MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Baby Peach

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 Peach was nominated to be a featured article at 16:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT) and passed at 00:23, 29 July 2008.

Baby Peach

Support

1. Stumpers (talk) - The article covers all the bases I can think of: the biography is detailed, personality/appearance is covered, cameos are covered in accordance to a proposal that is about to pass, the image gallery contains a screenshot and artwork from each of her appearances, and the Official Profiles and Statistics section is as full as we can make it until Sluggers comes out in English.
2. Pikax (talk) - I too can see nothing wrong with the article.
3. theused (talk) - Per Pikax.
4. Starry Parakarry (talk) - Per all. Plus, there are tons of pictures!
5. Luigi3000 (talk) - Ditto.And your right lots of pictures!
6. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
7. Moonshine (talk) - Yeah, I change my vote. I think it's ready now.
8. Baby Luigi Bros Good article with lot's of info.
9. User:DaWeegeeManDaWeegeeMan) Per Everyone
10. ForeverDaisy09 (talk) - ATMIT Anything that needs to be resolved can be with ease, and I look forward to the expansion of both the baby princess articles in the future.
11. Mini-MoYap-Box Per Everyone.
12. --Luigi3000 07:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)Per Stumpers!!!!

Comments

Shouldn't the agre reversal section be in a sort of Other Media section of it's own? the cartoon and the video games aren't really part of the same canon. Also, the baseball image is flying out of the section into the lower one. Meaning it doesn't fit at all. the Mario Kart picture is a little too low as well. The Bowsers Mass Kidnaping picture is also too low/big. Like I said in my oppose, the page doesn't correspond with other character pages. Cameo appearances, and then list of appearances? Weather an appearance is cameo or not, if there is reasonable info it should go in the bigraphy, and I think sports appearances should as well. Look at the Daisy page. Do you see how it's made it's biography section mainly out of sports appearances? How does that not make sense. also, the list of appearances uses a table sort of thing. Should this be applied to other pages? I've never seen it before. In the quotes those need to be in a cartoon section of their own. Like keep them there but put a header above them in the quotes section to identify them as from the cartoon. the image gallery isn't centered, and the screenshots use the same screenshots from the page, i saw that there was a proposal to use the same art in the section for art and the page at least once, but nothing about screenshots. Nothing wrong with the page, my left foot. MarioKun

User:Elise The article meets the requirements but if it bothers you so much I fix it a little. But not all articles are going to look alike.

Just to adress MarioKun's comments:

1. Age Reversal: Fixed.
2. Baseball Image: Fixed.
3. Low, Big, etc: What do you mean by low? Resolution?
4. Style Correspondence:
   1. Cameo Section: Per a new proposal that passed, it is okay.
   2. List of Appearances: It is a new trend that is showing up in other articles. See Baby Daisy.
   3. Sports Appearances: They are separated per MarioWiki policy (if you're interested I can find the exact page that says this)
   4. Quotes: Done.
   5. Image Gallery: Done.
   6. Screenshots: I've never heard of such a screenshot gallery being unaccepatable, but it's not a big issue, would you still like it gone?
5. Nothing Wrong With the Page: Do the changes mean you get to keep your left foot now? :) Thanks for your concerns. Stumpers! 02:36, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

I can't even keep up with what MarioKun said, but I still have some issues of my own. I don't see anything wrong with listing cameo and spin-off appearances in the main biography. Separating them is like your little way of saying they're not canon enough. Also, the years of peace section literally makes me angry. Coming to that kind of conclusion is so blatantly speculative it makes me want to punch a brick wall. It is based on no game, so it shouldn't be here. Also, I know pages like Princess Peach and Mario list cameos and spin-offs separately, but that is something I can't handle. Those pages are too large, and frequently edited for me to try and keep up with their layout. If the Daisy page has gotten this far with listing spin-offs in the biography section, a page as simple as Baby Peach's should have no problem with it, especially considering the fact we can assume the babies will all be making many more spin-off appearances.. FD09

Also, Stumpers, you asked me about the interactions section. When I said it should be bigger, I didn't mean add as little information in from the most characters as possible. Interaction sections are supposed to use the information of interactions to the most, without trying so hard. When you have 2-4 sentences for each character, it looks like diamonds on doodoo. I want more information for each character, especially Toadsworth.FD09

This is hard to keep up with both this and the talk page while editing. I just saw this after I edited back your recent edit. Check out MarioWiki:Chronology -- the policy that says we have to separate the sports articles. Don't worry about me thinking the sports and cameos aren't canon. I'm the guy who thinks that even the Saturday Supercade has a place in the canon. You don't get more inclusive than that. I'll check out the years of peace and edit it accordingly. My apologies for putting it back before I read your comments. Stumpers! 17:35, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Ugh, from here on out, respond on the talk page of the article. Like I said, why if the Daisy page can keep spin-offs in the main biography can't a page as simple as this? FD09

Removal of MarioKun's Vote

MarioKun's most recent edit to the Wiki was his July 5th edit to this nomination page. (S)He has not responded for the last month to the two messages regarding his vote that myself and another user left on his/her talk page. In light of the fact that all of his concerns have been answered as far as myself and the other users involved with this nomination can figure, I believe it is time to inact the following policy, quoted from the MarioWiki:Featured articles page: "Users may vote for the removal of an oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Five users, including a sysop, are required for the removal of an oppose vote." I am a sysop, so all we need now to remove the vote is four votes from any other users. If at any time through this process MarioKun returns, I will gladly call this off.

1. Stumpers (talk) - Vote 1. Sysop vote. 4 more votes needed.
2. Moonshine (talk) - Vote 2! Per Stumpers.
3. User:The Green GodDaWeegeeMan) Vote 3! Per Above
4. ForeverDaisy09 (talk) - Perperperperper Stumpers.
5. Time Q (talk): Yup, per Stumpers.