UESPWiki:Featured Articles

Featured articles are articles the site's editors deem to be of the highest quality and should be held up as an example for other articles. Articles are nominated for this status below. The site's editors then review the nominees for content, style, completeness, and overall quality and place their vote. High quality images can be nominated for featured status at Featured Images.

Previous nominations are archived here.

Featured Article Process

Nomination

Any registered member can nominate any article at any time. Nominated articles should be of high quality and meet the site's style guidelines. They will frequently be recently completed articles or articles that have just undergone a substantial rewrite, but older articles are also suitable candidates.

To nominate an article, list it on the bottom of this page with a three-tier heading, (===Example===), and briefly explain why you think the article should be given featured status.

Voting

After an article has been nominated, any registered member can vote to support or oppose each nomination. Each member can only vote once for a given article, but a member may change his/her vote by striking out the original vote and replacing it with the revised vote.

To vote on an article, state whether you support or oppose the article for featured article status. A vote should be in bold, and all votes must be signed. For example:
* '''Support''': <Comment> --~~~~ or
* '''Oppose''': <Comment> --~~~~

Commenting with your vote is optional, but if you oppose a nomination, please state how the article must be improved to get your support for featured status.

If you are not yet ready to vote but would still like to add your thoughts, you may use:

* '''Comment''': <Comment> --~~~~ or
* '''Question''': <Question> --~~~~

And fill in your concerns or questions.

Decisions

UESP Administrators will periodically make decisions on article nominations. Decisions will only be made if:

• The article has been nominated for more than seven days.
• Five or more votes have been placed.
• A clear consensus has been reached (either supported or opposed for featured status).

Nominations not meeting these criteria will be left open until a decision can be reached.

Articles whose nominations pass will receive featured article status on the front page for at least two weeks and receive a small bronze star () on the top right corner. If an article achieves featured status before the present featured article's two weeks expire, it must wait its turn.

Current Featured Article

• Lore:Mehrunes Dagon (20 June, 2023 - 20 July, 2023)

