UESPWiki:Featured Articles/Past Nominations

This is an archive of past nominations for Featured Articles.

Online:Crown Store

An impressively put together article, it looks technically great.

• Support: As nominator. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 06:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not going to oppose this one, but it's too much of a list page for me to support. The content is entirely transient and is based on what the Crown Store currently contains. The option to view all past offers exists of course, but it's almost a secondary function. It's a great page and very useful, but I struggle to see it as an article. —Legoless (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm going to oppose this vote using Legoless's listed points. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I can not mobilise any degree of enthusiasm to a listing page that is changing all the time and needs constant maintenance to be updated. —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Legoless. The page isn't really much of an article and as such, isn't something I'd want to see featured on the main page. Forfeit (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: It does look great, but technically it's quite easy to add all that information. A FA should be something that requires a bit more effort! Hmm.. and now I sound like I underestimate the technical part. Well, I don't, but it's just not the most important thing when it comes to a FA. Tib (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus: Oppose. 4 - 1 —Legoless (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Skyrim:Mountain Climbing

A great example of the oft-neglected 'Hints' section. It contains a ton of useful information and is a joy to read.

• Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Good god how did I not know this existed, it's beautiful. Schiffy^(Talk) 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I'll definitely support this, becase even though I'm a dedicated mountain climber, it nevertheless taught me a few things and came in extremely handy when I was trying to reach all those blasted secret mountain peaks on Solstheim a few weeks ago. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I love it, we definitely need more articles like this one. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 22:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: it has my support. I would have nominated it a while ago but never got around to doing so. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 19:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. 5 - 0 —Legoless (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lore:Necromancy

A well sourced and informative article; exactly what UESP is about.

• Support: As nominator. MetaCthulhu (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Very well written. Amazed it hasn't been featured before. Schiffy^(Talk) 06:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support: ME's huge overhaul earlier this year brought this well up to Featured quality. -- Hargrimm^(T) 16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Possibly one of our best lore articles. —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent article. Forfeit (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. 5 - 0 – Robin Hood  (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dragonborn:Dragonborn (quest)

So much is going on at the start of Dragonborn, and this is a great summary of all the various starting plot threads as well as a great introduction to most of the important characters.

• Support: As nominator. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 06:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: A very thorough walkthrough. A little heavy on dialogue and images, but not at all cumbersome. —Legoless (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article, although I just accidentally spoiled the start of that expansion, and I've not gotten around to playing it yet, because of the new Metal Gear game :( Anyway, an excellently thorough article that serves to get you into the starting points of the story, as AKB said. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I find a quest page with all the related dialogue to be a double-edged sword. As long as the instructions are there, the dialogue doesn't need to be there. It can go on the relevant NPCs' articles. Quest walkthroughs should have the information needed so a player can complete the quest. Dialogue won't help a player complete the quest. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: We could cut a lot from articles on the grounds it isn't absolutely needed. Dialogue should go on relevant NPC pages, but if it's interesting or quest related enough, there is no issue with making a quest article more interesting to read with dialogue. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I've long felt that with Skyrim's very detailed journal/objective system and accessible design, there are vanishingly few quests that are actually complex or difficult enough to really need a gameplay walkthrough to complete. I believe quest pages are more useful as a summary of the events of the quest as a reminder or primer for someone who hasn't played it or for whom it's been several years. With that perspective, I obviously don't mind having a large amount of dialogue and accompanying images, since they enliven the summary information and make it much more interesting to read. -- Hargrimm^(T) 16:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. 4 - 1 ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Online:Fishing

This is everything you could want to know about ESO fishing, summarized in one place. It is hands down the best guide of its kind I've seen on the interwebs, and there are quite a few out there. It deserves some attention.

