MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Blooper

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) To start off, there's barely any information on Blooper's appearance in the WarioWare series, Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2, Yoshi's Cookie, and potentially others, which is already a major red flag. The "Cameos" offhandedly mentions several games, such as the entire Mario Golf series, that should be moved into the main article and not shoved away like it was inconsequential. There are also numerous sections that are really short and nondescript, such as Super Mario Bros. and all of the New Super Mario Bros. franchise sections. If other articles like Lakitu and Goomba can flesh these same sections out, I'm certain the same could be done here. Numerous sections are missing images, which is a played-out excuse, I know, but when games like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario Galaxy are missing images, I think that's a cause for concern. Also, the images that are already here are not formatted well at all. Images are often double the size of their corresponding sections, and they often overlap onto other sections, giving the article a really messy look, and that's not even mentioning the RPG infoboxes. There are other things I could mention, such as the very lackluster Characteristics section or the article constantly going into detail on subjects that don't directly concern the article, but I think I have a good-sized laundry list of problems for now.
 * 2) Is it just me, or is there ACTUALLY a whole section on enemy stats in the RPG titles? Per TT.
 * 3) i want a new featured article, though. it is exciting when i see something new.

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) Some sections were missing information, but those have been filled in. Otherwise, the presentation is cleaner, there are a reasonable amount of images, and it should be complete. Most other complaints, I consider invalid, so check out my comments below.

Toad the Mushroom

 * 1) Doesn't provide a reason for unfeaturing.
 * 2) That has nothing to do with the unfeaturing nomination.
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
To summarize:
 * Some games are barely mentioned
 * Some games need more information
 * Some games are missing images
 * Some images are poorly formatted

Yeah, I don't think any of these are acceptable for a featured article.


 * Some of your comments are currently being worked on, but some complaints are valid, the others aren't.
 * There are no details on your complaint on the WarioWare series. I understand there's that Blooper microgame in WarioWare: D.I.Y., but if you're not going to list specific games, much less microgames, this part is meaningless.
 * Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2 has now an added section. They seem to appear in just one level, as I've scoured the FAQs in GameFAQs, and they appear in very few levels. So the section would be naturally short.
 * There's no way to squeeze additional images within the sections you have mentioned without cluttering the article, which is also another complaint. I get it. The article can be cluttered, but this demand is nigh unreasonable. For instance, the spot where Super Mario Galaxy 2 image would be is already occupied by New Super Mario Bros.; I believe New Super Mario Bros. is the more noteworthy example, showcasing the graphical improvement. While Bloopers appear in only one level in both games, the Blooper in New Super Mario Bros. is much more prominent, so the Super Mario Galaxy section will have no images.
 * Another invalid complaint is the apparent lack of information on the New Super Mario Bros. section. Blooper's attack pattern is already explained in detail, and little has changed in its incarnation in New Super Mario Bros., and, considering that it has appeared in only one level, the section has sufficient information, despite being very small.
 * The bulk of Goomba and Lakitu's sections concerning New Super Mario Bros. deals with the new subspecies and associated items. Bloopers has received hardly anything new other than spawning out of pipes, which in itself, isn't much without padding the article.
 * The Characteristics section should be fine the way it is, especially if you're not going into detail again.


 * Anyhow, the infoboxes look like crap, and I will move them to the corresponding stats section. But otherwise, the only valid part of your "laundry list" of complaints are mostly coverage and presentation problems, something a little editing won't fail to fix. 16:24, 23 August 2014 (EDT)