MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

Support

1. MATEOELBACAN (talk) This article it's much detailed,sections with high quality images,sidequests section complete,all the special movdes with a demostration,all the references are written and has much official artwork this must be a FA.
2. user:Super Luigi! i agree, because this is the first Mario & Luigi RPG game, and it it is a highly detailed article.
3. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Just enough images are in here now and everything is well written.
4. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - There are more images (though a few more in the enemies/bosses section would kill you)!!! That was the only problem, so I think that I will support for a greatly typed article!!!
5. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) After waiting, I say, YEAH!! This is great now, with the added images
6. Gamefreak75 (talk) States important features of the gmae, has official artowrk, and states intro/ending. Though it may have few grammatical errors, those can easily be fixed.
7. Marioguy1 (talk) - The article has many screenshots that are very fun to look at :P

Oppose

1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per BabyLuigiOnFire. As I scroll down the page, I only see blocks of text with a few pictures to back it up.
2. Super mario fan (talk) - The story section has untrue or weird sections that aren't in the game.
3. Redstar (talk) - The article is horribly written with run-on sentences, bad grammar, typos, and other mistakes. It is also riddled with needless information, such as trivia (since been cleaned up) and other fluff.

Removal of Opposes

LeftyGreenMario

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - The article has many images now and is no longer a block of text.
2. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per Marioguy1,also I'll added new sections.
3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all, this now has about 10 times (maybe overdoing it) the amount it has before that is not in the gallery!!!

Super mario fan

1. Fawfulfury65 (talk) What sections are untrue? I found every section to be right from the game.
2. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per Fawfulfury65,I see the same
3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Per all, this article is 100% true.

Comments

So you all say that the article lacks on images,huh?...Then I'll add them!--MATEOELBACAN 16:10, 13 November 2009 (EST)

I added some pics in the story section! Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Thanks ^^--MATEOELBACAN 18:07, 24 November 2009 (EST)

I added all the other Sidequests,now there are complete!--MATEOELBACAN 18:59, 26 November 2009 (EST)

Why do the images in this article look so dark compared to the others? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

No idea,say it to Fawfulfury95,but the one that I uploaded it's bright--MATEOELBACAN 08:24, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Those were the best I could find, but I can try to get better ones if you want. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Please do it if you can--MATEOELBACAN 11:17, 28 November 2009 (EST)

There we go, 6 bright new pictures added to the story section! Fawfulfury65 (talk)

And I added other more!--MATEOELBACAN 13:50, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Also now I added a new section: References to Other Games!--MATEOELBACAN 17:11, 28 November 2009 (EST)

I've added a proposal to remove all supports unless each user provides more substantial reasons. Redstar 23:12, 28 November 2009 (EST)

MATEOELBACAN - Unfortunately, though your reasons are much more clear, I still cannot support either this page becoming a Featured Article or your proposal. The article may be detailed, but it is riddled with bad writing and grammar-issues. These are not few and far between... You can see this from the very first sentence of the plot summary. Many of the sections are also quite empty. While they have information, they don't give any more than a quick summary. Compare this article's Techniques section with Paper Mario's Battle System section. That article actually goes in depth on the many nuances of how battling actually works in the game. This article's corresponding section only lists techniques that can be used, and does not explain how or when they can be used. The Sidequests section, as you brought up, is also devoid of anything other than a short list. All it says is: "There are some sidequests in the game, which would be beneficial for Mario and Luigi." Helpful, isn't it? That section needs to explain what sidequests pertain to in this game and how they relate to the main quest, as well as why they are "beneficial". This article needs work. Redstar 23:46, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Also, the article needs a related-Bestiary, and the Bosses section needs to be filled out to become less of a list. Use the Paper Mario corresponding section as a basis. Really, this article is missing a lot. Redstar 23:51, 28 November 2009 (EST)

