MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Koopalings

Koopalings was nominated for FA at 20:39, 4 January 2010, and failed at 22:00, 30 April 2010.

Support

 * 1) - I think this article covers each appearance of the Koopalings, even the cartoons and comics, besides who doesn't like the Koopalings? specially in their NSMBW appearance.

Oppose

 * 1) Some sections need more info (Hotel Mario and Nintendo Comics system). Will change vote once more information is added to the sections, as it is a pretty decent article.
 * 2) Some sections do need expanded. Also, some paragraphs seem to make no sense to me, like the first paragraph in the Names of the Koopalings section. The NSMBW section could use some fixing up too.
 * 3) I think there should be more pictures. Some information in the trivia section is unnecessary and it makes no sense.
 * 4) - I'm afraid that as much as I love the koopalings, the articles have poorly underdeveloped sections. The Koopalings may only appear in a few games but in these games they make such a major appearance that the sections could be much longer than they currently are.
 * 5) NSMBW description is badly written and needs sprucing up. Also, the individual Koopalings need sprucing up themselves.
 * 6) FD09 No no no. This page needs to clarify where it's getting it;s information. I don't know what's true or not and where its referring to for it's info. If a statement is made, it needs a source or clarification of what game it happened in, and if it didn't happen in a game, it should say so.
 * 7) The page should have heaps more images, and there could be plenty more info in the games some games.
 * 8) Where are all the images?

Marioguy1

 * 1) That's what the individual articles about, to explain more on each koopaling.

ForeverDaisy09

 * 1) FD09 is not clear. She isn't telling us where to get the references.

Comments
MATEOELBACAN, I don't mean to disagree, but I thought that's what the koopaling's seperate pages were supposed to be there for? --Equidna rojo 12:23, 11 January 2010 (EST)


 * No, I get what he is saying. He means a brief, but detailed description of every Koopaling, and place a template.
 * Exactly.
 * OK done --Byllant 20:07, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Well now that I think it, I agree with LeftyGreenMario in the thing that more pictures should be added, it might be good for the article...

MG1, the blurbs on each Koopaling aren't very detailed because they each link to a main article. While more information could be added, I don't think it's necessary.

OK, we need to clarify what this article is missing and those who are opposing, specially FD09 and Mg1, don't think it's easy to get the correct source, and don't request what you can't get.

Has anyone noticed there are 3 supporters whose usernames contain the names of some of the Koopalings? That gives me the suspicion of fan voting. 10:06 2 April 2010 (EST)
 * @Byllant: Links or not, more information could be added, more information should be added as the sections are currently smaller than the images. The image vs section comparison makes the koopalings individually appear under informed and, well, any flaws don't make it flawless, do they?


 * @CC-8: Well...they haven't provided reasons however I do not believe anything is wrong with that kind of name. Look at me, my name is Marioguy1 and honestly - I think Luigi is more awesome than Mario. Plus I think the Koopalings are the most awesome things in the Mario series but guess who's opposing the article. The point I'm trying to make is that voting in support of a character does not glorify the character (oh look, the Bowser Jr. article is featured, does this mean that Bowser Jr. is now a "Featured Character" or something like that? NO, it means the article on Bowser Jr. has exceptional quality and that the editors who wrote it were very good. This article is NOT the Koopalings, this article is a description of the Koopalings and therefore, we should treat it as any other article and not be biased because the Koopalings are awesome (even if they are).

Where's Bowser Jr. ???