Editing MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Wii Maple Treeway

__NOTOC__
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||3}}]]===
{{FANOMFAIL
|nominated=10:09, September 15, 2022
|lastedit=10:09, November 14, 2022 (EDT)
|nosupport=False
}}
==== Support ====
#{{User|Killer Moth}} The page is well written and of good length. It does a good job at detailing the course layout, shortcuts, and the changes made to the course in later appearances. The audio files work and there are no red links or improvement tags. The article has a good number of high-quality images. 
#{{User|marioGamer119}} The Page as a whole perfectly describes the Course as it perfectly states the changes it had throughout the years, the music is also perfect as well.
<s>{{User|RealStuffMister}} I cannot see why not, there are no real issues with this page as far as i am aware, and it describes the course perfectly.</s>

==== Oppose ====
#{{User|Wikiboy10}} There are minor problems with the article, such as " Wigglers make their home on the treetops," It's a bit flowery. That is easily fixable, though. My genuine concern, however, is the length. It's a bit too short, and this comes off as any other track article.
#{{User|RealStuffMister}} After reconsideration, this course's article is actually pretty average compared to other courses. Not to mention there are numerous structuring issues like images causing there to be large gaps between text, and so on. I don't really see any reason to feature this specific course's article since it doesn't really stand out for any reason.
#{{User|RHG1951}} After mulling it over for a bit, I think this article is too short.
#{{User|Electrical Bowser jr.}} Like with why I voted to unfeature Krunch, this is a good article (actually a bit better than Krunch) with some good images, but it’s too short to be standout.
#{{User|Pulsebot}} You can make this page featured, however there's a crucial question: why does this page need to be featured. Per all.
==== Removal of opposes ====

==== Comments ====
@Wikiboy10 Thank you for voicing your concerns. I am going to have to disagree with you on the length of the article. There are multiple featured articles that are the same or similar in length to it such as [[Mama Luigi]], [[Smithy]], [[Geno]], [[Baby Daisy]], [[Dimentio]], [[Krunch]], etc. If this article is "too short" then featured articles such as the ones that I have mentioned would also be too short. As for the claim that it comes off as any other track article, I also have to disagree. Compared to other track articles such as [[Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Wii)]], [[Luigi Circuit (Mario Kart Wii)]], [[N64 Frappe Snowland]], [[DS Cheep Cheep Beach]], etc, the article does a much better job at describing the courses layout. It gives details on the shortcuts that can be performed as well as information on the official Mario Kart Wii tournaments. It tells what changes where made to the track in later games and is what I consider the article that other track articles should be modeled after (Outside of a few flowery parts which I have fixed per your oppose. If you found anything else that is of concern then feel free to tell me and I will get it fixed). I hope that you will put what I have said into consideration. --[[User:Killer Moth|Killer Moth]] ([[User talk:Killer Moth|talk]]) 13:37, September 26, 2022 (EDT)
:Well, it doesn't make it in the 1,000 longest wiki pages. Interesting you brought up Krunch, [[MarioWiki:Featured_articles/Unfeature/N/Krunch|as I recently put that up to be unfeatured]]. Maybe I can look into those other pages as well. For example, [[Baby Donkey Kong]] [[MarioWiki:Featured_articles/Unfeature/N1/Baby_Donkey_Kong|was unfeatured for similar reasons]]. Furthermore, there is this policy: '''"Articles should fully cover appearances and information of the topic. However, due to some limited appearances of the said topic, it may not be possible to expand information any further without resorting to padding the article. In this case, although these articles are complete and are written to the best of the editor's abilities, they are too short to be categorized among the best articles in MarioWiki and therefore, are not rich enough in content to be considered featured articles."''' [[User:Wikiboy10|Wikiboy10]] ([[User talk:Wikiboy10|talk]]) 12:53, October 5, 2022 (EDT)
::Yeah, I already looked over the policy and after looking through the article again it is most likely to short. Maybe we should come up with what should be the minimum length for an article to be featured so that it can help users such as me not propose an article that is considered too short to be featured. perhaps a using a page such as [[Kolorado]] as an example of the minimum length. That is just an idea I thought of.--[[User:Killer Moth|Killer Moth]] ([[User talk:Killer Moth|talk]]) 13:30, October 5, 2022 (EDT)

