MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Mario Super Sluggers

Remove featured article status

 * 1) Though the rest of the article is a masterpiece, there are two big problems which are glaringly obvious. The first one is especially obnoxious: the "Challenge Mode Cutscenes" section. That section is cluttered, with way too excessive detail and littered flowery and/or otherwise unnecessary descriptions. That aside, the second problem comes from the reception/sales section; rather, the lack thereof. Yeah. There is literally no critical reception section in the entire article. That being said, I think this article needs to be unfeatured for the problems mentioned.
 * 2) I'd say it's a little rough to base an entire unfeature nomination on a single section which, while badly written, can be easily fixed and in a short amount of time. But I'm too busy to do that now so per Toadette.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) The Challenge mode cutscenes section has very flowery writing among the lack of a critical reception and a ref needed tag, so while most of the article is great there is large flaws with it that are too major for me to keep its status as a featured article, since featured articles should meet all of the requirements, not just a couple.

Keep featured article status

 * 1) I have removed the flowery writing in the challenge mode cutscenes section while rewriting it and I have added a critical reception section while removing the unsourced information, meaning the article now meets all of the requirements.
 * 2) The basis for unfeaturing this article was already flimsy and nitpicky to begin with (I would personally excuse the minor flaws in prose or at least point out the subpar writing in the talk page), but it appears that the problems have been addressed.
 * 3) The article has enough information to be featured.
 * 4) The two biggest issues the article once had have since been fixed by Doomhiker, and with the rest of the article being perfectly fine, I don’t see a reason to remove featured status.
 * 5) I fixed the first problem by rewriting parts of the sections that were cluttered, but I'm not too sure if I can get to the second problem. Still, I think this article should be featured because even though there's a lack of critical reception, this article meets all the other requirements. There's no improvement tags, no red links, has lots of info describing every single character in the game, gives a detailed description of the stadiums and the game's modes, etc.
 * 6) The article seems to be in great condition, and the game it great itself, being one of the greatest games of all time, and should keep its status as a featured article.
 * 7) Per all.

Removal of support/oppose votes
Johnson T. Shy Guy
 * 1) The first part of your vote is valid, but the second part looks fan based. You might want to alter your vote.
 * 2) Your vote isn't specific enough. The quality of the game itself is also irrelevant.
 * 3) Featured articles are supposed to be about the quality of the article, not the game itself, as if we based FAs on the quality of the game alone then for example Mario Party 9 would not be featured, and your vote needs more detail, such as why you think the page is in great condition, how the pointed out flaws may not be major enough to unfeature the page, etc.
 * 4) Liking the game is not a valid reason for wanting to keep the article featured.
 * 5) FAs are about the quality of the article, not the subject in question.

Mari0fan100
 * 1) The changes you made hardly improved upon the problem addressed in the nomination, and if anything made it worse. "Get" (as in "gets frozen") is an overused term, when "turn" is a perfectly acceptable word, and "super" (as in "super high") is colloquial when used as an adverb. An FA is also supposed to meet all of the requirements.
 * 2) Per Mario jc, the page does not currently meet all of the requirements.
 * 3) You only slightly improved one of the two glaring problems with this article. It's not enough.
 * 4) Per my remove featured article status vote above, the Challenge mode cutscenes section still has very flowery writing, there is no critical reception section and there is a ref needed tag, and as Mario jc said an FA is supposed to meet all of the requirements, even if the rest of the page is great.

Comments
Just two examples, but the thing is, this is the whole section. 19:33, 28 November 2018 (EST)