| rdfs:comment
| - This page is really well written, comprehensive and informative. It's referenced well and makes good use of images and tables. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 15:04, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Good idea, we are in the years of the gods, so why not?File:Guthix symbol.png Adventurerrr Talk File:The Godless symbol.png 15:07, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Fswe1 15:40, October 20, 2013 (UTC) File:X mark.svg This article will not be featured at this time.
|
| abstract
| - This page is really well written, comprehensive and informative. It's referenced well and makes good use of images and tables. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 15:04, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Good idea, we are in the years of the gods, so why not?File:Guthix symbol.png Adventurerrr Talk File:The Godless symbol.png 15:07, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Oppose - The page reads very poorly. While there's nothing blatantly wrong about the syntax and grammar, the page is boring to read. The sentence structures are all dull and uninteresting; featured articles should be good reads. I don't see any "good uses" of tables... that's not even a good selling point. Once the real beef of the article is gone through, you have mostly filler junk about every god for what seems like just for the sake of having it. It sounds odd to say, but there's too much information. Well, I can make it less odd by pointing out that most of the information is pointless fluff. There's only so much that should be said about each individual god. With that, there's crap there about beings that are not even gods. Iban? Bob? What the hell?... MolMan 19:02, October 19, 2013 (UTC) Weak oppose - The history part decently sums up the most relevant information about gods in general while not going about individual gods' history too much, but, other than that, like Mol said, there isn't a lot to the page. The lead paragraphs are fine but not really coherent with each other, and the rest of the article, face it, is just a list (albeit detailed). And one that isn't very well organised either. It'd be better to improve individual gods' pages and to nominate those, for they'd make much better articles. Fswe1 15:40, October 20, 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Yes it starts off strong and gives good information about the major gods, but really after that it tends to get weak, with paragraphs and images being very small. Itchlarin's picture for example is tiny. There's also that huge list of would be gods at the bottom which really does not belong on the article. Like fuswell said, better to focus on an individual god's page rather than this list File:Ring of kinship.png Ciphrius Kane File:Dungeoneering cape (t).png 00:22, October 22, 2013 (UTC) File:X mark.svg This article will not be featured at this time.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)