MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
- Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) Detailed, etc. I removed the picture template, as it has plenty of pictures.
- MeritC (talk) It's okay so far, but layout wise, it doesn't look acceptable enough for featured territory. In fact, I'll see about contacting proper parties to see about trying to make some sections better. But for now, in this case and state, I say no.
- BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) This article is missing character statistics, which is needed because it's vital information. Per MeritC as well. I don't like the list layout at all. It doesn't look nice.
- GreenDisaster (talk) Per MertitC, BLOF, and anyone that posts after me that has good reasoning.
- SmartYoshi (talk) Per MeritC and BLOF.
- King Pikante (talk) Per MeritC and BLOF.
- Yoshi876 (talk) The Staff and Gallery sections violates the Empty Sections Policy
- LeftyGreenMario (talk) This article does not provide enough information to be featured. For instance, the playable characters section seriously needs to provide stats for each character, which can be viewed in-game in the character select screen. The article does not tell us how players can unlock characters; it merely lists the characters. This article is in serious need of a game mechanics section. For instance, the article fails to tell us how to hit the golf ball. There are many ways to hit the golf ball: by using different pucks, by hitting the ball on a certain spot (thus, changing the trajectory), changing the type of shot, and the different button combos players can use for a a topspin, super topspin, etc. The article does not note the wind, nor does it note the effects of rainy weather. This is just a few of the many problems it has. It is a bare, impoverished article. It needs a rewrite-expand template slapped on its forehead.
- Driver104 (talk) It looks ok, but it's not worthy for becoming a featured article yet.
Removal of Opposes
- GreenDisaster (talk) Exactly what about it is unacceptable? You say that the article isn't good layout-wise, but what about it isn't good? You haven't given any details excluding an incredibly vague "it doesn't look acceptable", and because you do not specify as to what about the article makes it unworthy of being featured, your vote is not valid.
- Marshal Dan Troop (talk) I'm going to be frank and say this your vote contains pretty much no content the entire point of an fa oppose vote is to tell the users trying to get the article featured what is wrong your vote doesn't do that instead it says the layout doesn't look good which is completely subjective towards ones personal opinion and on top of that you give no indication as to what needs to be fixed. Also I feel that even if you had said what needs to be fixed your vote would still be invalid because not only is how a layout look completely subjective but it also isn't a violation of the fa rules.