MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Paper Mario

Support

 * 1) 155KB and no red links.
 * 2) - The rewrite template was outdated and has been removed. All issues that resulted in the article's previous unfeaturing have been addressed and corrected, and the article now offers extensive and sufficient coverage of all aspects of the game. There is a reasonable amount of red links (one). The article meets the standard for being featured now. The one remaining issue is the lack of a critical reception section, which is not strictly necessary for an article to become featured and can easily be added in the future.
 * 3) I originally opposed. However,  rewrote the article in its entirety and now appears to be up to date. So per him. (The only thing bugging me at this point is that the person who nominated this is currently blocked, but I don't think that's that big of an issue?)
 * 4) Ok looks good now. Per Alex95
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - per all
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) The original proposer did not completely understand how the FA process works (and, on a side note, is currently blocked), which was why I originally opposed. However, the fact that Gabumon decided to improve the article (taking into account the outdated rewrite template) has made me change my vote. The article looks much better than it did a few weeks ago.
 * 9) Now that it has been fixed, per all.

Comments
While I agree that the article is still unfinished, I feel like I should mention that the reasons listed on the unfeature page apply to an outdated version of this article. I've performed an extensive rewrite of the article last April that addressed those reasons, thus the version of the article that was unfeatured does not exist anymore.

I believe that, as soon as the storyline summary has been rewritten and a final check has been performed, the page will be up to featured standard. -
 * The only major thing I've seen that needs to be rewritten is the staff section, where it's just an excerpt of the staff page and we discourage that An example on how it would ideally look like is this. And I think this article would benefit from a reception section, as that's starting become the norm. Otherwise, I think it would be fine to take off that rewrite tag. The only issues I see are minor ones. 20:23, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Sorry for going the unclassy route with calling for the removal of oppose votes. I'd prefer a more discussion-based approach, but time is running out. If you read this, please re-evaluate the circumstances of this article and consider removing your oppose votes yourselves. -

Could this nomination still pass? It met the requirements for support votes and removal of oppose votes before the nomination expired. The only thing we are waiting for is the 24-hour wait time for the removal of opposes. -- 20:36, 2 March 2017 (EST)