MarioWiki:Featured articles/N4/Baby Mario: Difference between revisions
Ztar Power (talk | contribs) |
m (Text replacement - "{{[Ff]a-archive" to "{{FA archive notice") |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
{{FA archive notice|nominated=14:14, 29 September 2013 (EDT)|passed=22:07, 2 November 2013 (EST)}} | |||
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||3}}]]=== | ===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||3}}]]=== | ||
==== Support ==== | ==== Support ==== | ||
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I've nominated this before, and it failed due to the following reason: he is not completely covered everywhere. Due to a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 34#Loosen FA Requirements for Coverage|recent proposal]], the requirements for covering obscure media has been lessened and is no longer a viable way to oppose. I also fixed problems it had, such as removing off-focus stuff, empty sections, grammar, etc. If there are any other problems I did not catch, please let me know, but I feel this article meets the FA requirements and should be featured. | #{{User|Baby Luigi}} I've nominated this before, and it failed due to the following reason: he is not completely covered everywhere. Due to a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Loosen FA Requirements for Coverage|recent proposal]], the requirements for covering obscure media has been lessened and is no longer a viable way to oppose. I also fixed problems it had, such as removing off-focus stuff, empty sections, grammar, etc. If there are any other problems I did not catch, please let me know, but I feel this article meets the FA requirements and should be featured. | ||
#{{User|Gonzales Kart Inc.}} | #{{User|Gonzales Kart Inc.}} | ||
#{{User|Ztar Power}} | #{{User|Ztar Power}} | ||
#{{User|Icemario11}} | |||
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} | |||
==== Oppose ==== | ==== Oppose ==== | ||
==== Removal of Opposes ==== | ==== Removal of Opposes ==== | ||
==== Comments ==== | ==== Comments ==== | ||
Latest revision as of 16:40, May 31, 2024
This is an archive of a successful featured article nomination. If this page is unprotected, do not modify its contents, as it is an archive of past discussions.
Baby Mario was nominated to be a featured article at 14:14, 29 September 2013 (EDT) and passed at 22:07, 9 November 2013.
Baby Mario
Support
- Baby Luigi (talk) I've nominated this before, and it failed due to the following reason: he is not completely covered everywhere. Due to a recent proposal, the requirements for covering obscure media has been lessened and is no longer a viable way to oppose. I also fixed problems it had, such as removing off-focus stuff, empty sections, grammar, etc. If there are any other problems I did not catch, please let me know, but I feel this article meets the FA requirements and should be featured.
- Gonzales Kart Inc. (talk)
- Ztar Power (talk)
- Icemario11 (talk)
- LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Oppose
Removal of Opposes
Comments
@Time Turner: I just analyzed Bowser's article and Baby Mario hasn't gotten the same case: he isn't unlockable and he appears in only two golf games, and all the info Bowser has, he plays a role in. Baby Mario is just playable, nothing more. I COULD add the Mario Golf 64 opening and what he does in it, plus trophy animations, but that's not much. Tell me what other info you could add without padding the article and what I said into consideration. They're short, yes, but that does NOT mean they lack info. I mean, for Mario Power Tennis, what more could you add other than "Though not playable in Mario Power Tennis, Baby Mario, alongside Baby Luigi, makes a cameo appearance in the opening of the game. They can be seen only in the first match, where Mario and Luigi defeat Wario and Waluigi. "? Furthermore, Bowser's sports sections are all merged together while Baby Mario is split off, which is another reason it looks very short. Baby Luigi (talk)
@Time Turner: Can you please tell us exactly what information is lacking? We could provide some extra insignificant details, like his trophy animation, but that's it. Otherwise, your reason is vague, and therefore, invalid. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