Previous Featured Articles

Article	Dates Featured
Lore:Druids	20 April, 2023 - 20 June, 2023
Online:Volendrung	3 February, 2023 - 20 April, 2023
Skyrim:Fishing (activity)	11 November, 2022 - 03 February, 2023
Lore:Sea of Ghosts	13 July, 2022 - 11 November, 2022
Lore:Clockwork City	19 March, 2022 - 13 July, 2022
Lore:Tiber Septim	16 August, 2021 - 16 November, 2021
Lore:Breton	28 April, 2021 - 16 August, 2021
Lore:Hircine	28 March, 2021 - 28 April, 2021
Lore:Molag Bal	28 February, 2021 - 28 March, 2021
Online:Nchuthnkarst	26 January, 2021 - 28 February, 2021
Shivering:Milchar	21 December, 2020 - 26 January, 2021
Oblivion:Jakben Imbel's House	14 November, 2020 - 21 December, 2020
Online:Moon Hunter Keep	11 October, 2020 - 14 November, 2020
Online:Tree-Minder Na-Kesh	4 September, 2020 - 11 October, 2020
Lore:Argonian	23 July, 2020 - 4 September, 2020
Lore:Imperial Legion	12 March, 2020 - 23 July, 2020
Lore:Grummite	21 December, 2019 - 12 March, 2020
Lore:Wulfharth	21 November, 2019 - 21 December, 2019
Online:Vakka-Bok Xanmeer	19 October, 2019 - 21 November, 2019
Legends:Solo Arena	19 September, 2019 - 09 October, 2019
Lore:Riften	16 July, 2019 - 19 September, 2019
Lore:Summerset Isle	16 November, 2018 - 16 July, 2019
Redguard:Observatory	12 October, 2018 - 16 November, 2018
Online:Earl Leythen	12 September, 2018 - 12 October, 2018
Lore:Sword-singers	9 July, 2018 - 12 September, 2018
Lore:Yokuda	1 April, 2018 - 9 July, 2018
Legends:Cloudy Dregs Inn	17 November, 2017 - 1 April, 2018
Morrowind:Balmora	10 September, 2017 - 17 November, 2017
Skyrim:Alduin's Bane	13 April, 2017 - 10 September, 2017
Skyrim:Mzinchaleft	28 February, 2017 - 13 April, 2017
Skyrim:Music	3 December, 2016 - 28 February, 2017
Skyrim:Construction	24 September, 2016 - 3 December, 2016
Skyrim:Ancano	3 September, 2016 - 24 September, 2016
Lore:Almalexia	28 July, 2016 - 3 September, 2016
Oblivion:Amusei	18 June, 2016 - 28 July, 2016
Lore:Sancre Tor	16 May, 2016 - 18 June, 2016
Lore:Snow Elf	15 April, 2016 - 16 May, 2016
Skyrim:Mountain Climbing	4 January, 2016 - 15 April, 2016
Lore:Necromancy	22 November, 2015 - 4 January, 2016
Dragonborn:Dragonborn (quest)	15 October, 2015 - 22 November, 2015
Online:Pets	8 August, 2015 - 15 October, 2015
Skyrim:Erandur	1 July, 2015 - 8 August, 2015
Skyrim:Sheogorath	29 May, 2015 - 1 July, 2015
Daggerfall:Vampirism	27 April, 2015 - 29 May, 2015 (revoked October 2016)
Skyrim:Balgruuf the Greater	25 March, 2015 - 27 April, 2015
Lore:Skyrim	23 February, 2015 - 25 March, 2015
Lore:Sheogorath	20 January, 2015 - 23 February, 2015
Lore:Imperial Legion	15 December, 2014 - 20 January, 2015
Skyrim:Frostflow Abyss	27 September, 2014 - 15 December, 2014
Skyrim:Arniel Gane	27 August, 2014 - 27 September, 2014
Lore:Tiber Wars	27 July, 2014 - 27 August, 2014
Skyrim:Thonar Silver-Blood	24 June, 2014 - 27 July, 2014
Lore:Potema	28 May, 2014 - 24 June, 2014
Skyrim:Isran	24 April, 2014 - 28 May, 2014
Skyrim:Lost to the Ages	22 March, 2014 - 24 April, 2014
Lore:Nerevar	22 February, 2014 - 22 March, 2014
Skyrim:Chillrend	22 January, 2014 - 22 February, 2014
Dragonborn:Neloth	22 December, 2013 - 22 January, 2014
Lore:Scourge	20 November, 2013 - 22 December, 2013
Skyrim:Thieves Guild (faction)	20 October, 2013 - 20 November, 2013
Oblivion:Glarthir	19 September, 2013 - 20 October, 2013
Dragonborn:Lost Legacy	19 August, 2013 - 19 September, 2013
Skyrim:Ulfric Stormcloak	18 July, 2013 - 19 August, 2013
Skyrim:Darkness Returns	18 June, 2013 - 18 July, 2013
Dragonborn:The Final Descent	18 April, 2013 - 18 June, 2013
Skyrim:Irkngthand	16 March, 2013 - 18 April, 2013
Shivering:Jyggalag	11 February, 2013 - 16 March, 2013
Skyrim:Easter Eggs	9 January, 2013 - 11 February, 2013
Skyrim:Dragon	29 November, 2012 - 9 January, 2013
Skyrim:Delphine	29 October, 2012 - 29 November, 2012
Skyrim:Thalmor	28 September, 2012 - 29 October, 2012
Skyrim:Legate Rikke	27 August, 2012 - 28 September, 2012
Skyrim:Cicero	24 July, 2012 - 27 August, 2012
Skyrim:Forsworn	3 May, 2012 - 24 July, 2012
Skyrim:Forbidden Legend	30 April 2012 - 3 May 2012
Lore:Khajiit	30 March, 2012 - 30 April, 2012
Skyrim:The Black Star	21 February, 2012 - 30 March, 2012
Skyrim:The Only Cure	10 December, 2011 - 21 February, 2012
Lore:Vivec (god)	20 November, 2011 - 10 December, 2011
Oblivion:The Path of Dawn	16 October, 2011 - 20 November, 2011
Shivering:Syl	30 July, 2011 - 16 October, 2011
Daggerfall:Journey to Aetherius	30 June, 2011 - 30 July, 2011
Morrowind:Vivec	30 May, 2011 - 30 June, 2011
Books:The Infernal City	28 April, 2011 - 30 May, 2011
Shivering:Golden Saint	January 2011 - April 2011
Shadowkey:Glacier Crawl	November 2010 - January 2011
Morrowind:Seyda Neen	October 2010 - November 2010
Lore:Septim Dynasty	July 2010 - October 2010
Oblivion:Janus Hassildor	May 2010 - July 2010
Oblivion:Arcane University	February 2010 - May 2010
Lore:Black Marsh	December 2009 - February 2010
Oblivion:Rosethorn Hall	October 2009 - December 2009
Oblivion:Adanrel	May 2009 - October 2009
Oblivion:Creatures	January 2009 - May 2009
General:Playing DOS Installments under DOSBox	November 2008 - January 2009
Morrowind:Armor Artifacts	September 2008 - November 2008
Oblivion:Houses	July 2008 - September 2008
Oblivion:Artifacts	June 2008 - July 2008
Oblivion:Traps	May 2008 - June 2008
Oblivion:Classes	October 2007 - May 2008
Lore:Daedric Alphabet	November 2006 - October 2007
Lore:Khajiit	August 2006 - November 2006 (revoked August 2011)

