MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario Superstar Baseball

Support

 * 1) Well-written, lots of images, very detailed. I think it's ready to become featured!

Oppose

 * 1) - I hate to be a downer and everything, but I just can't stand the images for the characters! It's the quality, as I know you can get better images for them. This articles has to be the one of the best of the best. IF you can't even go easy on one image over at the other nom with an image problem, then why should this one be allowed? The consistency can be understand as they are different sizes, but images have to be images, and I'm not about to let one article slide by and another not. You can't just favor one article and hate another, each one have to be the best of the best, and if it only moderate, then it can't be a FA.
 * 2) Since Ks3 apparently can vote again, I'm thinking I can too. Per Bmb.
 * 3) The information in the article is really good, however the images are really bad. Take a look at it's sequel. The images are really high quality, the article is very vibrant. It's the images that appeal to the viewer of the article, not all of them are bad, but the character's images need alot of work, they are all so blurry, not vibrant at all. Most screenshots are pretty good, but some are kind of blurry as well, such as this one. I know it's very hard to take pictures off of GCN and the user who took them tried their best, I will give credit on that. Images such as this one are fine. I will support this article once the images are improved upon.
 * 4) Per Super-Yoshi

Removal of Opposes
Baby Mario Bloops
 * 1) Character sizes are not consistent as people like Donkey Kong is bigger than Mario. Of course it makes character sizes inconsistent. Making image sizes larger will take up unnecessary space. The nomination he also mentioned has inconsistent file extensions, that's why it's not getting featured.
 * 2) Per BabyLuigiOnFire. How can we make it consistent? Hm?

Booderdash
 * 1) He pers a user that I voted to get his vote removed.

Comments
Would be nice if there was a description for all stadiums.


 * Why? Super Sluggers had no description. But, I guess I could do it. It's better to have more information.

Do you think we need a section for the Star Power?
 * Well, the captain's section have their team power, but if you insist...

Most of the images of characters are screenshots and aren't that good. Should the ones that are replaceable be replaced.
 * So what if they're screenshots? I think they're fine. I had a discussion with an system operator in the Discussion Page and she said it was fine.
 * I want pictures for ALL the playable characters, unlike Super Sluggers. I just feels more complete.
 * Unfortunately, only the team captains have game art. It really stinks
 * In my words, I mean that the screenshots are fine. They don't have to be super-crystal clear unlike sprites.

KS3: I can't expand the modes you mentioned anymore than it is.

Booderdash: Every SINGLE image? Ok. Define, "ok quality" or even "acceptable quality", because they are NOT horrible quality. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: even a system operator agrees with me it is fine

BooDash: You know that good quality image you've been saying out? This is the same quality image, but cropped. Maybe it's how it's zoomed in makes you say it's horrible quality
 * It's not zoomed in. It's cropped directly from a screenshot.
 * Look at this image: [[File:DaisySelectMSB.PNG]], Its HORRIBLE, look how the eyes are like water colored and seem to be dripping off the image. Look how it seems fuzzy. I thought at first, my eyes were going blind!

It's not BLOF's fault that the game has bad graphics.


 * Doesn't look so bad to me. We don't have crytal-clear quality screenshot-takers.
 * What do you mean? Its really blurry. Look at them more clearly. All of them are very blurry. I don't know why but it is.
 * You say this is HORRIBLE and it's nowhere NEAR horrible. These would be considered HORRIBLE (no offense, image uploader).
 * No, not really, you can only see the pixels. At least they aren't blurry.
 * @BLOF: Those are equally horrible as the images in this articles.
 * What? No... Those Toad images have image quality tags. I can tell that those pictures are taken with a plain old camera pointing at the TV screen. The ones we took was one of those DVD recorder things plugged on the computer. The Toad images are blurry and you can see the television screen lines.
 * Well, I'm ponticating on putting the quality tags on these images too

Booderdash:Can I remind you that these pages have no-signature policies.
 * I know, I know, I'm sorry. I just keep on forgetting.

Blof you're a very good screen shot taker, so can you at least try again on just the Daisy one? That one, I'm serious, makes my eyes feel weird.

