MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Vivian: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
DaisyLuigi (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
#{{User|DaisyLuigi}} This article is very well written. It includes well-written history, a great foreign language template, and the pictures are a good size, and have reasonable captions. Overall, it's a great article that is very popular in [[Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door]], where she is a main character, so I support. | #{{User|DaisyLuigi}} This article is very well written. It includes well-written history, a great foreign language template, and the pictures are a good size, and have reasonable captions. Overall, it's a great article that is very popular in [[Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door]], where she is a main character, so I support. | ||
#{{User|Ashley and Red}} | #{{User|Ashley and Red}} | ||
#{{User|Fluffy_Bluff_Galaxy}} This article is very detailed, well-written, non-biased, and overall reliable. The History section is very well written and described. I support. | |||
==== Oppose ==== | ==== Oppose ==== | ||
Revision as of 12:01, April 18, 2014
Vivian
Support
- DaisyLuigi (talk) This article is very well written. It includes well-written history, a great foreign language template, and the pictures are a good size, and have reasonable captions. Overall, it's a great article that is very popular in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, where she is a main character, so I support.
- Ashley and Red (talk)
- Fluffy_Bluff_Galaxy (talk) This article is very detailed, well-written, non-biased, and overall reliable. The History section is very well written and described. I support.
Oppose
- Yoshi876 (talk) Like you said there are a few things that need to be fixed. Until these problems are fixed the article cannot be featured.
Removal of Opposes
Comments
Having "a few things that need to be fixed" is dealbreaker for me. If they were fixed, I'd support. But for now, I'm not voting. 
Bluetoad63
11:27, 11 April 2014 (EDT)
Okay. I will fix some of the bad edits.
The edits are fixed! It looks better now.
- You did one tiny edit, that hardly counts as fixing the problems. Yoshi876 (talk)
- I'll do more. It's such a great article though, and there isn't much more to edit.
I suggest to trin her "Gender" section...and delete some refsUser:Ashley anEoTselkie/sig
- Okay, then will you support?
- Yes, I am OK with it now. User:Ashley anEoTselkie/sig
- Removing perfectly good information is a horrible way to go about "improving" a page. The gender stuff is important and interesting, and at only two paragraphs,it's not too large at all, it's just thorough, which is a good thing. And if anything, the extensive references are one of the page's strengths: citations give the wiki credibility and make us more professional-grade, and in this case in particular, having hard video proof and our own original translation work stops people from baselessly trying to white-wash the gender stuff, since we can say "uh, no, it's real, leave it alone". - Walkazo 20:33, 16 April 2014 (EDT)
- Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure.
- Removing perfectly good information is a horrible way to go about "improving" a page. The gender stuff is important and interesting, and at only two paragraphs,it's not too large at all, it's just thorough, which is a good thing. And if anything, the extensive references are one of the page's strengths: citations give the wiki credibility and make us more professional-grade, and in this case in particular, having hard video proof and our own original translation work stops people from baselessly trying to white-wash the gender stuff, since we can say "uh, no, it's real, leave it alone". - Walkazo 20:33, 16 April 2014 (EDT)
