Editing MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Super Smash Bros. Brawl

__NOTOC__
===[[{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]===
{{UNFANOMFAIL
|nominated=22:18, 17 February 2014 (EST)
|lastedit=13:14, 13 February 2014
}}
==== Remove Featured Article Status ====
#<s>{{User|Time Turner}} Let me start off with the most evident thing: there is a rewrite template for the Subspace Emissary section. According to rule 5, this already means that it doesn't deserve to keep its FA status. To elaborate, the section describing the plot is absolutely filled with grammatical errors ("which they proceed to carrier off"), speculative text ("whose intent is to kill Lucas"), and especially fanciful writing ("Lucas soon gets his foot snagged on an unearthed root"). None of these are acceptable in a wiki article. Besides that, though, another aspect that I'm not particularly fond of is the article's abuse of subsections. For example, the [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Rules|Rules]] section, which carries ''fourteen'' subsections. Most of them are relatively basic in the first place, with some only having a single sentence. That section can certainly be organized in a better fashion (do we even need that much info on rules?). Small subsections crop up around the entire article, though, and I really think that it would benefit from a clean scrubbing of sections. Also, this article does not describe at all what the gameplay is like. The [[Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl#Gameplay|Gameplay]] section covers what's new about this game in regards to its predecessors, but it does not state at all how the game actually plays, which I think is just a silly thing to gloss over. The descriptions for the stages are also not very descriptive. Some of them say things like "it is filled with many gimmicks that can either assist or hinder the player", "this stage encorporates elements of various Fire Emblem games" (oh hey, a typo), and "Very similar to Corneria and Venom", which tells me nothing. I know that we have the actual articles of those stages to fully describe them, but if the description leaves me with more questions than answers, it's not a good description. There may be other things that I haven't mentioned, but what I have here is a laundry list of problems with this article.</s>
#<s>{{User|Pinkie Pie}} Per Dr. Whooves, as the rewrite template kills me. And the gameplay isn't strong enough.</s>
#{{User|Ashley and Red}}Per TT and Pinkie. Also, there is much specukation and lies... And the Reerite template, as well.

==== Keep Featured Article Status ====
#{{User|Mario}} All problems have been addressed (if not fixed), so aside from character descriptions that need to be beefed up, the article can stay featured. See comments if you're not sure.
#{{User|Time Turner}} A whole bunch of work has gone into this article. I'd say that it's looking pretty good.
#{{User|Daisyluva99}}Well, it IS alot better with that rewrite template gone.It looks good now!
#{{User|YoshiPickle}}Per Time Turner.
#{{User|Ashley and Red}}OMG!!I only saw the fixes now. And yea, this is alot beyter than it was.

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

==== Comments ====
OK, so here what's wrong with it:
*There is a rewrite template for the Subspace Emissary section. 
*The [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Rules|Rules]] section, has ''fourteen'' subsections. 
*The [[Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl#Gameplay|Gameplay]] section is too short.
*The descriptions for the stages are not very descriptive.

So for users who oppose against this, you still lose the match, just like you lose a proposal. {{User|Pinkie Pie}} 22:25, 17 February 2014 (EST)

:Why are you repeating what I just said? {{User|Time Turner}}

::Still KB, we need this to be unfeatured. {{User|Pinkie Pie}} 07:07, 18 February 2014 (EST)

You can't have a negative attitude, I'll do whatever it takes to save this article. {{User|Demonic KB}}

@Pinkie, people who oppose the unfeaturing believe they can do the article some justice, I don't see how they "lose" for having an opinion. I'd recommend you be careful not to leave comments like that in the future; it reads as condescending and ESPECIALLY annoying, considering how often you're simply repeating thoughts other people also share. Trying to constantly "win" or be on the 'right' side of a proposed process misses the point of the whole thing, and makes it seem like you care much more about appearances and self-aggrandizing than anything else, which is NOT a good look. Sockpuppet or not, they had a point: any article nominated for unfeaturing can be salvaged if the given flaws are addressed.

On to the process itself: since the only person interested also thought it was worth revealing they were holding on to a completely inane grudge in the process of "saving" this page, I'm inclined to just let it go and be unfeatured on 'principle', so to speak. In reality, I can't do so without at least looking at this article for myself first (aside from that sort of flying in the face of what I said above, or at least that's how I feel). This isn't to say I'm disagreeing, if that wasn't somehow clear, because it seems the article shouldn't have been featured to begin with, templates indicating such notwithstanding; oversights are entirely possible, and that's why we have the unfeaturing process, I imagine.

I just prefer to assess and verify the "damage" for myself, and see what the article was like when it was featured, as well as whether or not it was 'worth the trouble', regardless of sockpuppeting never justifying anything. I may or may not actually vote from there. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}}

Lord Grammaticus is right, instead of saying on the FA page "unfeatured at (insert time and date here)" we should just remove the link altogether to make it look less degrading. [[Special:Contributions/192.249.58.96|192.249.58.96]] 11:30, 18 February 2014 (EST)

:I don't know what comment you're reading, because I said absolutely nothing of the sort. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}}

It doesn't look nice on the FA page, we should just remove the link to that article to make it look not as bad. [[Special:Contributions/192.249.58.96|192.249.58.96]] 11:36, 18 February 2014 (EST)

