MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Baby Donkey Kong: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Time Turner (talk | contribs) m (I would like more than one other voter here.) |
m (You can thank me later GD.) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
#{{User|GreenDisaster}} I've looked over the original nomination for this article, and while I do agree that the article's in good shape, it overlooked one simple detail: the article is short. Yes, there's information on all of his appearances and his general information. Yes, there are a reasonable amount of images and no broken links. Yes, it doesn't have any improvement tags and is written in an unbiased matter. However, all of that does not change one fact: the article is short. Unless you decide to pad it with redundant or unnecessary details, that fact is not going to change. Heck, this article's not even in the [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Special:LongPages&limit=500&offset=1000 top 1000] of the longest articles. I cannot find a single featured article that is nearly as short as this one. If we're arguing against featuring [[Shigeru Miyamoto]] because of the shortness of that article, why should this article remain featured when it's similarly short? | #{{User|GreenDisaster}} I've looked over the original nomination for this article, and while I do agree that the article's in good shape, it overlooked one simple detail: the article is short. Yes, there's information on all of his appearances and his general information. Yes, there are a reasonable amount of images and no broken links. Yes, it doesn't have any improvement tags and is written in an unbiased matter. However, all of that does not change one fact: the article is short. Unless you decide to pad it with redundant or unnecessary details, that fact is not going to change. Heck, this article's not even in the [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Special:LongPages&limit=500&offset=1000 top 1000] of the longest articles. I cannot find a single featured article that is nearly as short as this one. If we're arguing against featuring [[Shigeru Miyamoto]] because of the shortness of that article, why should this article remain featured when it's similarly short? | ||
#{{User|Yoshi876}} Per GD, also the starting section is extremely short not sure how it can go on the main page | #{{User|Yoshi876}} Per GD, also the starting section is extremely short not sure how it can go on the main page | ||
#{{User|ThePremiumYoshi}} - Per GreenDisaster. I also agree that featured articles should not be short, even with general information. The article is also in violation with the [[MarioWiki:Empty Section Policy|Empty Sections Policy]] anyway. | |||
==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ||
Revision as of 18:17, February 22, 2013
Baby Donkey Kong
Remove Featured Article Status
- GreenDisaster (talk) I've looked over the original nomination for this article, and while I do agree that the article's in good shape, it overlooked one simple detail: the article is short. Yes, there's information on all of his appearances and his general information. Yes, there are a reasonable amount of images and no broken links. Yes, it doesn't have any improvement tags and is written in an unbiased matter. However, all of that does not change one fact: the article is short. Unless you decide to pad it with redundant or unnecessary details, that fact is not going to change. Heck, this article's not even in the top 1000 of the longest articles. I cannot find a single featured article that is nearly as short as this one. If we're arguing against featuring Shigeru Miyamoto because of the shortness of that article, why should this article remain featured when it's similarly short?
- Yoshi876 (talk) Per GD, also the starting section is extremely short not sure how it can go on the main page
- ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per GreenDisaster. I also agree that featured articles should not be short, even with general information. The article is also in violation with the Empty Sections Policy anyway.
