MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Shadow Queen

Shadow Queen

Support

1. Ashley and Red (talk)I worked hard on it, also the article looks good. There aren't any major grammar issues

Oppose

1. Epic Rosalina (talk) The intro section is short, I'll try expanding it after I do some research since I don't have PMTTYD.
2. Time Turner (talk) Similarly to Baby Donkey Kong, the whole article feels... bare. Also, the History section often puts away focus from the Shadow Queen to give exposition or details, which shouldn't be the case since this is an article about the Shadow Queen. The first part of the Personality section gets a bit too flowery ("ruthless and humorless"?), and this kind of writing pops up a bit too much throughout the article for me to be comfortable with calling this an FA, even regardless of its bareness.

Comments

i will move the ppersoinality section. Ashley and Red (talk)

Time Turner, what about Macho Grubba? What makes this article bare while Macho Grubba doesn't? Mario (talk)

Tbh, I consider that article to be pretty bare as well. I also don't recall ever stating that it wasn't bare, so I don't know why you're questioning me on that. Besides, I pointed out other flaws in the article, I didn't just base my vote on the article's bareness. Time Turner (talk)

You never said it was bare, but I'm just wondering why you didn't vote on Macho Grubba while you voted here. Just a side note kind of thing. Mario (talk)

By the time I noticed the nomination, it was already close to getting enough supporters. I also didn't have anything else to really back my vote on, so I decided to simply abstain. Time Turner (talk)

Intro have been fixed. what does it looks?ashley and red (talk)