34,657 Pages

Line 1: Line 1:
* '''Nominated by:''' {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 22:46, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
* '''Nominated by:''' {{User:Jeyo/sig}} 22:46, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:09, February 12, 2013

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it.

  • Nominated by: Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 22:46, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I'd love to get the article to FA, but the background and video game data is a bit lacking. (I don't have the video game and I guess I'm too lazy to add a background of a proper length :P)

Vote score: +4, Technical Check: Currently Not OKEdit

  1. Looks pretty good. I'll vote for it. Dataman-logo-bluetalk 00:12, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
  2. ya i think Legolas Greenleaf should be Class 1, Jeyo did do a few days of work on it Fire InfernalRaceLord talk, Lord of NothingFire Infernal
  3. Alot redone, I think after all the work it has been given, it deserves good article status. Crown KnightsNBP 15:03, January 12, 2013 (UTC
  4. think it looks good Soupperson1 Brickimediaz (take away the z) this is not an ad :PFriends girls
  5. C1 status. Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 00:58, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Crown Knights --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:59, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
  7. I vote yes because Jeyo would have done all that work to move up in the rankings for nothing
  8. Fixed now, looks pretty good. --Czech 01:24, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
  1. Crown Knights Nowhere near the amount or quality of content I like to see in a C1.
    Some information is in the wrong place (the videogame abilities, for example).
    The background is far from complete.
    Uncaptioned/needless images in the gallery.
    No actual description of videogame variant(s?)
    The quality of writing isn't really at a great level in many parts of it, sorry.
    The lead section doesn't actually tell us much of anything about the minifigure, just the character. -Cligra Join the redlink war!
    # Crown Knights Mostly per Cligra (what wasn't fixed), but a few other things to note:
    2013 is not in the infobox.
    Legolas wasn't really redesigned for The Hobbit, he was just given a variation. The design is still the same, basically.
    He has not since appeared in three sets. He has since appeared in two sets and is scheduled for a third.
    The description jumps around the minifigure's attributes a bit too much (at least with the head). I would prefer it had a clearer plan of organization.
    The [Hobbit variation's] legs are not reddish brown aside from the earth green leaves. There is a lighter shade of brown in the groin area.
    Video game section is too lacking. Even if you can't find the information, this is definitely necessary for a C1 article and it should not be nominated without it.
    A few grammar problems in the background (a comma missing here and there, "Gandalf" is lowercased about halfway through,)
    I'm not so sure about this one, as I haven't watched all of any of the movies, but the background seems to get cut off and the end of The Two Towers.
    Though not really necessary, wasn't he played by the same actor as Will Turner? I think that should be mentioned in the notes. --Berrybrick (Talk) 18:49, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

# Mostly per Cligra and BB, it needs a little bit more meat on the bone, and needs a background revamp for the end of The Two Towers, and for TRotK. --Czech 01:26, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)

In answer to Clig:

Lead section - fixed.
Background - in the process of being fixed.
Quality - like where?
Video game info - there isn't much I can do about that. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 08:11, December 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral klagoerRollinglaughingsmileyname that user 18:33, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • Rewrote the VG section NightblazeSaber 22:37, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've fixed just about everything Cligra and Berrybrick mentioned (and thanks to NBS for writing the video game section). Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 00:19, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm tired of looking at this nomination. technically it's at a fail, but nobody has looked at it since I re-fixed it up. Could those who are opposing check the article again and reconsider your vote? Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 10:23, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
600px-Yes check.svg Done. At +7, it could have been closed a while ago Crown Knights NightblazeSaber 03:06, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.