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) Some of the images are in bad quality.
 * 3) There isn't enough information, and other featured articles have been at least twice as long as this one.
 * 4) Per all. I think this article sucks!
 * 5) Per Doopliss42.

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.
 * 1) per all also this article doesn't suck its good and has enough info
 * 2) I fixed the tense issue yesterday. Overall, the article is well-written, informative, and pleasing to the eye. It's definitely one of the best this wiki has to offer.
 * 3) Personally, I think this is a very good article. It has images, and it also is very long, so I think we should keep it as a Featured Articles.
 * 4) As much as I hate Dimentio, the article does indeed meet the requirements. I think it should still be featured.

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
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.
 * Per MCD
 * Per MCD

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.
 * @SKMarioMan: Could you pinpoint an area where information is sparse for us? That way, we know what to fix.