MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Wario Land 4

From the Super Mario Wiki

Wario Land 4[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. YoshiKong (talk) About a year ago, Wario Land 4 was a poorly written article with more stubs, red links and missing info than you could poke a keyboard at! Slowly, but surely, the 20+ stubs were expanded, all red links and missing info filled, and every page in it's category cleaned up and rewritten. So come on, lets get this great article the featured status it deserves!
  2. SmartYoshi (talk)
  3. Pyro (talk)
  4. InvincibleZtar (talk)
  5. Mariobros1985 (talk)
  6. Creeper (talk)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Vommack (talk) Per BLOF(For the time being, at least).
  2. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) The wording seems off in certain areas such as But with many strange occurrences, and even the disappearance of a group member, caused all future investigations of the Pyramid to be cancelled, and a newspaper article was published regarding the recent events. that sentence feels awkward to read and I think it requires another word at some point, also there are point of view problems such as It comically reads; "STEAKS! EAT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN!!" The game ends with gold bars forming the words THE END. who is to say that, that is comical I mean I don't find it funny. There are also other problems with the article including inaccuracies.

Removal of Opposes[edit]

Comments[edit]

I suggest you proofread it before featuring it. There has been a ton of featured articles in the past that has no proofreading whatsoever done in any that errors had to be created beforehand. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I haven't checked the article in-depth, but there are bits of POV ("[The game] enjoyed well-deserved praise") and odd writing ("The game got good reviews... [for] its general thrill of satisfaction" whaaaa?) in the intro. Not a good sign. --Glowsquid (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

I wrote nearly the whole article, and I did try to be dilligent when it came to wording/grammar. I'll remove the point of view, but as far as I can see, there are none to very little errors in the rest of the article. YoshiKong (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
You can't really see errors in your own work. It's nearly required to have someone else proofread it. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Would you like to do that for me, blof? I'd really appreciate it. YoshiKong (talk)
I will if I have the time and the motivation. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Update: I have since re-written the article on three separate occasions. I admit that I did find some silly mistakes and a few issues with the wording here and there. But as of now it has been thoroughly looked over, and I believe that the opposing arguments no longer apply. If there are any more concerns, please let me know and I'll tend to them as soon as possible. YoshiKong (talk)

  • "[G]eneral thrill of satisfaction". It's improved, yes, but if mistakes that have been specifically brought up by Glowsquid-in the Intro paragraph, no less-haven't been fixed, I doubt it's ready for an FA.Vommack (talk)
So, do you want me to remove the review stuff entirely from the intro? I can't see anything wrong with the wording. YoshiKong (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2012 (EST)