MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario Party: The Top 100: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Undo revision 2348481 by Toadette the Achiever (talk)) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
#{{User|Courtney}} Keep up the great work. I love the article! | #{{User|Courtney}} Keep up the great work. I love the article! | ||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} I have to say, I'm impressed with the article. Per all. | #{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} I have to say, I'm impressed with the article. Per all. | ||
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} This looks like a good article, so yeah, I'll put my vote in for this one. Per all. | |||
==== Oppose ==== | ==== Oppose ==== | ||
Revision as of 22:16, November 28, 2017
Mario Party: The Top 100
Support
- Baby Luigi (talk) I have written as much information as I could on this article, detailing everything that needs to be said about the game, writing about all the collection aspects, the board features from Minigame Match, and filling out red links to articles (like the Worlds in Minigame Island). I think the presentation of the article is close to matching Mario Party: Star Rush in terms of organization and the amount of content that is in the game and thus, I think this article is ready to be featured. If there any more improvements that could be made to the article, please let me know.
- YoshiStar28 (talk)
- Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Yeah, I agree. Another article that sets the standards for video game articles on this wiki! Basically, everything I said on the Star Rush featured article page applies here, too. Per all.
- Astro-Lanceur (talk) Baby Luigi is doing GREAT work on this article. per all.
- Courtney (talk) Keep up the great work. I love the article!
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) I have to say, I'm impressed with the article. Per all.
- Lcrossmk8 (talk) This looks like a good article, so yeah, I'll put my vote in for this one. Per all.
Oppose
- Time Turner (talk) The section for the "other characters" is far too sparse. It lacks detail and it doesn't even have any images. The Empty section policy even states how "[p]age sections are not meant to just be hyperlinks," and that definitely shouldn't only apply to the sections at the bottom of the page.
