a lot of work on the flow of information, and some format fixing. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's heading in the right direction, but it isn't there yet. There are both wikilinks and external links in the see also section, the blue posts should be there within a {{Bluepost}}-template. Also, the "Ashbringer" has never been removed from World of Warcraft; it was simply never there, not on the beta, not on PTRs and not on the live realms. There are a few more concerns, but these are the main ones.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The removed from game tag refers to a section, not the entire article. --Tyrsenus t c 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, but what exactly was removed from the game? APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just this bit - Additionally, at one time Timolain's Phylactery could be looted from Large Vile Slimes in the Weeping Cave in the Western Plaguelands. Tbh, I don't think the section requires the template due to that single setence. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scarlet Crusade

Just an all-around thorough article with alot of detail, and even if relevence isn't exactly necessary for FA's, the Scarlet Crusade plays a major role in WoW. Plus it'll be a non-character FA, which has to give it a few bonus points. Toasty McGrath 06:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - though the article could do with more sections and sample images. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The only picture I miss in this article is one of the Monastery. Otherwise, this is a good article.APΘLLΘ^(ZEUS) 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Minor Support - The two things I most associate with the Crusade are zealotry and paranoia, which don't appear in the main section. The content could use a little tweaking, and more pics would be great too. --Tyrsenus t c 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Since I'm very interested in the continueing development of this article, it'd be nice to see it featured one day. I will see what I can do to add a few more nice pictures to it the next days and maybe add more details. To Tyrsenus: both zealotry and paranoia are clearly mentioned in the General section of the article, or would you prefer them to appear in the header already?
  Minor Support - Let's wait for the upcoming Dark Factions sourcebook to be released, as it will surely contain a lot more lore on this faction.
  Oppose - The article has been messed up too much, in my opinion it requires a general redo now. Tulon 18:55, 17 October 2007

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A grave mistake in my eyes, at least how the article looks like right now. Tulon 17:15, 26 October 2007

Baggins has given it a going over - how about now? It won't be featured until 6th Novermber in any case. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is a far cry from what it used to be. Until the fair use issues are resolved, I suggest it be removed from the FA list. --Tyrsenus t c 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Naga

The Naga Have a very big Chance For being in the next expansion after WOWWOTLK as a new playble Race. It's a popular article and its one of the most popular races since Warcraft 3 The Frozen Throne. Dragonnagaofthewater 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's not five weeks to late to laugh at that. By the way, races have been discussed above. --User:Adys/Sig 01:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Good article, and a fair amount of information. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Nice article, much information and many pictures.Stopa 16:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you all for nominating! Dragonnagaofthewater 20:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blood elf

Article really shows off the wiki well, though design may need normalising. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wailing Caverns

Comprehensive and detailed guide on this instance. Xyls 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tentative support. Looks pretty good to me, just needs a bit of tidying, and tables updated to Azuremyst Isle standard. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylvanas Windrunner

You gotta agree, Sylvanas has become a major lore character. Stopa 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good article, with loads of information and images. It's worth consideration.Dakovski 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs cleanup. The pics do not fit well now.--SWM2448 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lich King

The Lich King article is pretty good, don't ya think? It hardly need any work too.

• Oppose.Need work like better "fair info" A bit too long and its still too early too talk about it like december would be good or Janurari,februari Dragonnagaofthewater 20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anduin Lothar

Seems important to me. He is the teacher of Turalyon and greatly influenced the Alliance and its current state. He basically indirectly shaped the universe of Warcraft. Although many other people and things can claim to have "indirectly" shaped the universe of Warcraft, Lothar just seems worth mentioning. -- Mydeaddog 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support: If Medivh gets a spot on the front page, then by the Light, so should Lothar! --Joshmaul 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Importance has absolutely nothing to do with the FA process. It is about quality of the article. Now, I can't access Lothar to make a choice of opppose/support, but bear that in mind for the future.
• Comment Who is Lothar? yes i know mediv! i ganna read that article Dragonnagaofthewater 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Situation Oppose: the fact That Lothar was introduced in WC2 and there is a lot of WC2 info;its now popular too talk about WC3 because wotlk is anounced and all the "cool" things of wotlk has too do woth WC3 not with WC2 try too understand the situationDragonnagaofthewater

This article has now been featured Kirkburn  talk  contr 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Human

The article has a good length, information, and screenshots (though missing a WoW race shot). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Though a picture or two could be fixored, as well as the fair use issues. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tauren

Less well known info for many, Taunka link renews interest. Tribes need broken link work though. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn and Tauren Tribes section now has order. Zakolj 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Needs fair use issues done with. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Night elf

Lots of info, well laid out. Could do with one or two extra screenshots though. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Kirkburn. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Night Elves have some of the best lore of all the races. --Ose 17:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragonflight

Why not? They are neutral and have good lore--FireMaster 14:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What? --SWM2448 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A specific dragonflight, perhaps? Kirkburn  talk  contr 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course!--FireMaster 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I would like to turn this into a nomination for all five major Dragonflights. Red Dragonflight, Blue Dragonflight, Green Dragonflight, Bronze Dragonflight, and Black Dragonflight. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Agreed, those are obvious candidates. --Ose 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Eh... Much as I love Warthok, maybe not... --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Dragonflight and Blue Dragonflight have been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Alterac Valley