Nominations and Votes

Lore:Blades

Renominating the page. It previously did not pass as it and Dragonguard were not separate pages. The issue has been addressed. The page deserves to be featured considering the overhaul it went through.

• Support: As nominator.Zebendal (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support -Dcsg (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not ready yet. The membership section has omissions and could use a reorganization, similar to the one on Dragonguard. Paarthurnax isn't mentioned once, nor are any of the arcane practices of the group, such as the Dragonslayer's Blessing. The Rise and Fall of the Blades mentions that Storm Talon Temple and Wind Scour Temple, 'lost' by ESO's time, were eventually used as strongholds by the Blades, which the article makes no mention of. Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: While I preferred the Blades and Dragonguard stay the same article it still remains really good. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Skyrim:Serana

An impressive catalogue of dialogue and AI behavior. Has three unconfirmed bugs, but I think it qualifies.

• Support: As nominator. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Very thorough article! The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Lore:Ayleid Empire

Detailed and comprehensive, lore page that talks about topics from lore, which were established very long ago, yet the page is fairly recent. Very good addition to the wiki.

• Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: A great recent addition, long absent in our coverage. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: As this article's main contributor: there's still some work to be done, I recently realized that I inaccurately conflated Heldon Bridge with the Imperial City's bridge and I think that Umaril's rise to power (being summoned, according to the Songs) could use mention, but it has come a long way and I very much appreciate the nomination! Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral: Its good but I feel there might still be some stuff missing, its rarely mentioned directly by name so we may only have half the info. A section on how hierarchy and rulership worked exactly would be tight, a couple edits and I think it could be feature-worthy. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you for the suggestions! I recently found some conflicts that needed to be added, did some formatting, and added the leadership section you requested. Don't think this is a bid to change your vote btw, I know it probably seems that way, I just want you to know I took the critique to heart. Mindtrait0r (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Lore:Sex

That is a really detailed article on the topic that I'd not expect such a serious page to be made.

• Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I'm not sure what the policy on supporting pages made by oneself is, so I'll change if needed. But for now, I definitely agree with the support as well. Really proud of how the page turned out. Thanks for the nomination! CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Though there are a few things that could use reorganized and perhaps a few missing details (I will be sure to add if I find anything), I think this article is the GOLD STANDARD for references with all the groups it has. I only go with comment, not support, as I'm not sure if an article with the mature tag should be featured. I don't necessarily have a stance one way or the other, but I think it bears discussion. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Nice and comprehensive page on a topic previously untouched by the wiki. Vinovin15 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Very well done article although I would hazard to guess the article topic is far from exhaustively covered yet, also just to throw my two cents in I very much dislike the citation categories and am unsure why we ever implemented them on certain lore pages in the first place. The one thing they set out to accomplish is seemingly enhanced aesthetic but for me personally I just prefer the long list of total citations under one block that way you know how many citations an article contains and I don’t like how blocky the citations appear in the actual article text itself because of these. Dcking20 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lore:Molag Bal's ref list is formatted that way because it has well over 300 citations, and I had a hard time reading them while overhauling the page (I also haven't gotten around to undoing the sorted references yet: too much other stuff to do!). I don't think this page needs its references organized that way. -— Unsigned comment by MolagBallet (talk • contribs) at 17:10 on 22 April 2023‎
    • Comment: I took your suggestions to mind and restored the sources/references to the regular style CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's good that this page exists, and I'm glad it does, but I think it's a little too early for it to be nominated. Like Dcking mentioned, I feel like this topic hasn't been covered to the fullest extent, and I think the priority of certain bits of information could be reevaluated.
  
  At the moment, the racial sections of the page mostly rely on rumors / the derogatory opinions of other Tamrielic races and ESO contraband items to talk about sex and courtship. When they don't, they're laser-focused on one specific thing that probably shouldn't be representative of an entire race's cultural views/practices relating to sex: Crassius Curio certainly shouldn't be the sole defining feature of Imperial cultural views on sex (we know there's more out there!), and the section detailing Argonian courtship and mating rituals only covers the bare minimum. The paragraph structure on Bosmer cultural views on sex feels disjointed: every other line, a new subject is being brought up, as if the Notes section on a page were taken out of bullet-point format and constructed into a paragraph. This issue is persistent throughout the page.
  
  Very important article, excellent that it's being worked on: the amount of work that's already been done is commendable, and I appreciate all the effort that's going into the subject! It's about time we had it all in one place... but this nomination feels like taking a cake out of the oven before it's done. -— Unsigned comment by MolagBallet (talk • contribs) at 17:10 on 22 April 2023‎
  • Comment: Thanks for the feedback! I tried sprucing up the Bosmer section to sound less...robotic. And I get the issue with it sounding like a "notes" section the entire article, but when so much lore is from one-liners like ESO contraband it's difficult. Would appreciate any suggestions on rephrasing things though! CoolBlast3 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll be honest... this just doesn't seem to be that great of an article in terms of featured articles. Like it's mostly just a list of small things, and it doesn't really seem to look as good as the other featured articles. Not that the content isn't good, it just isn't really in the same vein as other articles that have achieved featured status, and I'm not sure it ever will be. I'm also worried that the featured status is being pushed mainly for meme reasons, rather than due to the actual article itself.... Jeancey (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment:Not that I have an issue with you opposing, I do just find it sort of rude that you consider this a "meme article" when it's something I and others have put plenty of effort into. Calling it "just a list" is also a gross simplification, especially in its current state. It's disheartening to see UESP adminship outright call out an article as a meme (assumingly because they don't like the content of it), but thanks for the feedback I guess? CoolBlast3 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment:I also take umbrage with the "meme page" remark. Feels rather immature to say over a topic as broad and culturally notable as reproduction and its associated rituals. Especially with it being such a comprehensive page. Stating it probably "never will" be worthy of feature status is rather disrepectful to work done on it, even if you aren't a fan of its current state. Tarponpet (talk) 4:46 AM, June 15th 2023 (EST)
• Weak Oppose: This is a broad topic and is understandably difficult to tackle. I think it does a great job attempting this, but I don't believe it's FA-worthy based on length alone. As noted above, much of it reads like a list of disparate sex-related information. Some of these concerns have been brought up on the talk page, specifically around certain miscellaneous lines not being directly relevant to the subject matter. I also noticed there is a lot of detail around hybrid/interracial people, which is certainly sex-related but strikes me as somewhat out of place and probably deserves its own article. For example, the Imperials section of the page doesn't really mention intercourse at all. Overall I think this is a great article but personally I'd like to see some of our many shorter, more focused lore articles nominated for FA. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I did a lot of work on it myself but I think its a legitimately valuable page to have, especially with its information on racial compatibility. There isn't much I would change about it except adding more information. Tarponpet (talk) 4:41 PM, June 15th 2023 (EST)
• Support: Given the super broad scope a topic like this will cover it will likely constantly see more additions over time, especially when new eso content is released, so while it may not be fully exhaustive yet, I think the coverage now is more than adequate now to ease my prior concerns with that, the mature subject matter aside, this is a job well done and worthy of featured status. Dcking20 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: I agree with the comments by MolagBallet & Legoless. I don't feel the mature tag is really an issue. After all, the material isn't really unsuitable for anyone old enough to be playing the games in the first place. The tag exists mainly to allow mature readers to exercise their discretion.--Draugluin (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