This image is low quality too:
 * It's certainly NOT.
 * Yes it is, look at baby mario.
 * Actually, he's enjoying the fact that the ball hit him in the face and he is satisfied he has pain.

Guys, how many times I have to mention this: They are NOT low quality. They are not the best quality either. They are somewhere in the middle, but absolutely NOT low quality.
 * Thats only your, your sister, and Merit C's opinion. 3 people.
 * Still, no one slapped a quality tag on the image right when it was uploaded.
 * Image quality is not an opinion. It's a fact. It's possible to prove a fact right or wrong, but you cannot do so with opinions. It's moderate quality. Not bad. I've seen worse quality images on the wiki and they are slapped with image quality tags. Besides, MeritC is a system operator; she probably knows more than me.
 * Well your definition of image quality seems like opinion. Its not a fact. its how we think of an image. For example if a guy who always sees good quality image sees this s/he will call it bad quality. If a person always sees bad quality, s/he will call this good quality. Plus, sysops aren't god. They only know most about the wiki, not about quality in general.
 * Fact-> Something that I can prove. I can prove this is not a bad quality image, it's a moderate quality image, not bad. I'm NOT saying it's good quality either, 'cause I KNOW it's not good quality nor bad quality. Just look at some other images marked in the wiki. System operators may not be god, but they're experienced and informative.

KS3: Yeah, and apparently, it's going to be unfeatured any time soon.

Well then, all of these images are terrible quality because they are all taken by the same program. Seriously, why are you guys hating on our images? :(




 * I dunno what to say. It feels like hypocrisy that Booderdash compliments on one image, then bashes the other, even though they were taken by the exact program.

I'm not hating on your images. Why would I hate your images? I have absolutly nothing against anyone on this wiki. I'm just saying what I thought was true. But yes, LGM, the ones you posted there doesn't seem to be bad quality. Maybe the computer malfunctioned during the character session? Can you just try to reupload the DAISY one? That hurts my eyes I'm serious...


 * It will probably look the same thing.
 * Try?

@BLOF: Did you know that in you had the box around Wario?
 * Yeah, I did that on purpose. :) Don't forget Wario in Challenge Mode

@LGM: You just admitted that there are terrible quality pics, so why are you still supporting?


 * I didn't mean it was terrible. It's probably terrible to you, because these are taken using the same thing.
 * All the pictures you mentioned are terrible quality, and so are the character pics in the table.


 * This will probably turn into another argument like what happened in MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story.

Baby Mario Bloops: What size (in pixels) do you want, hm? You want all characters in the same size? But that will look strange, because people like Goomba are going to be zoomed out. You can't compare screenshots with sprites either.
 * No like Diddy Kong and Bowser Jr's images have tons of white space compared to the other images in its sections.
 * Characters have different sizes. Making it "consistent" will make the images have useless blue space attached to it. And please don't compare screenshots with sprites. These two are completely different matters.
 * So? Its still ugly... I'd rather see more blue spaces anyday.

I forgot the rules, but how long does it have to last before I can vote again?
 * Like now, and you put your sig in again.
 * Agh, I've got to try harder to remember that...

Also, someone like BLOF should upload the character images again. They all have terrible quality.


 * MODERATE, not TERRIBLE.
 * And FAs have to be the best of the best, and moderate is not good enough, considering we have over 10000 articles.

Super-Yoshi: How can you compare screenshots to character artwork? They are two different things. And one image in the Super Slug article is bad. Heck, I'll show you:


 * I've found an image in the Sluggers that's ten times worse than the previous one. It's right here: Mss cm intro bowser jr gang.png

Don't you want to wipe it with a sponge?
 * If you look at the image while playing the game, you would understand that the image is suppose to have that dusk added to it. They just came out of crashing their castle with the Baseball island. Look past the obvious dust meant to it, and you can easily see the great quality of the characters. Also, LGM, the page doesn't have 1 bad image! YOu are giving just 1, while there are approximentally 20 bad ones on this page.
 * You still can't compare artwork to screenshots. Those pictures aren't bad. They are just cropped from a screenshot. That's why they look "bad". I can show you the whole screenshot. P.S. It's "approximately".