MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Yoshi's New Island

Support

 * 1) It should be a featured article because it has nice writing and it has good information for the game.

Oppose

 * 1) It's an article with a scant screenshots and information (except for the transformation and reception section). As of its being nominated, it's barely anything more than a huge list. This article will need a major overhaul before we should even consider it to be featured.
 * 2) It's little more than a few lists squashed together.
 * 3) Even if this article is featured as a featured list it STILL wouldn't meet featured list requirements. Per all.
 * 4) Bunch of lists squashed into each other with empty sections. Per all.
 * 5) This article is SO PACKED WITH FLOWERY WRITING. Per all.
 * 6) Shouldn't even bother, won't get featured anyway. Per all; it's full of lists that could be easily put into chart form with more detail on each of its items. Currently only contains 4 paragraphs of written sentences.
 * 7) Per all. Not enough pictures.
 * 8) Too many lists.

Comments
Oh come on first you think an article is too short' and now it's too long. I don't understand you!
 * And I don't understand you, because she never said it was too long.--Vommack (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2014 (EDT)

Who's "you"? Joseph, not Vommack. 11:44, 31 July 2014 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure Joseph is referring to me, since after my vote, the only major edit was Joseph's comment. Anyway I'm female, I never said it was too long. I did, however, say that the article is low quality and just pretty bad. Just compare it to other featured game-related articles including Super Mario Bros. 2, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Wario Land II, New Super Mario Bros.. Even Yoshi's Island DS, one of the worse featured articles, has more information, details, and it meets the bare requirements. Even Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Bros., which aren't featured at this writing, are in much better shape than this. Length is not an issue, and even then, most of these articles are longer than this one. 19:01, 31 July 2014 (EDT)
 * ...I'll just fix my comment then...--Vommack (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2014 (EDT)