MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!

WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!

Support

1. Grandy02 (talk): After a heavy expansion, I think the article is fine now. If there are any flaws (including grammar), please let me know.
2. Arend (talk): This page includes everything you can tell about the game. It looks good. I like the part about the development.
3. MrsCrygor 14:53, 23 June 2009 (EDT): As I've said below, this article is as informative about the game as it gets, I learned a lot more about it through this.
4. · SMB (Talk) · 18:09, 1 July 2009 (EDT) The article seems well written and informative, the only problem are the redlinks, but there are not enough for me to oppose.
5. Luigifreak (talk) Now that the amount of redlinks has been cut, it is now acceptible, but we should still try to lessen the number.
6. Marioguy1 (talk) Massive amount of redlinks, I would vote against but I realized that those redlinks were articles on the different microgames so I decided not to and if I don't vote oppose, I have to vote support!

Oppose

1. Too many redlinks for FA Status, Sorry MateSpriteYoshi (talk)

Also should the whole WarioWare article be featured not just this section?

Comments

This page was last active on May 27. In a few days, it will be deleted, but even if just two people have voted (supported) so far? I think this has not been the case before. --Grandy02 13:52, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, the rule says to delete an inactive nomination after 1 month, no matter how many people voted. But actually, you just pushed the deadline back one month by posting your comment. I don't know if this is allowed though... Time Questions 14:47, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for answer. However, didn't post to push the deadline. Anyway, I don't know how an article can become featured when people just don't vote. --Grandy02 14:51, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, it's a shame... it's probably because not many people played the game, and thusly can't tell if the article is FA-worthy. I think the best way to advertise your nomination would be to tell users on their talk pages about it. Time Questions 00:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I had a good look at this article, and I'm impressed; it's as informative about the game, characters, development etc as you can get, and I'd like to see such improvements be applied to the articles about the other WarioWare games. I have one little problem though, and it's a browser thing more than anything - seems that Firefox users won't be able to see the Gold Digger picture [I tried it in Opera and IE and it works]. Although rare, I don't understand why FF does this in wikis. Nothing about the pic needs to be done though, just spilling a thought for FF users like myself. ^^;

Other than that, I think a final spellcheck may be needed and I think it'll be ready. -- MrsCrygor 14:30, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Okay.... This article is amazing, but.... there are WAY too many redlinks. I don't want to oppose over this, but there are way too many. I cant really make them, as I don't have this game. The featured article standards say "must have a reasonoble amount of redlinks" If anyone has this game, they should make some of the articles, but I also feel that some articles are unnesicary. luigifreak (talk)

Thanks for your comment and laud on the article. I could make many of the articles in short time, because there isn't that much to write about many of them. Regarding unnecessary links, you probably mean the "Objects" section. The reason I made these links is because there are known to be inventions of Dr. Crygor. --Grandy02 12:05, 1 July 2009 (EDT)