General:Obscure Locations

Not the most orthodox page, but very useful when it comes to documentation of all the locations. Gives more perspective on Tamiel's size as well.

• Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a list page, not an article. The information on it is also a little dubious, which is why it's in General namespace. A useful page but not FA-worthy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Same reasons as above. Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Ditto to the above: this article is useful but lists aren't the kind of page that set an example for other articles to follow. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Lore:Enchanting

A fairly recent and comprehensive lore page. It really deserved its own page rather than mention in lore: magic. One of the very staple elements of the franchise. I am surprised it was expanded into a lore page that late. Really making it a valuable addition to the wiki.

• Support: As nominator.Tyrvarion (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I'm really satisfied with how the page turned out. It was sad to see such a core subject in the series only had a redirect to a small section for itself. Some more of the small enchantments from ESO contrabands could be added for completion's sake but otherwise I believe it's pretty comprehensive about the topic, especially compared to what it used to be. Thanks for the nomination! Vinovin15 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: I could see this article very soon being a very good one, it has a lot of the essential framework for what I think this article should be as of now. However, at this time, entire paragraphs from this article were taken directly from lore books without using quotation to indicate this. Wikipedia's policy, which is often used as a guide by us for gaps in our own, forbids this practice. Although their reasoning does include the legal concern that this is plagiarism that will likely not be an issue in this situation, we should still strive for our articles to be in our own words, not the sources. Other sections are almost direct copies of the source material, with one or two word added, this should also be avoided.

Beyond that, I can see some very clear areas where the article can be heavily expanded. We know a lot about the history of enchanting, and yet major figures in its history like Raven Direnni are limited to a single sentence of content. Ahzidal only gets mentioned as a book that discusses the subject of enchanting. I was happy to note that the article discussed the Second Era fear of an enchanting market collapse. It should be very possible to form a compelling look at the history of enchanting, from its foundations, spread to other cultures, challenges to the art such as during the Second Era or sacking of the Imperial City, to where it currently stands in the Fourth Era. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• • Comment: I'm not sure I understand the parts about "copying from the source", as I couldn't find anything regarding that in UESP's own guidelines (unless I'm mistaken), and the Wikipedia rule is, as you said, due to plagiarism. Either way I'm not sure how modifying the text of the source just to use synonyms or rearrange the order of things for the sake of it would help, personally (Though some of the sections did, already, go through rephrasing and rewrites after I originally posted it, anyways). As for your other points, I'm not sure how it could be expanded on, either. Raven Direnni has only one sentence here because...she only has one sentence of lore related to Enchanting. Anything else like her, I don't know, birthplace or cousins, are obviously more suited for her own lore page which already exists. As for things like Enchanting's "foundations and spread to other cultures", I do not believe there is any lore about things like that, so it would be impossible to expand there without making things up. Vinovin15 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify, Wikipedia's concern also includes the very real possibility the website could face litigation for plagiarism. While that is likely not a concern in this case, by definition, directly copying the sourced material without quotation is still plagiarism. It's not a good look for the UESP. As for "modifying the text of the source just to use synonyms or rearrange the order of things", that is still plagiarism. What we are looking to achieve is summarize the sourced material in our own words.

