MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Toad: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Oppose) |
(→Oppose) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
#{{User|Time Turner}} This article is so packed full of flowery writing that we could write a book using it. Also, perhaps it's because I'm on mobile, but this article looks ridiculously padded. Like someone tried to make it bigger for the sole purpose of making it bigger. I don't know if there's any missing information, or if there are things that should be covered, but these two problems alone cannot be allowed for a featured article. One more thing: "I never saw this featured" is the absolute worst reason to feature something, and should not be used as a valid reason in any circumstance. | #{{User|Time Turner}} This article is so packed full of flowery writing that we could write a book using it. Also, perhaps it's because I'm on mobile, but this article looks ridiculously padded. Like someone tried to make it bigger for the sole purpose of making it bigger. I don't know if there's any missing information, or if there are things that should be covered, but these two problems alone cannot be allowed for a featured article. One more thing: "I never saw this featured" is the absolute worst reason to feature something, and should not be used as a valid reason in any circumstance. | ||
#{{User|Ashley and Red}} Per TT. Also, it ill be good if anyone change some of the images. | #{{User|Ashley and Red}} Per TT. Also, it ill be good if anyone change some of the images. | ||
#{{User|Icemario}} Per TT, and that Relationship section has some speculation sprinkled through it and needs quite a bit of work done on it anyway, per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 36#Trim the Relationship Sections|this proposal]]. | |||
==== Removal of Opposes ==== | ==== Removal of Opposes ==== | ||
Revision as of 14:55, March 21, 2014
Toad
Support
- Randombob-omb4761 (talk) I don't see any problems with this article, it looks very long, it has no red links or improvment templates. I never saw this featured.
- PiranhaPlantLover17 (talk)
Oppose
- Time Turner (talk) This article is so packed full of flowery writing that we could write a book using it. Also, perhaps it's because I'm on mobile, but this article looks ridiculously padded. Like someone tried to make it bigger for the sole purpose of making it bigger. I don't know if there's any missing information, or if there are things that should be covered, but these two problems alone cannot be allowed for a featured article. One more thing: "I never saw this featured" is the absolute worst reason to feature something, and should not be used as a valid reason in any circumstance.
- Ashley and Red (talk) Per TT. Also, it ill be good if anyone change some of the images.
- Icemario (talk) Per TT, and that Relationship section has some speculation sprinkled through it and needs quite a bit of work done on it anyway, per this proposal.
Removal of Opposes
Comments
@PirahnaPlantLover, featured articles are based much more on quality than they are on how many people like the character. 
Lord G. matters. 18:32, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