• Support: As nominator. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support: One of our best ESO articles. —Legoless (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I agree! I started the page March of last year as an ugly, tiny stub and I never dreamed it would be as lovely as it is now. Mah bb is all grown up~ (I kid, I kid.) —likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 01:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: There are no less than 4 VN's in the lead section. I find it hard to believe this article is the best it can be, is entirely accurate, and is one of the best articles around the ESO namespace when we don't even have all of our own facts completely straight on it. A VN for a bug or something at the bottom? Fine, I'd let that slip in an FA vote, but there's no way I would support an article with so many VNs in the body of the article. Also, hello, I'm back-ish for a little while! -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As the author of all four I am a bit divided if those should be significant enough to oppose it being FA. On one hand they do not look good, and they are a fair bit of the article itself. The tables of all sorts are nice and the pictures are good, but the lead section is the central part of the article and a sizable bit of the total text. On the other hand, I do not know how easy there is to confirm such ESO data. Due to the lack of direct access to much of the game data in ESO, as opposed to the other Elder Scrolls games, there would and should be a lot more vn tags. There should maybe even quite a lot more than there are today in most articles. This would disqualify a lot of otherwise good ESO articles by definition, without good means to improve them more. —MortenOSlash (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm with Damon on this one. While I certainly agree with MortenOSlash's point about the difficulties of verifying information in ESO, I would think that time and play-testing would provide sufficient evidence, even if we can't get absolute proof. Once a couple of those VNs are taken down, it might be more FA-worthy. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion nicely highlights the difficulty in confirming anything through playtesting. At most, I would say one of those VN tags could be removed in the near future (the 15 fish limit). We have one of the best ESO fishing guide on the web, and a couple VN tags serve only to point out the limits of our current knowledge to readers, rather than mark the article as incomplete. —Legoless (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: The vn about the 15 fish limit seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to verify before featuring this article. The others I can live with being in the article for the reasons given above. Overall, this is an excellent article. Forfeit (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I will attempt to do some testing. I did get a fishing hole with exactly 15 catches when I bothered counting. (I wonder if having 2 or 3 people at a hole will halve/third that number?) Hopefully we can get that vn off, though tbh I don't care whether it's there or not. —likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 01:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too many VNs. DRAGON GUARD^(TALK) 05:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment:I feel like postponing the vote, as the page is no longer complete as long as it lacks information from the Imperial City. —MortenOSlash (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct. I'll suspend it until it can be updated. —Legoless (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus: Suspended. Article is currently out of date. —Legoless (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Online:Pets

All you need to know about ESO's pets. UESP's pets page is nothing short of the definitive guide to these collectibles, and I've seen it referenced online plenty of times. It still needs some UESP-specific images and maybe old item links if our database ever gets sorted out, but otherwise it's as close to completion as an ever-expanding list can get.

• Support: As nominator. —Legoless (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Some missing data ((?)) for the Abecean pet. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 22:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That data is not missing, it's just not available yet. The Abecean cat section contains everything we know about that pet at this time, so opposing for that reason is groundless. —Legoless (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Technically, the data is missing. We don't have it yet. Let the article reach it's full potential. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • That would be missing the point of an ever-expanding list, and by the time this article would be featured we'd likely have the data anyway. —Legoless (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: It's a well laid-out page that is also a favourite on the ESO Forums for being a good summary of the available pets. --Enodoc (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Looks like a good article to me. Featuring this will also serve as a nice change of pace in the types of articles that have been featured recently. Forfeit (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Good-looking and very useful, can't really find anything against it. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 02:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: The nature of ESO doesn't cater to finished products sometimes, and this is one of those times. But this is why FAs have time stamps. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 12:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. Only one objection from all participants. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Skyrim:Erandur

An awesome article that explains it near-perfectly.

• Support: Nominator. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 11:33, 4 April 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Lesser-known article to the masses being nominated, huh? Yeah, I'm game. Certainly is well written. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 15:03, 9 April 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Looks good. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 15:54, 9 May 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Looks fine to me! --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support.  ~Shuryard (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. No opposition —Legoless (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Daggerfall:Vampirism

I was perusing the Daggerfall namespace to see what information I can glean from it to aid my first-time playthrough of the game that I've been working on for the last... really long time. Anyway, as far as Daggerfall articles go, this is a quite informative one, and it is definitely a standard I feel like we can work the Daggerfall articles towards. And, a Daggerfall Featured Article would be a really cool change of pace since all we ever see are from the latest titles. Vote, my loves!

• Support: Nominator Damon^{(talk•email)} 17:12, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: I was pleasantly surprised at how good this older article is. It definitely makes for an interesting read and would shed some light on the older games. •WoahBro^►talk 17:25, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
• Comment: That disclaimer about a "documentation vacuum" is a bit out-dated, and should probably be replaced by a link to the Vampire lore page. Anyway, I can review for grammar and what-not, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Daggerfall to judge the page's quality. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 17:38, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
  • I am not sure, but I seem to remember the "documentation vacuum" is a reference to the in-game lack of other sources, though there might of course be other ways of illustrating that. —MortenOSlash (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
    • Yeah, there is virtually nothing in terms of lore in Daggerfall specifically, so I think it's referencing the gamespace specifically. Damon^{(talk•email)} 19:54, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Nice to see the old games be highlighted again. Daggerfall was my first Elder Scrolls game. I really like the article for its thorough description. —MortenOSlash (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Never really played Daggerfall, but the article looks FA-worthy. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 19:46, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: This one is pretty great, reminds me of running into vampires while playing Daggerfall. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 05:24, 1 April 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Very interesting article. Easily one of the best pages I've seen in that namespace. Forfeit (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2015 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. No opposition ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2015 (GMT)

Skyrim:Balgruuf the Greater

A fully written page on one of the most important characters in Skyrim. The dialogue for all the different quests is presented in an interesting and effective way. The page also contains a number of memorable images that further benefit the article.

