MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Super Mario Galaxy 2

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Super Mario Galaxy 2[edit]


  1. Mario Fan 123 (talk) - It's a very good article, well written, great gameplay section, many images, good story, links... It's perfect, and I think it deserves to be a Featued Article. Ah, and there's no 'rewrite' template anymore.
  2. Toadwell (talk)
  3. Dry dry bones (talk)
  4. IandaM (talk)
  5. SKmarioman (talk)
  6. marioboy296 (talk)
  7. GoWeegee (talk)
  8. Yoshi986 (talk)
  9. Bowser's luma (talk)


  1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) First, my complaint with the story. The story section of the article doesn't really tell the story near the end of the section. It just shows "when the player does this" and switches back and forth from "the player" and "Mario" and it feels more like a gameplay and what gets unlocked section rather than a story. Second, the gameplay features section is a mess. Information is all over the place. An example of this is when it mentions hubs, then it goes immediately into the number of stars in the game. It also doesn't contain a list of powerups from this game, separately from the other items, much like Super Mario Galaxy does. I think that's about it.
  2. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Seriously, not ready yet. The images are very plentiful at the beginning, but the bottom half of the article is just image-less. Also, per all that BLOF said.
  3. New Super Mario (talk) Per BLOF
  4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) What's that blue template at the top of the page doing there?
  5. Fuzzipede27 (talk) - It has a rewritten template and it's not ready yet.
  6. Mario jc (talk) Per BLOF.
  7. Booderdash (talk) Per me. No, just kidding, per all.
  8. M&SG (talk) - You can't feature articles with rewrite templates. Also, there are still some things that need fixing on that article before it qualifies for a feature request.
  9. Mario4Ever (talk) Per BLOF and BMB, but I don't think the story section can be improved all that much. After all, it's a Mario game. If it does, I have to say that even so, this is one of the most well-written articles I've encountered on the wiki, but it's not FA material yet, unfortunately.
  10. Commander Code-8 (talk) Why are there so many images in the story section?? It's also a bit too soon to be an FA.
  11. Cat91x (talk) Per Fuzzipede27.
  12. CosmicRedToad (talk) um... don't the rules say they can't have a rewrite template?
  13. Beecanoe (talk) On the other hand... the article is fairly new, and, in a way, not well kept. This article is questionable. I played both sides, but I'm more supportive of opposing the nomination.
  14. Dry Paratroopa (talk) If the article or a section of it needs to be rewritten then it doesn't show itself as one of the wiki's "best" articles IMO.
  15. Superboo922 (talk)- Per CMT
  16. SWFlash (talk) Some titles have no images, some references refs to gameplay. And per everyone above and below
  17. ThomasO (talk) Featured article != Needs rewriting.

Removal of Opposes[edit]


The article may need a Controls/Gameplay section. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Baby Mario Bloops: The bottom of the article is image-less because that part of the article is mostly composed of lists. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

So? We can add an image of the enemy at the top of the list. Just like the "New Enemies" section. But we can add an image of the E3 revealing. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I think it also needs a Controls section. It could also use some more pictures... maybe just a little more. They are all jamed into the "Story" section. New Super Mario (talk)

@Fawfulfury65: I added that, because of my reasons listed here. It was there after it was put up for nomination. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

LeftyGreenMario/New Super Mario: I disagree on adding the controls section they are not that important for the article as the gameplay and there not many of them on other game pages anyway. Lindsay151 (talk)

She didn't suggest to be added, she just said it might be needed. Mario Power Tennis is one prime example. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Mario Fan 123: There is now. It got placed back because apparently someone tried removing it to make it an invalid reason to oppose this article. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

@Supporters: Guys, you realize that this article can't be featured with a rewrite template, right? Fawfulfury65 (talk)

They're fanboys. They'll support no matter what flaws it has, and with reasons for support votes removed, it just makes it worse. I mean, look at how many people supported Mario, despite the ton of flaws with it.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reversinator (talk).
First, you can't just assume they are fanboys. Second, the support does no harm other than unnecessarily bumping the nomination. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

@IandaM: You supported twice. Mario jc (talk)