MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Dr. Mario

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) I'm gonna be frank here, this article was in no position to be featured in the first place, I'm a sub-par editor, and (as you can see in the five most recent edits on the page) I had to fix up so many parts of the page, and even after that, some sections are too short (Dr. Mario Express), too wordy (the super smash bros. section), or contains too much information pertaining to the series rather than the character (Smash Bros. section again, as well as all over the article.), in short, it's not a good article, and I would fix it up more myself, but, as I said before, I am a sub-par editor and this article essentially needs a total overhaul from a more experienced editor.

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) I don't think there are any problems, because:
 * 2) Short sections are okay as long as they cannot be expanded on further without unnecessary sentences and flowery writing.
 * 3) I don't see what you mean by "too wordy", but too long doesn't exist here, so I don't see a problem with the Smash Bros. section.
 * 4) I see no part of the History section that refers to the series. I guess the "Remakes and compilations" section is unnecessary, but since it's easy to hit the edit button and remove that section, that's no reason to unfeature the article. So yeah, it should stay featured, as far as I can tell.
 * 5) Per myself, my sockpuppet, and the other inferior Baby Luigi
 * 6) Well, let's say Dr. Mario is in a medical drama. If the episode tells us a lot about him (like the Super Smash Bros. section), then there's going to be tons of information about that episode in the article. If the episode tells little information about him (Dr. Mario Express), then that episode section should be brief. It's as if you're saying, "Huh, this episode tells a lot about Dr. Mario and this episode doesn't? Let's not make it an featured article until we make them both equal length! The short section might seem like some Dimentio fangirl writing an article about Dimmy, but as long as it's equal, it's fine!" Of course, every article has its flaws, but why make a short section longer if it tells us all the info necessary?

Comments
At this point, I think you're being nitpicky about this. In fact, I think you're making some sentences worse "Dr. Mario's neutral B attack makes him shoot Megavitamins, they act similarly to Mario's Fireball move, except that they are more powerful (doing 8% instead of 5%), in fact, they are one of the strongest uncharged projectiles in the game." is a run-on sentence, which was perfectly fine before you changed it. 22:53, 17 November 2014 (EST)
 * Btw, I'm a far more experienced editor and I don't really see the flaws you're pointing out. The biggest flaws I found were that the game sections were talking about the game themselves rather than the character himself. That's about it. 23:08, 17 November 2014 (EST)

@BabyLuigi64: The only reason the Remakes and Compilations section is there is just so we have a complete history section on Dr. Mario's appearances without appearing to sound like a broken record, especially if essentially all of them are based on the original Dr. Mario game, so I don't think it's a good idea to fluff the first section of the history with those games. Actually, there are some brief mentions of the series (Dr. Mario 64 is the first game with a storyline in the series) although the majority of the article talks about Dr. Mario and what he does (it's puzzle game, so... not much sometimes). 23:00, 17 November 2014 (EST)

As the person who nominated the article for featuring previous, I have several comments about your vote, Laikue.
 * I've noticed that you've added pure gameplay-related information (this it the first game to do this and that; gameplaywise, etc.) and then one of your complaints is basically too much information related to this.
 * Some section will be naturally short due to the lack of... well... stuff happening in the game. It is a puzzle game, much less, a puzzle game based on a previous version of the puzzle game. There isn't much to say without padding the section, and having a short section is infinitely better than a padded one.
 * The Super Smash Bros. section is big. It could be divided into subsections, but most of the information here is useful (minute character differences, unlocking criteria, design changes, character-related elements) so it will be difficult to cut a huge portion of the section.
 * The writing may not be the best, but it's great that you've improved it. You just need to know the appropriate and inappropriate uses for a comma (commas do not separate complete clauses unlike periods and semicolons, a common mistake), that using "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun is politically incorrect, and you've removed some details. Otherwise, though, improvements are always welcomed, and it's a great thing you detected some errors. 01:33, 18 November 2014 (EST)

Okay, so the Remakes and compilations section really is necessary, so there's nothing very big left to change about the article.

Also, let's find a way to make the Smash section look a bit cleaner. Maybe Smash Wiki could help us with that. Madz the Penguin (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2014 (EST)