Seems like one of the better articles. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:43 PM PDT 24 Oct 2007

• Support If we make this one featured, we might actually get some more people to understand this place, resulting in a more fun fight with more honor than "PUSH FW FFS NOOBS!!!111oneoneone". Atleast thats how I feel Alliance on my battlegroup acts :P --Ose 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Needs to be finished with updating since patch. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support The page seems to have been expanded, and I agree with Fand; perhaps we might get a decent fight out of featuring it, somehow? Melaisis 21:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uther the Lightbringer

Come on, who doesnt think so? He has great lore, he is in WarCraft 2 and 3 and plays a significant role, without him there would be no paladins! He appears in WoW for a time. His page is organized and well put together, it seems a good candidate. -- Melean 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Uther is really lore rich and he is the best paladin ever. Literally. :) -Mantriox/Talk/Contributions 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree it is a very good article about a very important character. Zakolj 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Sounds good. --Buraisu (Talk · Contr) 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Uther is made of win, seriously! --Pimmeh 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Clean article, good info, good lore, good guy. Got my vote --Ose 20:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Even if the Horde desecrates his tomb, some of us still feel kinda bad about it...heh heh heh. *ahem* Sorry. --Joshmaul 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Sure. Seems well written. --SWM2448 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I do support has my vote, my favorite character of humans and he was good till he died, and the information on his page is great tells from the beginning of WarCraft 2 to the formation of the Silver Hand, to his death and his tomb. --Melean 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Zul'Aman

Quite relevant, as it is "the thing" right now. Seems pretty well organized. -- Ose 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I just wanted to Nominate it myself. Zakolj 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Likewise. --Joshmaul 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's listed on the popular links to your left. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed: Its a popular link, hardly needs a FA. --Pimmeh 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Its hotlinked in the front page as well, btw!--Pimmeh 08:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The link will eventually be done away with once the Sunwell patch sees the daylight (no pun intended). Besides, the side links and FA serve different purposes. The side links are to provide easy access to popular articles, while the FA shows off WoWWiki's finest work. There's no problem with sidelinked articles being featured.AMBER^(RΘCK) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It's a good article, and no longer linked elsewhere. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Frostmourne

Very good lore, plus it's going to be relevant concerning the upcoming expansion. -- Ose 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Nicely done page, regardless of relevancy or background. --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashbringer

Very good lore, plus it's going to be relevant concerning the upcoming expansion. -- Ose 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ashbringer is already featured. :) --Sky (talk | con | wh) 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm... I was sure I checked the list for these three... not good enough apparently >.< I'll put these nifty little lines over the text then :P --Ose 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of the Ashbringer sword itself so we can stop using the inaccurate, outdated, and misleading stat block, but I can't figure out where the image is being referenced in the template for this page. -- Dark T Zeratul 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has (already) been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tyrande Whisperwind

I thought it might be cool. She's a very important character in the Warcraft lore, have a great page at wowwiki... please write comment! :) -- Shaera 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: Very good article, lore and info. -- Ose 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: Love the idea =D She'd be great to feature, due to her large role in the game -Troy Frostwind ^{Talk to me!} 11:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

World of Warcraft Trading Card Game

It would be interesting to show people the trading cards and the ingame loots.... I think... I've even added some more information concerning the upcoming loot cards.

-- Kukkaku 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Good article, would be nice with a little variety on the featured articles. --Ose (c / t) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Quel'Danas

It's the talk of the town at the moment, and we're learning more and more about it as each day goes by. So let's put this sucker up on the front page, eh? --Joshmaul 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is already on the popular tab and the top link of the main menu, we dont need it to be featured, its already there really. Support - It has alot of new lore, I particually like how the Sunwell will turn out for Kael'Thas if he wasnt killed, beneficial for Elves (as he said in trailer sacrifices must be made though) or not, as Kil'jaeden wont let him do so) --User:Melean/Sig 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to reinforce my comment I made on Zul'Aman: The link will eventually be done away with [...]. Besides, the side links and FA serve different purposes. The side links are to provide easy access to popular articles, while the FA shows off WoWWiki's finest work. There's no problem with sidelinked articles being featured.AMBER^(RΘCK) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC). I hope that clears up stuff. AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, my mistake, then I now support it being featured. --User:Melean/Sig 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Topical, lots of worthwhile new lore which people may not have considered yet.

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Caverns of Time / Instances

Maybe it's just me, but I really like the amount of lore and cool time travel wrapped up in this place, and the article is extensive enough to warrant it in my opinion. Maybe this would be covered in including the Bronze Dragonflight / Keepers of Time. Other instances like Karazhan are also fun reads, and packed with lore too. These might be old news for you 70s who've been raiding forever, but for new players (or just really slow ones like me) each new instance or faction is a whole new world of stories, characters and exciting backdrops. Decibal 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as it's a good article in itself and a portal article to more good articles. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been added to the upcoming new rotation. Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)