MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Super Mario Galaxy: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
#{{User|McQueenMario}} Per Super Mario Bros. | #{{User|McQueenMario}} Per Super Mario Bros. | ||
#{{User|YellowYoshi127}} Yoshi! Yes, it does meet the requirements and yes, it is a great page. (Been on it ''millions'') | #{{User|YellowYoshi127}} Yoshi! Yes, it does meet the requirements and yes, it is a great page. (Been on it ''millions'') | ||
# This...game IS SO EPIC!!![[User:Stick2012|Stick2012]] 15:51, 4 July 2009 (EDT) | |||
==== Oppose ==== | ==== Oppose ==== | ||
Revision as of 14:51, July 4, 2009
Super Mario Galaxy
Support
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) Meets the requirements for F.A. It is very in-depth and descriptive, it is well written, it cites its sources, it doesn't have any rewrite tags or the such, etc.
- McQueenMario (talk) Per Super Mario Bros.
- YellowYoshi127 (talk) Yoshi! Yes, it does meet the requirements and yes, it is a great page. (Been on it millions)
- This...game IS SO EPIC!!!Stick2012 15:51, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
Oppose
Removal of Opposes
Comments
Okay, to get more in depth about the qualifications. Super Mario Galaxy is a well written, descriptive, un-biased, and detailed article, going into depth about the game and is not tagged with any improvement tags. It has good quality images, to the extent that a few of them are featured images themselves and a couple of others are/were nominated. It has citations where needed, and the beggining of the article is a good detailed lead that would look good on the Main Page. If I am correct, it has no (and if I'm wrong, very few) redlinks covering the page. It, overall, is a quality article and deserves to be featured. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
