MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Mt. Teapot

Mt. Teapot

Remove featured article status

1. Baby Luigi (talk) An unimpressive articles with pretty much the same problems as Rice Beach. If Rice Beach cannot be featured, so can't this article.

Keep featured article status

1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) Your reasons are not very explanatory or solid. Also, I don't see many mistakes, if any, in this article---the conventions and grammar are all fine-tuned and top-notch, and the information is well-written, concise, clear, and straight.

Removal of support/oppose votes

Lcrossmk8

1. Baby Luigi (talk) Please read this, this, and that. This article fails rule number #11, in which an article "…be of reasonable length and not marked as a stub.", with bold for emphasis. Also, read this proposal before you further comment.

Comments

I think it's pretty clear that this thing is of reasonable length and it's not a stub---it seems to have all of the necessary information it needs. Are you telling me you want to turn this article into the second version of the Mario & Luigi: Dream Team article? That does NOT sound like a good idea at all to me. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (EST)

All the article is a summary and a small table of one-liners. That is not a sufficient enough requirement for an article (not a list) to be featured on the main page in the wiki. Mario & Luigi: Dream Team has its own problems that I will not elaborate on for the sake of keeping things on topic. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (EST)

The small table of one-liners is used in so many other tables as well. Again, what's the matter with a simple summary and a clear and straightforward table that gets the job done? That is EXACTLY what featured articles are all about. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Give me examples of featured articles (not lists) that have only a summary as their body and a small table. Also, as someone who very often works with featured articles, your statement of "That is EXACTLY what featured articles are all about." is incorrect. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:38, 22 January 2018 (EST)

You have the wrong idea, Cross. While there's nothing wrong with this article per se, it's far from an exemplary article, which is what Featured Articles are intended to be. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Well, number one, thanks for edit-conflicting me, Doc, that was really nice. And plus, if there's nothing wrong with the article, then what exactly does not make it exemplary? It lists the details in a simple, yet effective format. Again, are we saying that articles should be like these elaborate, carefully crafted and honed structures that will make people's jaws drop to the floor when they see them, or are we saying that they should be simple and effective, like the clothes you wear when you're painting the fence or mowing the lawn or doing something similar to those? Lcrossmk8 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2018 (EST) Lcrossmk8 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2018 (EST)

If there's nothing wrong with the article, then it's considered "standard". Articles should have no issues in the first place. However, Featured Articles have stricter, more quality standards, and these are the standards this article fails on. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:46, 22 January 2018 (EST)