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
2. Epic Rosalina (talk)

Oppose

1. 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.
2. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Time Turner.

Removal of Opposes

TimeTurner and Randombob-omb4761

1. Ashley and Red (talk)EpicRosa, your issue is fixed. TT and Randombom omb, I don't know what do you call "bare" in the article. The other issues is also fixed.

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)

Looks the article again Ashley and Red (talk)

Looks the article again Ashley and Red (talk)

Why are featured article formatting always wrong -_- Baby Luigi (talk)

Old redirects were never deleted, I've tagged this one so hopefully it can be moved to where it should be shortly. Yoshi876 (talk)

After I get something to eat, I'll run through the History section a few times and try to fix it up. Icemario (talk)

Thanks IceMario, i wil try to help tooAshley and Red (talk)

The History section has been dealt with, I'll probably have to take a look into the other areas of this article before doing anything first. Icemario (talk)

OK thanks again as wellAshley and Red (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (EST)

@Ashley: The flowery writing (stuff that souds like it belongs in a novel) is still present, and as long as that's still there, my oppose vote should not be removed. Time Turner (talk)

Mine too Randombob-omb4761 (talk)

I am OK with your opposes. they are "justice"Ashley and Red (talk)

...What? Time Turner (talk)

Forget it. What do you means with novel, exactly??The article don't looks...uh...overrated of charmed wordsAshley and Red (talk)

Thanks to Icematio the article is without the (majority) fowery write. See it Ashley and Red (talk)