MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Fawful

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) Feel free to check out posts made by Bazooka Mario and me for a description of why this article shouldn't be featured. To summarize, the intro has a slew of flaws ranging from listing traits about him that are either not true (his "Engrish" text and his mechanical capabilities) or aren't major aspects of him (his dialogue in general and a tangent on Dream Team where he doesn't even show up), with several points that I'd consider speculative ("a possible satire", "but nothing is confirmed"), and it goes downhill from there. The BiS section suffers from detailing everything even when it isn't necessary or really relevant, including sections that don't have anything to do with Fawful ("Later, Mario and Luigi create the Miracle Cure, which breaks the blockade in front of Peach's castle. As they attempt to gain access to Peach's Castle through the back trash pit, Midbus appears and constructs a trash robot named "Junker", which the Bros. have to battle. After the battle, the player takes control of Bowser with his newly learned Spike Ball move." Where's Fawful in any of this?), and the grammar in general, while better than a lot of other examples I can think of, would probably benefit from a once-over (whom should only be used if you actually know how to use it). The general information section in general has a lot of writing that seriously needs to be polished ("Though he is a bit of a loon, Fawful is a genius, shown by how complex his Vacuum Helmet is." where is it ever stated that he invented the vacuum helmet), and speaking of, a lot of information is derived from his nonsensical dialogue and unrelated gameplay elements, like his personality and his powers and abilities, which is kinda like building a skyscraper on wooden supports. To put it simply, this article has too many problems for it to be a featured article.
 * 2) Per. This article was featured due to its length and detailed writing, but it doesn't hold up much today. The nomination itself focuses on the quantity of the content rather than the quality. As for the article itself, it appears to violate some aspects Good Writing such as fan gushing or epic writing, although to be fair, it seems to be flirting rather than outright breaking it. We have parts such as "His actions show hardly any sign of his caring about anyone other than himself." reeks of 2007 writing and it's like I'm cherry-picking, but you'll find other sentences that seem unchanged since 2007: not a good sign. I do feel kind of bad that my old friend was in such high support in it, but the facts are the facts, and I can't say I'm happy to see the article in this state right now.
 * 3) Per both.