MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N2/Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(moved MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N/Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/Unfeature/N1/Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story: More than a month has gone by with out any activity) |
Time Turner (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||4}}]]=== | |||
{{UNFANOMSTAT | |||
|nominated=13:27, 18 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
|passed=<!--When it is 5-0, put the time (such as 12:10, 11 December 2009) of the fifth support/removal of last opposet by copying it from the history of the page.--> | |||
}} | |||
==== Remove Featured Article Status ==== | |||
#{{User|GreenDisaster}} This article has the same problems as its prequel, ''[[Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time]]''. The story section is padded beyond belief with fanciful sentences, unnecessary details, and is generally horrible grammar-wise, the trivia section is clogged, it doesn't follow the empty section policy, it has a well-deserved ''rewrite-expand'' template for its item section (added before this nomination and not by me), since it only covers consumable items... I think I've gone over everything that's problematic with this article. | |||
==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | |||
==== Removal of Support/Oppose Votes ==== | |||
==== Comments ==== | |||
Revision as of 12:27, March 18, 2013
Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
Remove Featured Article Status
- GreenDisaster (talk) This article has the same problems as its prequel, Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. The story section is padded beyond belief with fanciful sentences, unnecessary details, and is generally horrible grammar-wise, the trivia section is clogged, it doesn't follow the empty section policy, it has a well-deserved rewrite-expand template for its item section (added before this nomination and not by me), since it only covers consumable items... I think I've gone over everything that's problematic with this article.