• Support: As nominator. Forfeit (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Nice and thorough. Looks good. Damon^{(talk•email)} 01:35, 9 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: As Damon said, this article should take precedence over the Sheogorath nomination. Perhaps the next couple, too, if we get any other successful nominations soon. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 01:13, 12 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: I'll add my support here. Dialog appears complete no matter what part of the main quest or side you're doing, or not doing any at all. Layout is very solid and all parts read fluidly. Philbert (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Looks good. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Great article, FA quality for sure. — ABCface^◥ 18:18, 24 March 2015 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. No opposition ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

Skyrim:Sheogorath

Can never have enough of the Madgod, right? Aside from being about such an interesting subject though, this article presents the quest-related dialogue and events well by mixing paragraphs, conversations, and tables with plenty of headers and high-quality images. Overall, I think this page captures Sheogorath's character quite well and is more than deserving of being featured.

• Support: As nominator. Forfeit (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Yeah, it's a good article, but since the last FA was Sheogorath, I'd like to propose that Balgruuf goes first if it wins its FA nomination, so that we can have a second article between this Sheogorath article and the last one. Damon^{(talk•email)} 01:35, 9 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Looks good. Insignificant Revisions^{Threats•Evidence} 01:13, 12 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Well laid out, but I agree with Damon about the featured order. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Good article, I'd like seeing it on the front page. — ABCface^◥ 18:18, 24 March 2015 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. No opposition ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (GMT)

Lore:Skyrim

• Support: An AWESOME article, IMO. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 20:36, 4 February 2015 (GMT)
• Support: I can find no issue with this article. It's greatly detailed, yet nothing goes on ad nauseam, it's well formatted, and there are a plethora of beautiful images that perfectly supplement the article. It's certainly a stellar example of what can be done on UESP, and I give my congratulations to the editors who put this article together. Damon^{(talk•email)} 21:55, 4 February 2015 (GMT)
• Comment: There have been no more responses to my nomination. Is something wrong? – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

No, it just means nobody has felt the need to take a look. If there was a problem, it would have been brought up and addressed. Just relax, because sometimes nominations stall because nobody's interested in them when there's work to be done. Damon^{(talk•email)} 23:22, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

By "there's work to be done", do you mean other stuff such as things in the big namespaces such as Online? I've never known the wiki to be as inactive as this on nominations (that's just an opinion, FYI). – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 13:46, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

There are many possible reasons why a nomination may not get votes. As Damon said, work can be an issue, whether that's on the wiki or in real life; the wiki also tends to be much less active in between major releases and at certain times of year; it's also possible that people just don't feel strongly enough about it to give it their support or opposition. That's why there's a minimum number of votes, to prevent articles from being featured if they're either lacklustre or they were nominated during a slow period and didn't have enough support or opposition to have a clear consensus. We've had several nominations refused because they only had three or four votes. Going way back in the archives, some of the earliest ones only had a couple of votes, which seems to be what led to the minimum being put in place (see Voting System on the talk page). – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (GMT)

• Support: Despite the fact I haven't read it, I support it, considering a new FA has been due for a few days. Don't suppose there are serious flaws in this article, if any, so in that case, featuring wouldn't do harm ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Damon said it all. ~ Shuryard (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (GMT)
• Support: At first glance it might not seem look much more than just good, but as you read through you find it has got all you would expect, both leaving you with the feeling of having been well informed at with an urge to learn more. —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2015 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. No opposition ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2015 (GMT)

Lore:Sheogorath

This is an exemplar example of how a lore article should be written. Even if it isn't the length of a novel it has many awesome images and text. One particularly amazing part is the various quotes. This has my full support.

