Editing MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Super Mario Sunshine

__NOTOC__
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]===
{{FA archive notice|unfeature=yes}}
'''Super Mario Sunshine became unfeatured at 19:15, 1 August 2015.'''
==== Remove Featured Article Status ====
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Archive/N1/Super_Mario_Sunshine See this nomination]. Not only is the nomination was made so far back, the support has little bearing on the article's quality aside from extremely vague statements (e.g. "This article is well-written and detailed"). This article, to be fair, is one of the better articles in the wiki, but a few flaws hold it back. The first and most noteworthy flaw is its reception section, which requires a major expansion. Not to mention, as in the comments below, Super Mario Sunshine has a significant influence in the direction of 3D Mario platformers, and to leave something this crucial to Mario history is inexcusable. Some sections have appeared to be hastily filled in to attempt to meet the requirements of [[MarioWiki:Empty sections]], although it's already stated that that setup is not ideal. The plot summary isn't too bad, but still needs some rewriting as it sometimes goes into too much detail, so it can benefit from condensing. The gameplay section is not very reader friendly, in my opinion, and it can use a better organizational standard, especially when something like ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' used to suffer from the same problem. The way the article handles enemies and bosses is not very consistent, so I advocate sticking to enemies tables or simply listing them, although enemy tables are more ideal. The locations part of the article does not do a great job at explaining on anything, such as Shine Sprites required, and there are no accompanying maps to help readers locate where each location is. "Secret levels" has an unusual amount of detail that seems rather jarring in this article, as if it was merged from a valid standalone article. The items section isn't great, at least one even misleading "Mario's Cap - Stops Mario from losing lives." (it prevents Mario from losing health if he doesn't have his hat, not lives; it might give readers false impression that Mario's hat is something you must find by default). Although I can't quite put my finger in it, the article doesn't appear to explain every aspect of the game adequately, but I assume its the sloppiness of the Gameplay section, which is pretty much akin to putting all eggs in one basket. All in all, it's not a very impressive article, and unless there are major improvements, it shouldn't be featured anymore.
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} Per {{User|Bazooka Mario}} above, and myself, {{User|Bazooka Mario}}, and {{User|Glowsquid}} in the comments.
#{{User|Reboot}} - per {{User|Bazooka Mario}} & {{User|Kart Player 2011}}
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all.
#{{User|PowerKamek}} Per all.

==== Keep Featured Article Status ====

==== Removal of Support/Oppose Votes ====

==== Comments ====

re Reception section: For anyone looking to take it on, [https://dromble.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/nintendos-frustrations-with-3d-mario/ this] article has a few usable quotes and references usable to illustrate the game's internal reception. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:20, 24 July 2015 (EDT)
:Oh, one question: what was Super Mario Sunshine's impact on the 3D Mario platformers? I recall that it had some negative impact which carried over into a new developer team for Super Mario Galaxy, but I'm not too sure. Would it be necessary to provide a legacy section for this, if I'm correct? {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:23, 24 July 2015 (EDT)
::that's um, exactly what the links address. It shows, using many, many references, that Sunshine did not meet expectations and that its reception was the catalyst for the different direction of the 3D Mario after it. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (EDT)
:::I just figured after reading the link, since I initially thought it would just be the reception by itself. In that case, the importance of a legacy section in this article shouldn't be overlooked. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 20:32, 24 July 2015 (EDT)
::::I just looked at the link to the featuring nomination and it appears that there was a big case of fan votes in play; votes because people liked the ''game'' itself, not the ''article'', something that shouldn't be a factor in featuring ''articles''. {{User:Kart Player 2011/sig}} 20:53, 24 July 2015 (EDT)
:::::The nomination was made back in 2009, and besides, this was the reason we had to remove support reasons in the first place. Anyhow, it's not the support votes themselves that makes an article featured, it's the lack of any opposition whatsoever. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 21:21, 24 July 2015 (EDT)