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) Options and Records sections need expansion. Per Booderdash. @Supporters: Please take a look at the pictures again. The Bedlem article is undergoing a unfeature nomination because it has horrible quality images.
 * 2) Nearly EVERY SINGLE IMAGE IS HORRIBLE quality! They're terrible! Look at them! Especially Mario and Daisy's. You can see its fuzzy even from a distance! Very very very very very very etc. blurry. And if you zoom in... "shudder"

Removal of Opposes
KS3
 * 1) Records is already expanded, and the options could not be expanded anymore (that's basically it for the options. Adjusting music, setting sound system, and rumble settings). Plus, he pers a user, who claims that every single image is horrible quality, which isn't horrible quality.
 * 2) How can they be expanded anymore? Per BabyLuigiOnFire
 * 3) Per all

Booderdash
 * 1) First, he pers a user with an invalid reason. Second, they are NOT terrible quality. They are moderate quality, but not TERRIBLE
 * 2) He said nearly every single image, not all. But what did you expect, extremely sharp quality screenshots taken from a specialized site? Looks fine to me. Please. If you can show us a better screenshot taker, tell me.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all

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.

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.