MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Donkey Kong Land

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Smg2 icon bronzestar.png

This is an archive of a successful featured article nomination. If this page is unprotected, do not modify its contents, as it is an archive of past discussions.
Donkey Kong Land was nominated to be a featured article at 00:18, 8 May 2010 (GMT) and passed at 16:14, 16 May 2010.

Donkey Kong Land


  1. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Well, the article lists just about every gameplay feature and item in the game. It has a reasonable amount of images and no redlinks. The article has made quite an improvement over time, and I believe its ready to become a FA!
  2. KS3 (talk)
  3. Gamefreak75 (talk)
  4. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
  5. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
  6. Commander Code-8 (talk)


Removal of Opposes


@Raph: Where's the grammar errors and cluttered stuff? Nothings cluttered. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Cluttered info on enemies, as some are bold, and some are not. Grammar mistakes in the gallery. Like this: The level, Deck Trek should be changed to The level called Deck Trek. Raphaelraven497 (talk)
And you couldn't have fixed that yourself!! -_-' C'mon, she and everyone else worked hard on this and you are pointing out one easily fixable mistake to oppose. Gamefreak75 (talk)

First of all, you did not read the paragraph in the enemies section. Enemies in Bold are the ones who first appeared in DKC. Also writing "The level, Deck Trek" is fine grammar. It sounds better than "The level called Deck Trek." Fawfulfury65 (talk)

There, fixed. As for the enemies section, read before you oppose, please. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Fawfulfury65: Just to note out there, but you should really scan over the article before you nominate it. I caught some spelling errors the spell-check couldn't catch (preform, through instead of though). Plus, some phrases (such as "out of the way", "in the manner") could be replaced with shorter, but crisper, words. Don't worry, I corrected them, but again, you should really thoroughly check the article for silly mistakes like these. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I removed my vote, but im not supporting. Raphaelraven497 (talk)

BLOF, I did read through it, twice. But whatever, as long as they're fixed. Fawfulfury65 (talk)