MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Baby Luigi

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 Luigi was nominated to be a featured article at 12:02, 4 August 2008 (EDT) and passed at 16:48, 28 August 2008.

Baby Luigi

Support

1. Marcelagus (T • C • E) -- Game section is chronologically organized, plenty of information. I don't think the game sections for the Yoshi series section can be much more expanded than that, as Luigi is the "Damsel in Distress".
2. Per Garlic Man WK
3. per everyone Mrsdaisyluigi (talk)
4. Z3r0 Tw0 Per everyone. It's nicely written and has a reasonable amount of images, info, etc.
5. Luigi3000 (talk)
6. Starry Parakarry - Decent amount of info, plenty of info, good relationship sections, etc. Basically, per Garlic Man!

Oppose

1. Time Questions: Again, there are strange wordings here, along with speculation and rumors that shouldn't be here: "Some players guessed that..." – we shouldn't care what some players guess. "...perhaps caused from the trauma..." – no confirmation, so we don't need it. "Baby Mario is Baby Luigi's inseparable brother"? Wasn't Yoshi's Island the best example that they are separable? Some other problems: italicized game titles seem to be outnumbered, also there are some typos. The gallery isn't centered properly. Oh, and the opening paragraph definitely needs to be improved. Why do we need to state in the very first sentence where he first appeared? We should describe him instead. The "See also" paragraph is also redundant. I have a feeling that we're giving out FAs way too imprudently.

Comments

Uhm, Starry Parakarry, you really shouldn't support nominations if you think the article is not FA-worthy yet. Time Questions 06:03, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, you shouldn't be trying to convince users to not support. I still think fan votes shouldn't count... but whatever. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Huh, why not? I'm not trying to "convince" anybody, what I'm saying is just what the rules say: FAs are the "best the wiki has to offer" (or should be), and if an article can be largely improved and expanded, it isn't FA-worthy yet. Supporting such an article is a contradiction: Why would you present an article as outstanding, when in fact it can be largely improved? Do you want to present something "half-finished" as the best the wiki has to offer? Time Questions 13:43, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, if that's really what the wiki has to offer. Even though I do know articles always have room for improvement. Notice how she said "I'll try to work on that ASAP". That means she's going to WORK on it, not just pointing it out. I think that's fine. Also, maybe the Dry Bones nomination page or something, but someone said "YES, YES, YES" as a reason for support. I really don't see how that improves the article. :\ Marcelagus (T • C • E) Compared to "Yes, Yes, Yes", "I'll work on it ASAP" is a lot better, and is showing that he/she is trying to improve the article.

No, because it's not the task of the supporters to improve the article (unless there are opposers who point out issues that need to be fixed). "YES, YES, YES", from my understanding, means "The article is good", and that's perfectly fine as a reason. "I'll work on it" means that there is something that needs to be worked on, and that's bad. Why not support after working on the article? But anyway, support votes aren't important really, so we shouldn't get into an argument about this :) Time Questions 14:48, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. :D But still, "Dry Bones is Awesome!" is just praising the subject of the article; not the article quality itself. Marcelagus (T • C • E)

I added an Interactions with other characters section, more to his personality, and a physical description section. That was my first major edit. Please don't be angry with me if I made a mistake. White Knight (talk)

I changed my oppose to a support! That was pretty good, especially for your first major edit! Also, Luigi3000, you need to have a reason to support this article or your support is invalid. Starry Parakarry

No, a reason is not required for support votes. Time Questions 13:51, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, really? Hm, I thought I saw an argument on another featured article thing about someone not having a reason or something like that. Well, nevermind then, and sorry Luigi3000! Starry Parakarry

TimeQ: I don't understand what you mean by "The gallery is not centered". Could you explain? (As in, it looks pretty centered to me). Marcelagus (T • C • E)

If you use a very high resolution (me does) for your monitor, the gallery isn't centered because the image of the cartoon babies confronts the gallery. I think a {{br}} would solve the problem. --Grandy02 11:16, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, that was the problem, thanks. I'll look over my oppose later; thanks for fixing the article. Time Questions 11:20, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Ohh... I see, Grandy. I have a widecreen monitor computer and a normal monitor, nad I happened to be using the low-resolution one at the time. Okay, I'll add the break. Marcelagus (T • C • E) EDIT: Or not, nvm, TimeQ already did.

What I still don't like about this article is that I do think some sections can be greatly expanded. IIRC, there was an ending scene in Yoshi's Island. The game didn't end with the rescue of Baby Luigi. He was seen being delivered back to his parents etc... this should definitely be mentioned in a FA. Like IS, I won't oppose for this now, but please add it before "deadline", or else I will oppose. Or explain to me why you don't think it's necessary. :P Thanks! Time Questions 05:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I added a little to the Super Mario World 2 section and Yoshi Island DS section, Time Q. I don't see how they could be GREATLY expanded, though. Yoshi Touch and Go really has no plot so it definitly can't be expanded. WK

Thanks. Maybe "greatly" was a bit exaggerated. I really can't tell if it's detailed enough now; it's been long ago that I played the games. So I won't oppose, of course. Still, it would be good if someone else could have a look on it too. Time Questions 16:13, 26 August 2008 (EDT)