MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Toad

Toad

Support

1. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) I don't see any problems with this article, it looks very long, it has no red links or improvment templates. I never saw this featured.
2. PiranhaPlantLover17 (talk)
3. ToadAwesome12 (talk)
4. ToadBoy1999 (talk)

Oppose

1. Time Turner (talk) This article is so packed full of flowery writing that we could write a book using it. Also, perhaps it's because I'm on mobile, but this article looks ridiculously padded. Like someone tried to make it bigger for the sole purpose of making it bigger. I don't know if there's any missing information, or if there are things that should be covered, but these two problems alone cannot be allowed for a featured article. One more thing: "I never saw this featured" is the absolute worst reason to feature something, and should not be used as a valid reason in any circumstance.
2. Ashley and Red (talk) Per TT. Also, it ill be good if anyone change some of the images.
3. Icemario (talk) Per TT, and that Relationship section has some speculation sprinkled through it and needs quite a bit of work done on it anyway, per this proposal.
4. Yoshi876 (talk) Per all.
5. Mario (talk) My reasons below explore the article a bit more in depth, so please check them out.
6. Fandro (talk) Per TT and Icemario.
7. Vommack (talk) Beating a dead horse here, but I'm personally getting sick of seeing Toad nominated every time I log on. Gah. (Read: Per TT)
8. Ninelevendo (talk) Tge article has all these minor edits that need to be done, and Blue Toad shouldn't be on this article, it should be on the Blue Toad space. He doesn't magically change colour.
9. Breezebuddy25 (talk) - Per all on this one.

Comments

@PirahnaPlantLover, featured articles are based much more on quality than they are on how many people like the character. Lord G. matters. 18:32, 20 March 2014 (EDT)

Seriously, stop using "I never saw this featured." It applies to practically every article, and bears no relevance to the articles's quality. Yoshi876 (talk)

At a glance, here are some sections that need to be rewritten:

• Wario's Woods is scarily long for a simple puzzle game.
• For being one move in the Super Smash Bros. games, Toad has received a meaty paragraph, with repeating and some irrelevant info on Mario Sports Mix tacked on.
• Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games section, while it's tiny in most other articles, is too big here.
• The Powers and abilities section is cluttered with images and probably padded as well. Especially with the latter section, it's basically this: "Toad can use powerups. He is shown using powerups. He is able to use powerups. He appeared to use powerups."
• The relationships section needs an overhaul in general, with so much information on... um... Wart being one of them. Oh, and just because you're playing alongside a character doesn't mean that you'll eventually marry him.
• The comics section is the article's glaring flaw with ministories embedded into each volume.
• The article itself is padded beyond belief. Just glancing at Super Mario 3D Land section, you'd think Toad is a major character, never mind that he just gives items and watches Mario launch into his inevitable death on the Airship.
• Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, also, makes it seem Toad is a major character. He isn't.

Overall, the article is billshot and should not be featured. Thank you, Toad, but your Featured Article status is in another castle. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 15:43, 23 March 2014 (EDT)

@Mario is right. Also, there is lackong Mario Kart Arcade GP DX and could have some info from Mario Golf World Tour. And it would be cool if anyone trim some of the Comics section. Maybe do them in only one section (e.i Comic appearances/other appearances). And there is much speculation about Toad s appearance in many games: Major Role in some of them is only one point. I think that some of the sectoon mistakely confunds Toad with Generic toads (e.i Super Princess Peach, Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga...). Rrlationships swction has much speculation, and I didn't like how the abilities ection looks. A trim would be good here too. User:Ashley and Red/sig