MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Donkey Kong 64

Donkey Kong 64

"Donkey Kong 64" was nominated for featured article status at 12:35, 3 May 2010 (GMT). If the nomination does not pass by 12:35, 2 July 2010, it will be considered failed.

Support

Raphaelraven497 (talk) This article is very long, detailed, and gives an excellent description of each concept in the game. This article is excellent.

2.(Green Falcon) DK64 was a great game due to it's length and difficulty, and much, much, more! I support DK64!

Oppose

LeftyGreenMario (talk) The article is long, but all the playable characters' descriptions are way too short. A huge amount of sections are extremely short. In other words, everything I mentioned needs a lot of expansion.
Fawfulfury65 (talk) Actually, MILLIONS of things are wrong with this article. That one table that describes the locations of all the Golden Bananas is absolutely horrible (in fact, I think we should get rid of all of it). It has "you's" all over it and is horribly written. You can't even understand what its telling you to do. BTW the article is incomplete. Next, the story section. The game has a long, long story. Every time you beat a level, a new cutscene can be seen. That nasty little paragraph is not enough, and it only explains a little bit of the first cutscene. Well, I can go on and on, but I don't want to fill up this whole page.
BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Ew, one-liners, and TWO templates (expand and rewrite). Per all
Reversinator (talk) Horribly written, in great need of extension and HAS TWO IMPROVEMENT TEMPLATES.
Commander Code-8 (talk) There are improvement templates so it can't be featured.
KS3 (talk) "This," says Fawfulfury65, "is worse than Donkey Kong Country," which I nominated, and she criticized it. Per all.
Mr bones (talk) Construction Template and Rewritting Template?Per Reversinator.
Mario jc (talk) Yes, this obviously cannot be a featured article 'cause it has the templates (yes, I know everyone said that). Per all.

Removal of Opposes

Comments

Commander Code-8: Before flaming, better check first whether the improvement tags were already there when the article was nominated. They weren't. Time Q (talk)

@KS3: Wait what? They're both bad articles. BTW, I'm not a he. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Oh, I didn't know that. I don't normally check history. Sorry Raphael. Commander Code-8 (talk)