MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Shadow Queen

Support

 * 1) I worked hard on it, also the article looks good. There aren't any  major  grammar issues

Oppose

 * 1) Similarly to Baby Donkey Kong, the whole article feels... bare. Also, the History section often puts away focus from the Shadow Queen to give exposition or details, which shouldn't be the case since this is an article about the Shadow Queen. The first part of the Personality section gets a bit too flowery ("ruthless and humorless"?), and this kind of writing pops up a bit too much throughout the article for me to be comfortable with calling this an FA, even regardless of its bareness. Per all of my comments opposing this nomination.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.

Removal of Opposes
TimeTurner and Randombob-omb4761
 * 1) Issues that you listed are fixed. The flowery writing is gone.

Comments
i will move the ppersoinality section.

Time Turner, what about Macho Grubba? What makes this article bare while Macho Grubba doesn't?
 * Tbh, I consider that article to be pretty bare as well. I also don't recall ever stating that it wasn't bare, so I don't know why you're questioning me on that. Besides, I pointed out other flaws in the article, I didn't just base my vote on the article's bareness.
 * You never said it was bare, but I'm just wondering why you didn't vote on Macho Grubba while you voted here. Just a side note kind of thing.
 * By the time I noticed the nomination, it was already close to getting enough supporters. I also didn't have anything else to really back my vote on, so I decided to simply abstain.
 * Intro have been fixed. what does it looks?
 * Looks the article again
 * Looks the article again

Why are featured article formatting always wrong -_-
 * Old redirects were never deleted, I've tagged this one so hopefully it can be moved to where it should be shortly.

After I get something to eat, I'll run through the History section a few times and try to fix it up.
 * Thanks IceMario, i wil try to help too
 * The History section has been dealt with, I'll probably have to take a look into the other areas of this article before doing anything first.
 * OK thanks again as well 19:14, 21 February 2014 (EST)

@Ashley: The flowery writing (stuff that souds like it belongs in a novel) is still present, and as long as that's still there, my oppose vote should not be removed.

Mine too
 * I am OK with your opposes. they are "justice"
 * ...What?
 * Forget it. What do you means with novel, exactly??The article don't looks...uh...overrated of charmed words
 * Thanks to Icematio the article is without the (majority) fowery write. See it
 * Yeah, I believe I've removed the vast majority, if not all of the flowery writing present in the article. Unless there are any further objections, the current opposes have been rendered invalid unless proven otherwise.
 * I didn't see anymore "flowery" writing. You fixed all. The opposes should be removed TT and Random
 * "creating an army of demonic beasts", "most vicious attacks", "in disgust of his beliefs", "When in a dire circumstances", "subduing the entire world"... Just through a quick glance, I can spot several instances of flowery writing, which is against our standards for good writing It also tries to fuse game mechanics with story elements, which, as I linked to, isn't good. Just go to the page I linked to, cross-reference it with this article, and then you'll see what needs to be fixed.
 * I've gone through the article once more using the given guidelines, and I don't think there's any flowery writing left on the page to fix now.
 * At the time of your messages I was off. Icemario really fixed  all  the flowery writing. Thanks again.