MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Macho Grubba: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (this coding is broken as hell) |
Time Turner (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I have several problems with this article. Most noticeably, it's the size of the article. It barely passes the boundaries for a Featured Article size. When we feature articles, we should be 100% sure about its qualities about its status; this size is debatable, and therefore, not good enough to represent the best parts of MarioWiki. This also applies to other short featured articles too like [[Culex]], where I may look to unfeaturing if this nomination passes. But that's not the only problem with this article. The article has padding (which boss article and, nonetheless a form, has a "physical description" paragraph, a "biography" section, and a "powers and abilities" section? it's too much details) and the table of moves is awkwardly implemented and once again, exclusive to this article in particular (for example, [[Cortez]] has none of those sections and it's fine right now aside from the poor writing). Honestly, if it weren't for the padding, the article would be about on par with [[Hooktail]], [[Bonetail]], the aforementioned [[Cortez]], [[Smorg]], etc in terms of length and that's not a good thing here. | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} I have several problems with this article. Most noticeably, it's the size of the article. It barely passes the boundaries for a Featured Article size. When we feature articles, we should be 100% sure about its qualities about its status; this size is debatable, and therefore, not good enough to represent the best parts of MarioWiki. This also applies to other short featured articles too like [[Culex]], where I may look to unfeaturing if this nomination passes. But that's not the only problem with this article. The article has padding (which boss article and, nonetheless a form, has a "physical description" paragraph, a "biography" section, and a "powers and abilities" section? it's too much details) and the table of moves is awkwardly implemented and once again, exclusive to this article in particular (for example, [[Cortez]] has none of those sections and it's fine right now aside from the poor writing). Honestly, if it weren't for the padding, the article would be about on par with [[Hooktail]], [[Bonetail]], the aforementioned [[Cortez]], [[Smorg]], etc in terms of length and that's not a good thing here. | ||
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per BL and our comments on the forum. Furthermore, the intro is 90% padding as well, and a lot of the sentences are phrased in such a way as to allow the maximum number of words possible (aka too much flowery writing). | |||
==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ||
Revision as of 10:45, June 5, 2016
Macho Grubba
Remove Featured Article Status
- Baby Luigi (talk) I have several problems with this article. Most noticeably, it's the size of the article. It barely passes the boundaries for a Featured Article size. When we feature articles, we should be 100% sure about its qualities about its status; this size is debatable, and therefore, not good enough to represent the best parts of MarioWiki. This also applies to other short featured articles too like Culex, where I may look to unfeaturing if this nomination passes. But that's not the only problem with this article. The article has padding (which boss article and, nonetheless a form, has a "physical description" paragraph, a "biography" section, and a "powers and abilities" section? it's too much details) and the table of moves is awkwardly implemented and once again, exclusive to this article in particular (for example, Cortez has none of those sections and it's fine right now aside from the poor writing). Honestly, if it weren't for the padding, the article would be about on par with Hooktail, Bonetail, the aforementioned Cortez, Smorg, etc in terms of length and that's not a good thing here.
- Time Turner (talk) Per BL and our comments on the forum. Furthermore, the intro is 90% padding as well, and a lot of the sentences are phrased in such a way as to allow the maximum number of words possible (aka too much flowery writing).
