MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Paper Mario

Paper Mario

Support

1. MarioMario456 (talk) 155KB and no red links.
2. Gabumon (talk) - The rewrite template was outdated and has been removed. All issues that resulted in the article's previous unfeaturing have been addressed and corrected, and the article now offers extensive and sufficient coverage of all aspects of the game. There is a reasonable amount of red links (one). The article meets the standard for being featured now. The one remaining issue is the lack of a critical reception section, which is not strictly necessary for an article to become featured and can easily be added in the future.
3. Alex95 (talk) I originally opposed. However, Gabumon (talk) rewrote the article in its entirety and now appears to be up to date. So per him. (The only thing bugging me at this point is that the person who nominated this is currently blocked, but I don't think that's that big of an issue?)
4. Supermariofan67 (talk) Ok looks good now. Per Alex95
5. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all.
6. Turboo (talk) - per all

Oppose

1. Luigi 64DD (talk) Per all.
2. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all. Length does not always guarantee good writing.
3. Boo4761 (talk) First of all, there is a rewrite template on the top, second, Article size has nothing to do with its quality. Lastly, this article is largely incomplete and we are still working on the issues that got it unfeatured. You have clearly never read the guidelines for nominating articles, can you please read it in the future?

Removal of opposes

Toadette the Achiever

1. Gabumon (talk) - The quality of writing is acceptable.
2. Baby Luigi (talk) Per Edo.
3. Supermariofan67 (talk) per Gabumon
4. Turboo (talk) - per edo, the article has been appropriately rewritten and updated to meet standards.

Boo4761

1. Gabumon (talk) - See Alex95 and Toadette the Achiever.
2. Baby Luigi (talk) Per Edo.
3. Supermariofan67 (talk) per Gabumon
4. Turboo (talk) - per edo and my comment above

Comments

While I agree that the article is still unfinished, I feel like I should mention that the reasons listed on the unfeature page apply to an outdated version of this article. I've performed an extensive rewrite of the article last April that addressed those reasons, thus the version of the article that was unfeatured does not exist anymore.

I believe that, as soon as the storyline summary has been rewritten and a final check has been performed, the page will be up to featured standard. - Gabumon (talk)

The only major thing I've seen that needs to be rewritten is the staff section, where it's just an excerpt of the staff page and we discourage that An example on how it would ideally look like is this. And I think this article would benefit from a reception section, as that's starting become the norm. Otherwise, I think it would be fine to take off that rewrite tag. The only issues I see are minor ones. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:23, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Sorry for going the unclassy route with calling for the removal of oppose votes. I'd prefer a more discussion-based approach, but time is running out. If you read this, please re-evaluate the circumstances of this article and consider removing your oppose votes yourselves. - Gabumon (talk)