MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Remove Featured Article Status

1. Time Turner (talk) Let me start off with the most evident thing: there is a rewrite template for the Subspace Emissary section. According to rule 5, this already means that it doesn't deserve to keep its FA status. To elaborate, the section describing the plot is absolutely filled with grammatical errors ("which they proceed to carrier off"), speculative text ("whose intent is to kill Lucas"), and especially fanciful writing ("Lucas soon gets his foot snagged on an unearthed root"). None of these are acceptable in a wiki article. Besides that, though, another aspect that I'm not particularly fond of is the article's abuse of subsections. For example, the Rules section, which carries fourteen subsections. Most of them are relatively basic in the first place, with some only having a single sentence. That section can certainly be organized in a better fashion (do we even need that much info on rules?). Small subsections crop up around the entire article, though, and I really think that it would benefit from a clean scrubbing of sections. Also, this article does not describe at all what the gameplay is like. The Gameplay section covers what's new about this game in regards to its predecessors, but it does not state at all how the game actually plays, which I think is just a silly thing to gloss over. The descriptions for the stages are also not very descriptive. Some of them say things like "it is filled with many gimmicks that can either assist or hinder the player", "this stage encorporates elements of various Fire Emblem games" (oh hey, a typo), and "Very similar to Corneria and Venom", which tells me nothing. I know that we have the actual articles of those stages to fully describe them, but if the description leaves me with more questions than answers, it's not a good description. There may be other things that I haven't mentioned, but what I have here is a laundry list of problems with this article.
2. Pinkie Pie (talk) Per Dr. Whooves, as the rewrite template kills me. And the gameplay isn't strong enough.
3. Ashley and Red (talk)Per TT and Pinkie. Also, there is much specukation and lies... And the Reerite template, as well.
4. Baby Luigi (talk) I'm supporting this until the badly written crap gets removed.
5. Mario (talk) The Subspace Emissary section is the sole reason this article should be unfeatured. I might end up working on this article, but my browser is quietly groaning as I speak.
6. Daisyluva99 (talk)That rewrite template in the Subspace Emissary section just kills me (and my tablet) as I type this.So take care of it!
7. Lord Grammaticus (talk) That plot section is The Lord of all clutter, and needs the 'English teacher touch' badly.

Keep Featured Article Status

1. Epic Rosalina (talk) The article was cleaned up earlier today.

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes

Epic Rosalina

1. Time Turner (talk) The cleanup that happened earlier only covered one of the listed problems. The most prominent of them (the entire Subspace Emissary section) is still right there. If that hasn't even been touched yet, that alone makes this article unworthy of keeping its status as a featured article.
2. Daisyluva99 (talk)The only thing fixed was the gameplay.The Subspace Emissary wasn't even touched.
3. Mario (talk) The biggest flaw in this article isn't handled... yet.

Comments

OK, so here what's wrong with it:

• There is a rewrite template for the Subspace Emissary section.
• The Rules section, has fourteen subsections.
• The Gameplay section is too short.
• The descriptions for the stages are not very descriptive.

So for users who oppose against this, you still lose the match, just like you lose a proposal. Pinkie Pie (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (EST)

Why are you repeating what I just said? Time Turner (talk)

Still KB, we need this to be unfeatured. Pinkie Pie (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2014 (EST)

You can't have a negative attitude, I'll do whatever it takes to save this article. Demonic KB (talk)

@Pinkie, people who oppose the unfeaturing believe they can do the article some justice, I don't see how they "lose" for having an opinion. I'd recommend you be careful not to leave comments like that in the future; it reads as condescending and ESPECIALLY annoying, considering how often you're simply repeating thoughts other people also share. Trying to constantly "win" or be on the 'right' side of a proposed process misses the point of the whole thing, and makes it seem like you care much more about appearances and self-aggrandizing than anything else, which is NOT a good look. Sockpuppet or not, they had a point: any article nominated for unfeaturing can be salvaged if the given flaws are addressed.

On to the process itself: since the only person interested also thought it was worth revealing they were holding on to a completely inane grudge in the process of "saving" this page, I'm inclined to just let it go and be unfeatured on 'principle', so to speak. In reality, I can't do so without at least looking at this article for myself first (aside from that sort of flying in the face of what I said above, or at least that's how I feel). This isn't to say I'm disagreeing, if that wasn't somehow clear, because it seems the article shouldn't have been featured to begin with, templates indicating such notwithstanding; oversights are entirely possible, and that's why we have the unfeaturing process, I imagine.

I just prefer to assess and verify the "damage" for myself, and see what the article was like when it was featured, as well as whether or not it was 'worth the trouble', regardless of sockpuppeting never justifying anything. I may or may not actually vote from there. Lord Grammaticus (talk)

Lord Grammaticus is right, instead of saying on the FA page "unfeatured at (insert time and date here)" we should just remove the link altogether to make it look less degrading. 192.249.58.96 11:30, 18 February 2014 (EST)

I don't know what comment you're reading, because I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Lord Grammaticus (talk)

It doesn't look nice on the FA page, we should just remove the link to that article to make it look not as bad. 192.249.58.96 11:36, 18 February 2014 (EST)

I honestly don't want to sound condescending (especially) considering what I said above), but I highly doubt anyone cares about how "degrading" it looks. If aestethic/personal issues such as that were allowed to dictate this process, I don't think we'd get anywhere at all. Lord Grammaticus (talk)

That's not condescending, that's just an opinion. I think it's a silly reason to remove the UNFASTAT template at the top because it's somehow "degrading". It's only temporary, with its disappearing at 03:18, 19 April 2014 latest, if the nomination is supported by a valid oppose. Plus "degrading" is a subjective term; the template used to be eye-bleeding red, you know that? Mario (talk)

"because it seems the article shouldn't have been featured to begin with, templates indicating such notwithstanding"

This article was nominated years ago (in 2008), and even then, people objected to its flaws). Of course it couldn't have stood up to today's standards. This is like Tabuu and Shadow Queen all over again. Mario (talk)

Both of those comments were exactly what I was talking about, though you saved me a bit of time searching through its history. Also, the only one who even brought up how degrading it allegedly looked was the IP of DemonicKB, who was a sock of a banned user who was WAY too invested in this article's status, which is why I replied the way I did.

As for the article, I may just pitch in as well if you will, the least I can do is help share the 'burden'. Lord Grammaticus (talk)

@EpicRosalina, the only section touched today was Gameplay. There's still much left to be done rewrite-wise, with the plot still being the biggest offender. Lord Grammaticus (talk)

If my language teacher saw this article,she would have flipped.I mean seriously,if you can't take care of a rewrite template, then why keep this article featured? Daisyluva99 (talk)