A basic example of this can be found on Lore:Hadolid. Instead of just copy pasting the text, I summarized the entirety of their initial encounter with the Hadolids in one paragraph. I also used it as a reference for the introductory paragraph where I provided a basic description of Hadolids, in which I used information provided by two different sources to creating a unique paragraph that is information dense on what the Hadolids are, something that is not provided by any of these sources.

As for your claim there is not more lore out there on enchanting, I need to disagree. See Lore:Ahzidal's Descent, a book going into detail about who could very well be the first known human enchanter. While the Enchanter's Primer mention of the decline in enchanting knowledge is currently on the article, it could be much better served than it currently is tacked onto a paragraph that it is mostly unrelated to. Or as Raven Direnni demonstrates, there is a lot more out there about Raven Direnni's history with enchanting than a single sentence. I think it would be very cool and interesting to present the first enchanter's early work, with things like her inflammable rug being very interesting topics. The article does not use Feyfolken as a reference, a text which talks about the creation of the standard tools of enchanting, their inventor, and "robotic enchanters".

Beyond that, there are also many cool stories of enchanting that could absolutely be talked about here. For example, the story of Tarshea, who enchanted his own skeleton so he could live after death. There's the fact that the Amulet of Kings was enchanted to alert the Elder Council if the Emperor dies. There's the College of Winterhold providing enchanting services to the people of Skyrim. There's the Origin of the Mages Guild which discusses how it was illegal to provide enchanting services (among other things) to the general public of the Summerset Isles. While this is not an exhaustive exploration of everything that can still be explored, I hope this is a satisfactory exploration of some of the various things that can be done. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Minor Oppose: Formatting needs work. There is without a doubt, a lot more information out there on Enchanting that's missing on this page considering how it's been in every game in some form or another. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: I must say, I searched every nook and cranny for every crumb of information I could find on Enchanting (which was surprisingly little, given, as you said, it's been in every game). I noted down everything from the basics of enchanting and soul gems and glyphs to the most obscure mentions like binding words to cold iron, to the Telvanni's use of tantos to sigil stones. That is all to say, if there is something obvious the page is missing, please let me know so it can be added, because I looked through every piece of dialogue and book I could find about Enchanting, and I believe this should be most if not all of the lore about the specifics of it. Vinovin15 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Could do with some few more additions like Feyfolken but this page should've existed 20 years ago already. It's comprehensive and well made.CoolBlast3 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: As much as I appreciate this page's existence, I don't think this article has reached its full potential yet. Featured Articles are supposed to be "deemed to be of the highest quality": pages that set an example for how other pages of its kind should look and be written/formatted. Criteria that's up for consideration includes formatting, aesthetic qualities like image placement, grammar, the clarity of the information being presented, and completeness of the content presented (in other words, does it cover most or all of the information that exists about a given subject).

I've noticed a trend where articles are being nominated for FA status on the basis that they're "necessary", contain a lot of information, or otherwise "deserve" to be Featured because a lot of work was put into it: not just this past week or month, but on several occasions in the past few years. I can understand wanting to prop up new articles and encourage more people to make pages for important subjects that don't have one (or elaborate on existing bare bones topics), but featuring an incomplete article doesn't seem like the way to go about that.

