Editing MarioWiki:Featured articles/N3/Lakitu

__NOTOC__
===[[{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]===
{{FA archive notice}}
'''Lakitu became a featured article at 01:18, 16 August 2014'''
==== Support ====
#{{User|The Super Mario Super User}} A main part of the Mario Kart series, and has a good page with decent pictures.
#{{User|Joseph}}
#{{User|Tsunami}}
#{{User|'Shroom64}}
#{{User|SmartYoshi}}
#{{User|Vommack}}
#{{User|Billy-Luigi}}
#{{User|Mario}}
#{{User|BabyLuigi73}}

==== Oppose ====
#{{User|Ninelevendo}} It may be a main part of the Mario Kart series, but it's Mario Tennis and golf sections are bad. I also find that there is a bit of image clutter and it looks rather cramped. And there are ''lots'' of sections with one-liners.

==== Removal of Opposes ====

==== Comments ====
@Randombob-omb4761: Really? That's your oppose? Those templates were added AFTER the nomination took place. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:30, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
:That doesn't really change the fact that there's a reason for there to be rewrites.--[[User:Vommack|Vommack]] ([[User talk:Vommack|talk]]) 14:30, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
::It doesn't change anything, but the vote is useless. The article initially had no rewrite template. It then got nominated. I looked through the article and pointed out its flaws. Then somebody came and [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Lakitu&diff=1707080&oldid=1706906 slapped] two rewrite templates. THEN, people started complaining about that template being there. Basing your entire oppose vote on a little template that can be removed ''anytime'', especially when it was added after my vote, is, frankly, lazy and not constructive. Considering how the process of removing oppose votes is ''fundamentally'' flawed, and as long as this process is there, the vote can be even harmful to the upkeep of the wiki {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:55, 2 July 2014 (EDT)
:::When I have time, I could rewrite this. I won't make fail a featuration of my favourite enemy! (Luckilly, I have over 1 month to do that ^_^) {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
::::Well, I already did some work here, but I'm not sure when I'll continue. Other things are on my agenda lately so I can't devote as much time here as I like. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:30, 8 July 2014 (EDT)
So What Mario? It's my oppose! Not yours! {{User:Randombob-omb4761/sig}}
:Yeah but your oppose says '''literally''' nothing about what could be done to fix the article. All you did was point out the obvious. Yes, the article is in bad shape, but have you realize that perhaps that the rewrite template was added AFTER the article was nominated to be featured? The entire point of FA nominations like this is not only to feature the best written articles in the wiki, but also analyze mistakes and fix them so we could apply this to other articles that may seek aid. Saying, "there's a rewrite template" for something that can just as easily be removed without going into depth to the article's further problems is nonconstructive and discouraged, which is one of the reasons we add a time stamp parameter to rewrite templates. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:36, 12 July 2014 (EDT)
:Whoever made the oppose has no bearing on the validity of the oppose. This oppose is useless and nonconstructive. In other words, it has no influence on the outcome of the nomination. If you have nothing else to add than screaming that "it has two rewrite templates", then don't vote. Don't even put a "per all" either; it's just as useful as a vote. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:56, 15 July 2014 (EDT)
I've seen via the Revision History that the person who added the rewrite templates added them partially because of incorrect verb tense, but that one was since deleted. And now, we know why there's that new rewrite template notice at the top of the page; I need to know if there were other reasons and ''what'' they are so I know what to fix to knock it off the page. {{User:'Shroom64/sig}}
:There is still a bit of info that needs to be better, I see heaps of one-liners that need fixing. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 08:26, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
::Seems Tsunami fixed the one-liners; Is there anything else requiring a fix-up? Let me know. {{User:'Shroom64/sig}}
:::He fixed the one liners, but I mean, ''However, their work of saving balls is very important.'' I don't find that a good fix. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 17:35, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
::::I fixed Tsunami's fixes that I figured could be better. Anything else I should look out for or is there no need for the rewrite anymore? {{User:'Shroom64/sig}}
We are doing it. I finally support because now it's worth. Change whatever is wrong (Mario makes a good list) as soon as possible. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
:I'm not sure if we need anything on the stats and info section, but I think we don't need the rewrite template there anymore. Unless there's something that was missed. {{User:'Shroom64/sig}}

@Tsunami: You can't remove opposes simply because you removed a rewrite. Whether or not they still think it is worthy of a featured status still relies on them, not a template that most of the users you mentioned don't even use as their reasoning. Just wait until they're online again and ask them about it (Sorry I didn't reply, btw, I didn't have time to read through the whole article and give you a response. I'll tell you what I think soon.) - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 04:25, 7 August 2014 (EDT)
:No problems, I didn't know. I still wonder how can this be featured though. Now it's worth, but there are only two weeks of time. Unless a miracle happens, looks like I will repropose it. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
::Just wait until people view it again. I'll look at it again when I have time. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 08:10, 7 August 2014 (EDT)