MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Diddy Kong: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 16: Line 16:
===Comments===
===Comments===
@Ashley and Red: whether or not it's intentional shouldn't matter. A surprisingly large number of sections are short, which leads me to the conclusion that they are lacking information. If they are missing info, then this article's really not something that should be featured. Even still, they could use some expansion.
@Ashley and Red: whether or not it's intentional shouldn't matter. A surprisingly large number of sections are short, which leads me to the conclusion that they are lacking information. If they are missing info, then this article's really not something that should be featured. Even still, they could use some expansion.
I'm going to try and expand some sections, anyone want to help me? {{User|Epic Rosalina}}

Revision as of 21:38, February 20, 2014

Diddy Kong

Support

  1. Epic Rosalina (talk) I worked hard rewriting, fixing up, and doing everything I could to improve the article. If Dixie Kong can be featured, so can Diddy Kong.

Oppose

  1. Time Turner (talk) I'm not sure if this is intentional, but all of the sections are surprisingly... short. Pretty much every section covering a game is only a few lines long, even in games where he's rather prominent. The number of images is mostly good, though there are a few sections that noticeable lack one. Also, every once in a while, lines like "Diddy is one of twenty-one opponents and his best friend, Donkey Kong, appears as an opponent, too," or "Diddy features a small acceleration and drift bonus while getting a strong mini-turbo bonus," crop up, lines that just sound clunky. I can see that you've put a lot of work into this, but there are still ares where it can be improved. Also, as a forewarning: the featured status of another article does not (at the very least should not) influence or otherwise affect the featured status of another article.
  2. Ashley and Red (talk) Per TT until the first dot. The sections looks short. If this is intentional, I will remive my oppose.

Removal of Oppose

Comments

@Ashley and Red: whether or not it's intentional shouldn't matter. A surprisingly large number of sections are short, which leads me to the conclusion that they are lacking information. If they are missing info, then this article's really not something that should be featured. Even still, they could use some expansion.

I'm going to try and expand some sections, anyone want to help me? Epic Rosalina (talk)