GA Icon

This page is for the nomination of Good articles. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, creatures, or the like. For a list of Good articles, see Category:TESWiki Good Articles.

A Good article is an article which is a candidate for becoming a Featured Article but has not yet become one. The Circle reviews and votes on all nominations. Users can comment on the articles below with their opinions.

An article must…

  1. …contain all appropriate infoboxes, navigation templates, and categories.
  2. …be well-written and detailed.
  3. …be unbiased, with a neutral point of view.
  4. …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
  5. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on TESWiki.
  6. …following the review process, be stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
  7. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  8. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
  9. …No redlinks.
  10. …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
  11. …not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
  12. …be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See TES:Sourcing for more information.
  13. …have all quotes and images sourced.
  14. …provide at least one quote on the article. A leading quote at the beginning of the article will be required only if there is quotable dialogue by or about the subject. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
  15. …include a "Personality" section on all character articles.
  16. …character articles - include relevant dialogue that does not fit better on other pages, such as, for example, on quest pages.
  17. …include a "powers and abilities" section on all relevant character articles, especially for God characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
  18. …include a reasonable number of images of sufficient quality to illustrate the article, if said images are available.
  19. …contain at least one link to the article subject in another language.
  20. …contain a lead and must be, counting the introduction, at least 1000 words long (not including captions, quotes, headers, etc.)
  21. Text and images in the article must not violate any current policy of the wiki or any policy that was in place at the time of the good article nomination. If policy changes, the article must be re-reviewed to ensure it matches the Good Article criteria.

How to nominate:

  1. First, nominate an article you find is worthy of good status, putting it at the bottom of the list below. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above.
  2. Add {{GAnom}} at the top of the article you are nominating.
  3. Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
  4. Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
  5. Be sure to place sign in the "Nominated by" line when the nomination is posted for voting.

Nominate an Article

Existing nominations are displayed below.

Good article nominations

To nominate an article for Good article status, list it here. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above. If the article is considered a "Good article" it will be tagged with the {{GA}} template. Also remember to add {{GAnom}} at the top of the article you are nominating.



Hel Ra Citadel

I personally spent some time running through the article and the trial both, and I'm convinced this can be a Good Article. The walkthrough is detailed and helpful enough for the common The Elder Scrolls Online player to utilize.


Voting-support Support – As nominator. The Dagonator (talk) 19:17, October 20, 2018 (UTC)

Voting-support Support – In my eyes, this fits under the categories required to be a Good Article. My only issue, however, is in the #Walkthrough section, the dialogue boxes seem to merge under the image of the Celestial Warrior. Otherwise, full-out support. —Nehpys ("AlyMar1994") (Talk) 13:18, November 3, 2018 (UTC)

Voting-support Support – This is really well documented. I like how it gives advice on how to run the trial such as, what kind of players are needed for both the normal and veteran modes, as well as, the bosses attack patterns and what to do for that. Not to mention, I think there are some good pictures for this, which is great when it must be hard to take pictures while doing the trial, not to mention all the quotes, like during the Celestial Warrior fight. I'm giving this all of my support. --Vincentius1 (talk) 19:51, November 19, 2018 (UTC)



Voting-oppose Oppose – I believe I oppose nomination of a page by the person who did 99% of the edits on the page. DaBarkspawn (talk) 18:21, October 22, 2018 (UTC)


Voting-comment Comment – I'd like to note that many people nominate articles that they add to. It's up to us (now the full userbase rather than just the circle) to decide if it's good or not. Ottoman Hold Message Me My Action 09:57:56 October 22, 2018

Voting-comment Comment – Sure, I totally agree with that. But I think there is a difference between adding to an article and writing the entire thing. To me, the point of the process is Community appreciation, not self-congratulation. DaBarkspawn (talk) 23:02, October 22, 2018 (UTC)
Voting-comment Comment – I'd like to comment on this supposition.
I. I did not write the entire article. The article saw the help of the illustrious MHInf, who have added a better screenshot than any I, or the other users for that matter, could ever take. I had utilized images uploaded by Idel sea Qatarhael, a reputed editor from the Russian wiki, whom HAD basically edited the entire article in, and expertly so.
II. You're opposing a nomination based entirely on your own viewpoint, strictly outside of the guidelines and requirements for a Good Article.
III. Finally, going by that logic, DaBarkspawn, you would have to refute Atv's "The Queen's Decree" article nomination because Atv did "99% of the work." If you truly believe in "community appreciation," I dare you to go ahead and oppose its most appreciated user.—The Dagonator (talk) 14:41, October 23, 2018 (UTC)
Voting-comment Comment – Responses as follows:
I. I went by . I did not say you wrote all of it or that no one else contributed. I said that you wrote 99% of it, which as a rhetorical approximation is correct. In the above, on reread, I should have written "nearly the entire thing" if you want to be picky about it.
II. Yep, I am. You want my vote, you need to satisfy my criteria and that includes not engaging in self-praise. Or are you telling me how to vote?
III. I wasn't here when that was put up for nomination, but yes, I would have made the same complaint. Dare accepted: I choose to be consistent about I feel about this process, regardless of who engages in it. DaBarkspawn (talk) 14:27, October 23, 2018 (UTC)
Voting-comment Comment – There is nothing in the good article criteria against users nominating pages which they have significantly contributed to. —1857a (talk) 21:10, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
Voting-comment Comment – I am not saying there is. I'm stating why I oppose the nomination. Look, if the nomination should succeed on purely mechanical criteria such as checking off a checklist in the criteria, there is no purpose in having a vote - it either matches the criteria or it doesn't. If there is some opinion by the voters involved which transcends or is in addition to the criteria, then a vote is reasonable. I assert the latter case here. DaBarkspawn (talk) 21:23, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
Voting-comment Comment – Editors are supposed to confirm whether or not the article meets the criteria. We decided recently that the best way to do this is through a discussion and then a vote to solidify said discussion (we're not actually supposed to vote yet, btw). It does not have the same level of subjectivity as a staff vote but we still need to formalize it somehow.
Personally, I don't see any real issues with the article, nor do I see an issue with a user nominating an article they've written for a status. If it meets the requirements, it should receive it. I would be fine with this one getting GA. —Atvelonis (talk) 01:33, October 29, 2018 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+