Like I said for Lore:Sex: I'm glad this page exists, and am immensely pleased that there are people willing to trawl the archives looking for every scrap of information out there about this subject, but the mere fact that this page exists now when it didn't 3 months ago, or that it's a subject that's needed its own page for years doesn't make it worthy of Featured status. Merely containing a lot of information doesn't make an article stand out above the rest: Featured Articles are supposed to be presented as examples of what a page should look like. This page covers the subject enough to not be considered a stub, but it's not one that I would show to new editors when they ask me for examples of lore pages to emulate in terms of style, writing, and depth of content.

While this page has its merits, it needs proofreading. Like AKB said, this article needs to go a lot heavier on the paraphrasing, and there's also a lot more out there that could be added. It has a lot of information, but what it has only scratches the surface of the depths of enchanting. Instead of listing every item that's been enchanted in a unique way, the examples cited could be used in broader statements describing the utilities of enchanting. With that said, there are also some statements in this article that are so broad, they inch over the line into inaccuracy.

For example: "Enchanted objects can be used to to summon benevolent spirits." This statement doesn't specify under what circumstances an enchantment can summon the spirits in question, and leaves enough ambiguity for one to reasonably assume the article is trying to claim that any enchanted object can be used to summon a benevolent spirit.

The formatting and general aesthetics in this article could also use some work: I'm glad people are using the beautiful images Legends has provided us, but it can be harder to make images that are taller than they are wide fit neatly into an article. Table of Contents placement is also a factor in aesthetic appeal: there was a large space between the first paragraphs and the next section due to the default TOC alignment which was a detriment to the page's aesthetic quality. This is easily remedied by adding {{TOCright}} wherever the table of contents is desired to be placed, and I've gone and remedied it: I could at least fix some of the small things while I'm waxing about the bigger leaks, but I felt it was important to bring up because image and TOC placement is a huge part of formatting on the aesthetic side of things. At least where my vote is concerned, image placement can make or break an article. It's important that an article not only delivers a wealth of information in detail with paragraphs that progress logically into more distinct topics, but for the reading experience to not be cumbersome.

The long and short of it is this page needs more time. Time for proofreading, adjustments to formatting, and additional sources to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Enchanting is a subject with many facets and numerous applications: writers have had over two decades to pile on the lore like Mauna Kea. At 39 references, there's no way this page does more than scratch the surface of what we know about enchanting (not that "long page = good", but I refute the notion that this page is comprehensive enough to warrant a Feature as it currently stands). Weapons, armor, and items aren't the only things capable of being enchanted, and ESO has many quests and collectibles, few of which have been mentioned. -MolagBallet (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Lore:Three Banners War

Incredible article update, what was once a stub redirect is now, imo, one of the most well formatted articles on this website.

• Support: As nominator CoolBlast3 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Very thorough article. Deserves the nomination.Tyrvarion (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I like this article quite a bit, I think some of the design elements are quite pleasing. I would point out however, that not all of those elements work properly on the mobile site. I particularly noticed the triplet of sigils just before the Notes section appears incorrectly on the mobile site. Theolaa (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks, I have fixed the triplet of sigils so it should be fine now. The problem is the mobile site has UI code that is overiding my elements to some degree, so sometimes its tricky to cover all the bases. --Jimeee (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Good sectioning. I have thought about the layout of such a page for many years, and the solution here is great and very thorough. It's an extensive topic and there is undoubtedly still more to add, but that's to be expected when the war is part of an ongoing MMO. As a snapshot in time I think this is FA-worthy. —⁠Legoless (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with the other sentiments, and I especially appreciate the thought that went into the design elements of the page. The military campaigns triple-image showcase and the coloured alliance sigils are of particular note. —⁠Theolaa (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Lore:War of Betony

A well written article detailing various contradicting points of view of a war that is confusing on its own. This article helps clear things up.

• Support: As nominator. --Zebendal (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: The way the article deals with the conflicting sources is particularly good. Could use a few minor tweaks (punctuation etc) but overall, excellent.--Draugluin (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Skyrim:Druadach Redoubt

Comprehensive, well-written & easy to follow. Exactly what a place page should be.

• Support: As nominator--Draugluin (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)