MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/New Super Mario Bros.

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) I know that I seem like I'm trying to Unfeature everything, but lots of theses articles have become outdated. This article is only on Par with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which is not featured. Although not perfect or complete, New Super Mario Bros. U is better than both of those articles, as the transformations, levels, enemies and basically everything but story and gameplay are better than the sections here. It lacks images and just has layers upon layers of lists that seem somewhat bland and bring down the article. The tables, the things that are meant to help, are inconsistent (Description, How to defeat, function)  and lack images. Some of the writing is also obviously to cut trivia (Koopalings? Who cares?) and, speaking of which  is that a "you" in the trivia section? So for a great game that starts off a chain reaction of other even better games, this article doesn't make the roots of the other sequels very strong.
 * 2) I SHOULD be able to know what that snail thing was in that ice world without resorting to clicking on a random enemy link or going through all that list of enemies. Put images on that table and I'll retract my vote.
 * 3) Per Ninelevendo.
 * 4) The whole page looks like a mothaf***ing walktrouth.
 * 5) Per Ninelevendo.
 * 6) The "enemies" section, although better than a lot of other featured articles' enemy section, is a mess, and, if you don't know the names of a lot of these enemies, a navigational mess. The bosses section just looks awful. The "characters" section is mostly redundant. The "levels" section is... well, it tells you how to unlock Luigi and play Challenge Mode... that stuff has no business there. Not to mention, the images are all cramped in this one spot. This article isn't the best Mario Wiki has to offer.
 * 7) How did this get featured in the first place? This article is a mess. Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Wario land 3
 * 1) Because it makes no sense. Is that comment supposed to mean that it has a lot of coverage on the subject? Because if so, that's a good thing, not a flaw.

Comments
@Vommack As per policy an article shouldn't look like a walkthrough, although it does apply more to the RPGs.
 * I would understand if the page was actually written like a walkthrough, but it isn't. The story section is concise and just hits the actual plot points. It provides gameplay information, yes, but once again it's supposed to do that.--Vommack (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2014 (EDT)

This article is comparable to another one I'm not satisfied with... hm, I can use essentially the same arguments for there. 15:33, 12 August 2014 (EDT)