I feel ''Mario Kart'' tracks can pass as quality articles that can be featured, but my only question stems from "Is there enough information to pass it as a featured article?". I know FAs aren't all about what the article is about, it's about if it's the best of the best this Wiki can offer in terms of writing, description etc. That's why I wonder is there really enough here? {{classic|3DS|Neo Bowser City}} is also an article of similar length that has a good description of the track, detailed changes between its appearances in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Mario Kart Tour'' and loads of images pulled from each of its appearances, especially all the icons from ''Tour''. Remember that a lot of the length of these articles can also just be the multiple icon images from ''Tour'', offering a deceptive "it's long enough" look. That all being said, can the written information itself pass for a featured article? I wouldn't mind hearing input from others regarding how much the length of an article actually means here and if it really does impact the decision on if articles like these can be featured. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
:In my opinion, if we even have the discussions like this surrounding length, it doesn't really meet the length requirement to be featured, ergo, it doesn't comfortably pass the "reasonable length". Not to mention, I do think layout descriptions generally are repetitive and cumbersome information that are tough to follow (as someone who wrote some of them years back) so I do think they should have some form of restructuring in general so their information is more presentable. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 19:06, September 26, 2022 (EDT)

The only oppose vote out of the five that I think makes a legitmate argument (in my opinon) for not featuring the article is from RealStuffMinister and partically Wikiboy for his secondary reason of flowly writing. If we're calling this aritcle "too short" then the bar that is being set for what is considered long enough for feartured status is too high to the extent that the types of artcile can be featured is made limited to just game articles and major recuring characters. Having something like a Mario Kart course featured (currently zero of them of featured status) would be great because it would boost the variety of featured artciles, which anwsers Pulsebot's question of "why should this article be featured". I do think they should a limit on the legnth, an article that has only a couple or paragraphs/sections is where i would call something too short. An article packed with a good 15 or so paraprahls spread amoungst a range of sections/sub-sections like this one is not too short for featured status. I'm not going to place a support vote yet becuase I've properly read it and thus not fully confident the article deserves featured status but what i will say is that I would love to see an article like this featured and that I strongly disagree with the majoirt of the points made in opposition. It's these reasons to why i'm also passionately opposed to the unfeature of Krunch. {{user|NSY}}
Latest revision		Your text
Line 27:		Line 27:
	:In my opinion, if we even have the discussions like this surrounding length, it doesn't really meet the length requirement to be featured, ergo, it doesn't comfortably pass the "reasonable length". Not to mention, I do think layout descriptions generally are repetitive and cumbersome information that are tough to follow (as someone who wrote some of them years back) so I do think they should have some form of restructuring in general so their information is more presentable. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 19:06, September 26, 2022 (EDT)		:In my opinion, if we even have the discussions like this surrounding length, it doesn't really meet the length requirement to be featured, ergo, it doesn't comfortably pass the "reasonable length". Not to mention, I do think layout descriptions generally are repetitive and cumbersome information that are tough to follow (as someone who wrote some of them years back) so I do think they should have some form of restructuring in general so their information is more presentable. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 19:06, September 26, 2022 (EDT)

	The only oppose vote out of the five that I think makes a legitmate argument (in my opinon) for not featuring the article is from RealStuffMinister and ~~partially~~ Wikiboy for his secondary reason of flowly writing. If we're calling this aritcle "too short" then the bar that is being set for what is considered long enough for feartured status is too high to the extent that the types of artcile can be featured is made limited to just game articles and major recuring characters. Having something like a Mario Kart course featured (currently zero of them of featured status) would be great because it would boost the variety of featured artciles, which anwsers Pulsebot's question of "why should this article be featured". I do think they should a limit on the legnth, an article that has only a couple or paragraphs/sections is where i would call something too short. An article packed with a good 15 or so paraprahls spread amoungst a range of sections/sub-sections like this one is not too short for featured status. I'm not going to place a support vote yet becuase I've properly read it and thus not fully confident the article deserves featured status but what i will say is that I would love to see an article like this featured and that I strongly disagree with the majoirt of the points made in opposition. It's these reasons to why i'm also passionately opposed to the unfeature of Krunch. {{user\|NSY}}		The only oppose vote out of the five that I think makes a legitmate argument (in my opinon) for not featuring the article is from RealStuffMinister and partically Wikiboy for his secondary reason of flowly writing. If we're calling this aritcle "too short" then the bar that is being set for what is considered long enough for feartured status is too high to the extent that the types of artcile can be featured is made limited to just game articles and major recuring characters. Having something like a Mario Kart course featured (currently zero of them of featured status) would be great because it would boost the variety of featured artciles, which anwsers Pulsebot's question of "why should this article be featured". I do think they should a limit on the legnth, an article that has only a couple or paragraphs/sections is where i would call something too short. An article packed with a good 15 or so paraprahls spread amoungst a range of sections/sub-sections like this one is not too short for featured status. I'm not going to place a support vote yet becuase I've properly read it and thus not fully confident the article deserves featured status but what i will say is that I would love to see an article like this featured and that I strongly disagree with the majoirt of the points made in opposition. It's these reasons to why i'm also passionately opposed to the unfeature of Krunch. {{user\|NSY}}