MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Petey Piranha

Support

 * 1)  Very Good article with good in formation and plenty of images and come on who doesen't love Petey?
 * 2) Good article, but loving him isn't the issue.
 * 3) this article rules, but im not a big fan of Petey Piranha.
 * 4) w00t Petey, he has a great article.
 * 5) Petey ROCKS! (as suggested by my sig/page).
 * 6) Per All!!
 * 11:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)
 * 09:18, 2 March 2008 (EST) Per everyone!
 * 1) It's a good article w/ good info and alot of photos and also PETEY RULEZ!!! P.s infectedshroom you oppose everything:(
 * 2) I think that's a great idea, Petey Piranha should get the spotlight!
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Very good article with lots of information! 21:53, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) It's a very good artical!!!!!!!!!!!@!!!!~!!!!!@@@#@!!!@@#
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) It's written great, organized like a true professional and a lot of sources. Some details are missing, but I still love the character.  [[Image:ItameMarioFan_icon.gif]]
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9)  - Per all and this article is well written.  Also, So I hErD u LiKe PeTyZ!
 * 10) I've went through the article and have corrected what I felt was wrong with it. While there are some very minor things still wrong here, an article can't be perfect and this is much better than some articles that I have seen featured.
 * 11) - Per all, especially Toadster_04
 * 12) A good article with heaps of info.
 * 13) Love the charcter! Petey Pirahna rocks! Good Pictures and well oragnised!
 * 14) It's great because it has information from the games he appears in with an orginized manner. All and all, a great article.
 * 15) Awesome aticle,fair amount of pics,and plenty of Info!--[[Image:SMB-GoombaWalking.gif]] DLM Gir was Here!
 * 16) It's a good article, with a new picture too! It should be featured! User: Super Joshi 7
 * 17) A very well writen article.--Magikoopa67 14:25, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * 18) - Per Everyone!!!!!!
 * 19) This is a very good article. I don't think the sections can be more expanded.  I also find it a bit unfair that an article can get 27 support votes, but 3 oppose votes hold it back.
 * 20) - The article is particularly large in size for a fairly new character to the Marioverse. Considering he's mostly appeared in spin-off games, the appearances section is quite long. There is a good abundance of images, and very few grammatical errors. In my opinion, this article has reached featured status.

Comments
Hyper Toad I know that isn't the issue I'm just saying it to say it -_-'

Snifit123: I don't think your reason for opposing is detailed enough. Please state which info is missing exactly, otherwise your vote will be removed. 11:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)
 * I didn't want you to turn your oppose vote into a support if you're not satisfied with the article, but it's your decision... 09:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Uh... is there supposed to be a animated image on articles? 18:03, 18 February 2008 (EST)
 * If it's appropriate (which it is in this case), why not?

I vote we get rid of the following fan votes: Jaffffey's (fan vote), DragonFeather's (no reason), and WiseWarrior's (fan vote). They do not pertain to the article. And WaluigiRocks: you are incorrect. I oppose things that I believe are not worthy of being featured. :P
 * WiseWarrior's vote might or might not refer to the article. But I oppose all of your "nominations." 07:49, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Here's another fault with the system: you don't need to give a reason.
 * You mean, when discussing whether or not a vote should be removed? Yeah, I'm taking advantage of this fault right now. :P 18:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Um, IS, I was looking at your opposition and I agree on everything being too short, but I don't understand why we would need to add info about Piranha Bean. Piranha Bean is not Petey himself, so I don't see why we would add info on him if he really doesn't have much to do with the main article, Petey. Can you kinda explain your reasoning?

Dom, could you please give some examples of the grammar mistakes and the "WTF moments"? Because maybe it's WTF to you, but completely normal for everybody else.

- Why certainly!

"Float" sounds like swimming, I replaced it with "fly", a sentence started with a lower-case letter, a sentence about him in Mario Golf:TT may have caused confusion, some info was lacking from this section, the MK:DD section said he's a "powerful unlockable" - see what I mean? It's a racing game so "powerful" doesn't makes sense, and the character doesn't have an effect on the driving or "power", the Daisy Garden section had heaps of weird bits, the Brawl section had a typo, the Personality section said something non-Wiki-like, the Abilities section seemed to be suggesting that Petey is playable in Brawl, which he obviously isn't, etc.

You know, you can see exactly what I changed by Comparing Selected Versions...you can see what I mean then.


 * Well, so you changed all these things... but why are you still opposing then? Which "WTF moments" are still there? 15:47, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

- I forgot to remove my Opposal, but I've done that now. After making those various fixes, the article seems quite good, but somehow... I just can't see it being featured.


 * Ah, okay, thanks. 07:40, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

- I just revamped Petey's sports section! I made everything MUCH longer and more detailed! Hope that helps! Oh, IS, I improved the Mario Golf and Mario Pinball sections that needed to be fixed! Hope that's good enough!

I still believe that the sections are not big enough. My reasoning? The Spin-off sections are bigger than the main-series sections. That's ridiculous, even if he is more common in the spin-offs. I just ask that you add a bit more to the sections that I specified. The SPP section doesn't even have what attacks he uses, or the vibe he uses. The M&L section doesn't tell how to dodge the attacks, which is an integral part in the game. And telling a bit more on how to defeat him as Mini Mario in NSMB would be good, like the ground pounds instead of normal jumps.

I changed my vote, BTW. Also, the piranha bean info is good enough now. ;)
 * Oh, what the hell, I'll fix it myself for you irrational people. Hold off until I do. :\
 * Done. The rest is up to you.
 * Wait a sec... since Paper Jorge and DaWeegeeMan said "Per IS", we can remove those, correct? (And, IS stated he expanded info for "those games" that PJ said.)
 * Not sure about this, since Paper Jorge also put "We need more info on his appearances in those games", and the fact that IS expanded the sections doesn't mean that PJ is happy with it. I'm going to ask him to remove or expand his vote, same with DaWeegeeMan. 04:52, 12 September 2008 (EDT)