MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Dimentio

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) If the tense template is up for a while and no one has made any changes, then why are we hesitating to unfeature it? Besides, the article seems to be long on the text and a little bit short on the images. There are grammar errors and informal style here and there, but my main concern is the tense template and how the article is written.
 * 2) It is kind of short :/
 * 3) Some of the images are in bad quality.
 * 4) There isn't enough information, and other featured articles have been at least twice as long as this one.
 * 5) Per all. I think this article sucks!

Keep Featured Article Status

 * As I said earlier, I went ahead and corrected the article's errors, so I'm going to go ahead and place my vote on keeping its Featured Article status.
 * This article has good quality. It's a pretty decent size, has good grammar, and images.
 * Per New Super Mario and SolarBlaze.
 * Per New Super Mario.
 * Per all.

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Pokemon Trainer Mario
 * 1) Again, vague vote. And this article is not short in my opinion, it's huge.
 * 2) It's long enough for featured article standards. What more can be said about him? He appeared in only one game.
 * 3) You have to be more specific.
 * 4) Per all

SKmarioman
 * There is a lot of detailed information and it includes everything it needs to. It doesn't need to be really long, it just needs to include everything it needs to.

Comments
In my opinion, you can always change the tense yourself quite easily (though it is quite a pain). I understand changing the informal parts are a pain, though. Images should be the main concern, though. I don't have the game to do this, though.

I'll see what I can do about fixing this article's problems.

The template is still there :/ And did you read my other reasons?

The present/past-tense errors have been corrected.


 * Really? I still see some past tense verbs.

BLOF, By "good quality" I mean that I beleive that it seems lenghty enough and seems interesting to read.
 * But is the quality of the writing good? I am forced to support unfeaturing this if the article is filled with bad grammar.

@BLOF: I'll go and look for grammar mistakes I missed and fix them.

I hardly found anything with grammar. And I gave some reason to my vote.