I honestly don't want to sound condescending (especially) considering what I said above), but I highly doubt anyone cares about how "degrading" it looks. If aestethic/personal issues such as that were allowed to dictate this process, I don't think we'd get anywhere at all. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}}
:That's not condescending, that's just an opinion. I think it's a silly reason to remove the UNFASTAT template at the top because it's somehow "degrading". It's only temporary, with its disappearing at 03:18, 19 April 2014 ''latest'', if the nomination is supported by a valid oppose. Plus "degrading" is a subjective term; the template used to be eye-bleeding [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:UNFASTAT&oldid=516387 red], you know that? {{User|Mario}}

''"because it seems the article shouldn't have been featured to begin with, templates indicating such notwithstanding"''

:This article was [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Archive/N1/Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl nominated] years ago (in 2008), and even then, people objected to its flaws). Of course it couldn't have stood up to today's standards. This is like [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Unfeature/N1/Tabuu Tabuu] and [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/Unfeature/Archive/N1/Shadow_Queen Shadow Queen] all over again. {{User|Mario}}

:Both of those comments were exactly what I was talking about, though you saved me a bit of time searching through its history. Also, the only one who even brought up how degrading it allegedly looked was the IP of DemonicKB, who was a sock of a banned user who was WAY too invested in this article's status, which is why I replied the way I did.

:As for the article, I may just pitch in as well if you will, the least I can do is help share the 'burden'. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}}

@EpicRosalina, the only section touched today was Gameplay. There's still much left to be done rewrite-wise, with the plot still being the biggest offender. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}}

:If my language teacher saw this article,she would have flipped.I mean seriously,if you can't take care of a rewrite template, then why keep this article featured? {{User|Daisyluva99}}
::'''I''' flipped when I saw the Subspace Emissary section. Hey, your language teacher can check out [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:BJAODN/Shadow_Queen this] and [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:BJAODN/Tabuu that] for extra thrills. {{User|Mario}}

:172,256 bytes (before)
:151,546 bytes (after)
:I condensed the section, so it should be good now. Remember, the Subspace Emissary has a pretty detailed plot, so the section will be quite long. I don't know what else to cut without leaving vital information, so the section, although much shorter and more objectively written, is still quite large. Still, please have a look and see. {{User|Mario}}

Taken from Time Turner's talk page:

<blockquote>
Actually, I've addressed every single issue you've had a problem with in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Here we go: 
<br><br>
"Let me start off with the most evident thing: there is a rewrite template for the Subspace Emissary section. According to rule 5, this already means that it doesn't deserve to keep its FA status. To elaborate, the section describing the plot is absolutely filled with grammatical errors ("which they proceed to carrier off"), speculative text ("whose intent is to kill Lucas"), and especially fanciful writing ("Lucas soon gets his foot snagged on an unearthed root"). None of these are acceptable in a wiki article." 
<br><br>
I rewrote the entire thing, from scratch, probably cutting the entire plot section in half or even more than that. I've gotten rid of unnecessary details of each scene (e.g. "Mario picks his nose, twirls his mustache two and half times, and lolls out his tongue as he dies, lazy-eyed." to "Mario dies"). Yes, the writing was horrible. The section may be quite long, but it's extremely difficult to further heavily condense the thing without removing significant plot points (nearly every cutscene advances or describes the plot in some way, so the section is basically a sum up of each cutscene). 
<br><br>
"Besides that, though, another aspect that I'm not particularly fond of is the article's abuse of subsections. For example, the Rules section, which carries fourteen subsections. Most of them are relatively basic in the first place, with some only having a single sentence. That section can certainly be organized in a better fashion (do we even need that much info on rules?). Small subsections crop up around the entire article, though, and I really think that it would benefit from a clean scrubbing of sections." 
<br><br>
The amount of unnecessary detail into each subsection (particularly, the rules section) is horrendous, so I removed the subsections and removed the descriptions of some rulesets (do we need really every single description on "loser pick", setting stock intervals, setting time intervals, having a subsection on damage ratio? No! So, I either deleted the details or merged the subsections into one bigger section. 
<br><br>
"Also, this article does not describe at all what the gameplay is like. The Gameplay section covers what's new about this game in regards to its predecessors, but it does not state at all how the game actually plays, which I think is just a silly thing to gloss over." 
<br><br>
This is the first one I dealt with. Good thing you acknowledge this being improved until it's not a problem anymore. 
<br><br>
"The descriptions for the stages are also not very descriptive. Some of them say things like "it is filled with many gimmicks that can either assist or hinder the player", "this stage encorporates elements of various Fire Emblem games" (oh hey, a typo), and "Very similar to Corneria and Venom", which tells me nothing. I know that we have the actual articles of those stages to fully describe them, but if the description leaves me with more questions than answers, it's not a good description. There may be other things that I haven't mentioned, but what I have here is a laundry list of problems with this article." 
<br><br>
Done. Yes, the descriptions are woefully vague and bare. Good thing I added the stage hazards and what actually happens in those stages. So, we have a more fleshed out description for each stage, ensuring that those that want a general idea don't need to click on the links. There. 
<br><br>
I dedicated hours to satisfying your complaints so please, if there is anything else that needs a thorough cleanup, please, please, please let me know. If not, I think this article can stay featured. :)
</blockquote>
{{User|Mario}}

From the sound of things, you seem to have pulled it off, Mario. Way to go.

:I'll give it a lookover Wednesday when I'll have the time to, but for now, I'm fine rescinding my vote, since I trust you to have done what's needed. {{User|Lord Grammaticus}}
::Thanks! I'm still working a bit on the article; I have to beef up the character profiles, but otherwise, this article can stay featured. {{User|Mario}}