...--Mateo (Talk · Contributions) 23:54, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Redstar, your really overracting about this, and your worried about grammar? When you want to get rid of votes, you made a spot for all of them, not just one spot for all of them. As I was saying, if we got into depth like you said, this article would be even longer than Mario's!!! We have to shorten it so that we can not bore or frighten some users with how long it could be. And the grammar, well, I don't really notice it, and this is actually quite well written. If you think you can make it better with the grammar, than why don't you do it? Also, the boss section and that, like before, don't have this page running a mile just to have it completely detailed to the last atom of the game. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Wanting a clean, professional encyclopedic article is not over-reacting. Having standards is not a bad thing... The article must present all related information, or else it simply is not complete. If it becomes long or not is a non-issue (especially considering I've suggested methods to make it shorter as well as longer). This is an encyclopedia-style site. We should not worry about whether we "bore" or "frighten" readers. They come here for information just as much as entertainment. And, finally, yes... I'm worried about grammar. Bad writing is the worst thing an article can do. Redstar 00:22, 29 November 2009 (EST)

So then, as I have stated before, since you believe that we should pretty much rewrite the entire story section, fix the enemies/bosses (that I spend hours on) to make it "prettier", and add things like the Paper Mario article (which is not even a FA) is what you want? Well, just do it yourself since you want this all to be a clean, professional encyclopedic article (to tell the truth, this is actually a wikia more than a encyclopedia). That's all I am saying... Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

I would do it, if I had actually played the game. And it really shouldn't be on my shoulders, since I'm not the one that wants it to be a Featured Article. All of you want it, so if it's really that important, you should all be willing to improve the things needing work to make it happen. It should also be stated that there's little difference between a wikia and an encyclopedia, and I've noted on several occasions sysops and official information related to editing on this particular wikia has stressed that we must strive for an encyclopedic standard. Redstar 00:37, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Two comments: First, oppose votes can only be removed if 3 users, including a sysop, support this. No sysop agreed yet to remove LeftyGreenMario's vote. Second, you can't propose to remove support votes. There's no way a support vote can be "valid", other than it includes each and every point of what makes an FA an FA, which would be redundant. If you, Redstar, don't agree that this article becomes featured, then your oppose vote is totally sufficient, as it outweighs an unlimited number of support votes. Time Q (talk)

I hope the first point isn't referring to me, because I didn't remove any oppose votes. As for the second, that's unfortunate. It seems rather unfair that oppose votes can be voted off but support ones can't (One bad oppose removed tips the balance in favor of 10 bad supports, which can't be removed?). But, whatever, that's a discussion for somewhere else. Redstar 06:44, 29 November 2009 (EST)

No, the first point wasn't referring to you. As for the second point, it's not unfair at all. An article meets FA quality if it meets these standards. If users feel that the standards are met, they can support. The only way they could justify that is to name each and every criterion and say that it's met, which would be redundant. On the other side, opposers have to be specific and say which part of the standards is not met. If they don't justify their votes sufficiently, they can be removed. (That's also why we have the "including one sysop" rule, so that oppose votes are not just removed by the supporters because they want the article featured.) But support votes can't be removed, since there's no real way to "justify" their votes. I hope this clarifies it. Time Q (talk)

I'm not asking for any in-depth justification, but a vote that simply says the article is "good" or "has nice images", as many of these are largely composed of, just does not seem to be a fair vote when oppose-votes do specify at least one failure of criteria. Redstar 06:58, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Nominating a FA is a proposal. Supporters propose FA status. If opposers don't agree with that, they have to say exactly why. Supporters can't exactly say why they think an article should be featured because the only way to do that would be list each and every criterion and to comment that it's met. If every supporter had to that, that would be insane. I'm repeating myself, but that's really all there is to say about it. Time Q (talk)

I added tags to all the areas I feel need to be worked on before this article can be truly considered for feature-status. Work should be done to correct the bad writing, grammar issues, and typos, as well as to expand/split the sections I've marked as such. Redstar 07:27, 29 November 2009 (EST)