MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Kirby

Remove Featured Article Status

 * 1) The comics sections barely tell us anything, and they need more images. until those issues are resolved this article shouldn't be Featured.
 * 2) per all.
 * 3) per Commander Code-8
 * 4) This article is terribly written. The abilities section looks pretty, but it screams for a rewrite.
 * 5) This isn't about size, nor should it be. The most important thing is prose and content. Will present all my problems in the Comments section.

Keep Featured Article Status

 * 1) There is no problem with this. The comics cannot be expanded (or by my standards). The whole article is longer than half the featured articles there are. This article has plenty of pictures and has detailed descriptions. I say keep this.
 * 2) - Per Gamefreak75.
 * 3) - The comics are sort of short, but I don't think much more information can be added. Besides the comic fact, the rest of the article is top knot and should no doubt stay featured.
 * 4) - I think this article should stay featured. Not much else could be added to the comic sections. The sections about the game were very long and informative.
 * 5) Luigi=awesome per all
 * 6) I think its great now. Every section is a long paragraph, and it tells us rather lot of information about the comics. The only exception is Die Jagd nach dem Nintendo 64: Krawall im All, which IS only a minor cameo, and since this isn't the kirby wiki I think its all right now. Also per all

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Gamefreak75
 * 1) Time Q said that they are expandable, and that he has the comics with him or something. Since they are expandable, your vote is invalid. Yoshi is a very long article, yet it is still unfeatured very easily.
 * 2) Per KS3.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Well, the sections are expandable, and the article is long because of the many images it contains.

Comments
GameFreak75: When you say the article's longer than most other FAs, You'd clearly forgotten that it's just longer because of all the images displaying Kirby's forms.
 * I have to agree with the Commander on this. If you scratch out the forms, trophies and stikers, the article is pretty short by FA standards.
 * You got me their Commander. But anyways, KS3, your removal is invalid. I obviously don't have the comics, so I can't do it. If I did, trust me, the problem would be resolved likt that! And anyways, there is only one problem here while the Yoshi article had multiple problems. Anyways, Kirby wouldn't have a lot of info because he wasn't in that many Mario games nor is a Mario character.

I hope to have some spare time tomorrow. If so, I will check which of the comics I have and what could be added. I hope this will solve the problems.
 * Thanks.
 * Greatly appreciate it.


 * LGM, which image is it. If you can tell, I'll see if I can replace it.


 * This one:




 * Does it have to be Peach or can it be Zelda instead?--


 * It doesn't matter.


 * 1) Regardless of the fact that Kirby's games are not relevant to Kirby in the context of Mario, it should still give a brief history, perhaps a paragraph or two. On top of all of this, it would still be of interest to readers to find out how Kirby came into being.


 * 1) Secondly, it needs to put the horse before the cart more often. The lead basically delves only into the plot, with one sentence devoted to his appearances in the Mario/Mario-related series Super Smash Bros.


 * 1) Thirdly, does his appearance in Club Nintendo dictate it as a Mario-related appearance? Are the comics overwhelmingly dominated by a Mario theme? In looking at the Wonderland comic, I see that it doesn't discuss the comic itself, only Kirby's role. What is this comic? Same with the next comic. Also, why are foreign titles using quotations? Also, is "Mario Kirby Masterpiece" called this by any official sources, or is it a translation? If so, it has to use its original Japanese title.


 * 1) He is a favourite amongst players? While I personally know that Kirby is very good in Super Smash Bros., we can't really be using our own personal opinions or what we perceive the popular opinion to be. Such a statement needs a reference. As for Melee, how is his being weaker determined? Again, we need a source for this information. In reading the plot summary for the Subspace Emissary, it could use a touch-up in its grammar and flow. It feels really janky and awkward to read. "After they land in some grassy area"? The "some" is completely unnecessary. It could easily be changed to "After Kirby and the rescued Princess land in a grassy area". Almost right away I noticed another flaw "Kirby and Mario, Pit, Link, and Yoshi". There should not be two "and"s in that sentence. "Kirby, Mario, Pit, Link, and Yoshi". In looking at the list of creatures Kirby cannot copy, the list of background enemies should be cut down. It's not an "ie" situation if it lists nearly all of them; it should only list a few key examples - let's say... "ie Primid, Goomba, Pikmin, and Polar Bear". And the section is missing information about how a player would escape from Kirby's mouth. As for the Hammer, it is not one of Kirby's main weapons. It is a very good weapon, but that does not constitute a main weapon. Kirby's main weapons are his innate abilities.


 * 1) The Trivia section is silly. The first one is already mentioned earlier in the article, whilst the second mention should be integrated into the section that would discuss Kirby's history in brief. - NARCE 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the first one, people can easily go into wikipedia and kirby wiki to look that up.
 * For the second one, we can change that
 * For the third one, I hear Time Q is helping us out on that
 * For the fourth, I don't think we really need go into the "tiers" thing, yeah and Brawl needs a clean-up.

I think most of the problems there were kinda solved.


 * Well, I only briefly skimmed the article. It begs the question as to whether the article is full of poor prose or not. - NARCE 01:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The abilities table is still terribly written. Would be nice if there was a brief history in the article. This is MARIOwiki, but it's pretty inconvenient that someone has to go to WiKirby/Wikipedia to search Kirby's history. It's a wiki, not a search to search thing.


 * @LGM's oppose for me: How are we supposed to expand the abilities then. He only performs one move and gains a small change. You want it to sound like this? "Kirby when he inhales Mario. Kirby gains Mario's hat and has the ability to throw fireballs when the attack button is pressed." That cannot be expanded to some paragraph. :|
 * It could be expanded to discuss the other Mario-related transformations. - NARCE 05:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then it'd be inconsistent and how do you expand such a small change?
 * I don't understand your statement. What would be inconsistent with showing relevant examples? The way the article is formed, the discussion of Kirby is only of things relevant to Mario, for the most part. The confusion stems from a misreading of LGM's post, wherein I thought that it already was a prose-style post.
 * Perhaps, though, we are putting too much emphasis on Smash Bros. here? Have you [the administrators of this Wiki] ever considered creating an alliance with a Smash Bros. wikia, thereby creating traffic from there to here and vice versa? It would create a more concise article, I would say. - NARCE 06:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if we have the Mario sections long, but the others such as Metroid and EarthBound sections shorter, how would that look? OF course we are the Mario Wiki, but it's good to have information on other series as well. I'm not sure to be honest because I became part of the staff not too long ago.


 * The abilities section is fine. What do you want to do with it? Write about the history of each ablilty? I don't think even the Kirby wiki does that. This is fine, we don't need to get in the details of every single copy ability. That would be redundant and irrelevant.


 * Which is why we should leave Smash Bros. information to a sister project, one that does it better. Why be a jack of all trades, master of none? - NARCE 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)