• Support: As nominator. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 13:52, 10 January 2015 (GMT)
• Comment: The layout doesn't seem right for me (I have 300px thumbs and widescreen), I don't know if that's the same for other people, though I'd like to have that improved ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2015 (GMT)
  • The layout seems well done to me in 16:10 with the dafault thumbnails. —Legoless (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
    • If you remove hide the TOC, it removes most of the huge space I get. Maybe it could be toned down (no sublinks for Artifacts). And some NewLefts on the bottom would make a big difference too. Can I try that out? ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
      • It's definitely the large thumbnails that are creating the problem. I tried a couple of things at the top, but didn't find anything that really helped much, so I limited my changes to the lower portions of the page. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:56, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
        • Can't we choose the number of pixels in the image links when editing (i.e., 160px) etc? Maybe that will help. The wiki sure has gone less active recently. – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (GMT)
          • We can, but it's strongly discouraged. Some people like larger thumbnails, others like smaller. It's preferable to honour that whenever possible. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 22:57, 13 January 2015 (GMT)

(←) The layout for me can be greatly improved by using TOClimit 2, plus, I think the image of his Skyrim version doesn't fit the section, it'd be better for a 4:3 Jyggalag image to be there, which would take less space than a square one ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (GMT)

I went ahead and changed the TOClimit, all subsections are visible for me on the screen, and I don't suspect the sections to be all that larger on smaller screens, so I'd say there's no need of links for those in the TOC. The only issue that may arise for some is the TOC is less noticeable. I also replaced the Skyrim Sheogorath to a Jyggalag thumb, I thought his Skyrim version just didn't belong at the Greymarch section at all, while Jyggalag does, and I've moved this image to the gallery. I hope this doesn't upset or cause issues to others, but I don't suspect it will, and it improves the layout dramatically for people who use large thumbs and have wide screens ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2015 (GMT)

• Support: Hits the spot for me! Biffa (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
• Oppose: I love the article, but the layout of the pictures and TOC make me have to oppose it being featured. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
• Support: It's a good article. I'm not seeing any of these layout issues. —Legoless (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
• Support: Sexy. Give it a copper star.-damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 23:52, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
  • Support: Sheo himself or the article? Nevermind, agreed either way. Sexy. --Somercy (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (GMT)
• Comment: Dom, maybe adjust your preferences and see if that helps? There is a relevant discussion above at the start of the consensus if that helps? – Dragon Guard  ^(talk) 21:22, 16 January 2015 (GMT)
  • Its more of how every image is on the right except for a couple at the very bottom of the page. It just seems unbalanced to me. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 05:00, 19 January 2015 (GMT)

Consensus: Support. 5 - 1 ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2015 (GMT)

Dragonborn:Ralis Sedarys

This article is very well-written in my humble opinion.

• Support: As nominator. DG^#:) 17:07, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
• Support: Looks good to me. -- RNM|T 19:43, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
• Oppose: The dialogue could due with being divided up a bit more. This could be done by dividing it up into subsections and using other innovations (if you have multiple options to choose from in dialogue, his responses to each option could be displayed in a table or at least not just in a paragraph for example). The recently nominated Sinding page benefited from such suggestions in its nomination in my opinion, albeit it wasn't enough for it to be supported. Aside from this, the page seems to lack a schedule for this character, though this may not be relevant (I'm not knowledgeable about Dragonborn so I don't really know this NPC's behavior). Forfeit (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: Your assumptions are correct. A schedule is not relevant here. —MortenOSlash (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2014 (GMT)
• Oppose:I agree that the dialogue needs to be used in a manner to help break up the text and show it with each option and the replies available. Biffa (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: And why should the dialogue get changed may I ask? Lots of other pages don't have a concept of showing dialogue with each option and the replies available. For example Skyrim:Jaree-Ra doesn't use this concept. DG^#:) 08:18, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment: I did try and break up the text with the dialogue when I started revamping it, but it got changed. DG^#:) 08:20, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
• Oppose: Per Forfeit and Biffa, some of the dialogue could use different formatting to make the page look less repetitive. You could use quotes from his dialogue or from his writings to help break up the text. (See Oblivion:Mathieu Bellamont for an example.) The article is incomplete as well, as it's missing follower dialogue and mentions of his letters and journal. I will gladly change my vote once these problems are addressed. —<({QT>> 11:13, 12 December 2014 (GMT)
  • Comment:Jaree-Ra's page is a poor example as sections of his dialogue have been formatted differently to help break up the wall of text AND it wouldn't get my vote for FA support either. Overall I think it's a really good article that could with tweaks get the support you're looking for. The reason I mentioned the dialogue was the layout as it is was the main reason I voted to oppose and wanted to give reason/suggest what could be done to make it worthy of FA status IMO. If you look at the other two mentioned NPC pages not all the dialogue is formatted any different to the way you've laid it out, however sections of it has and it has massively improved the readability and appearance of those pages. Biffa (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2014 (GMT)
• Oppose: The dialogue really needs to be divided up. To me, its pretty much a wall of text with a couple of pretty border images. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 03:42, 20 December 2014 (GMT)

Consensus: Oppose. 2 - 4 ~ Dwarfmp (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2015 (GMT)