MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Beldam: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Fawfulfury65 (talk | contribs) |
SolarBlaze (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ==== Keep Featured Article Status ==== | ||
#{{user|SolarBlaze}} I see nothing wrong with this article, that it needs to be unfeatured. As Fawfulfury65 said already, it covers all of Beldam stats, appearances, and pretty much anything else about her. As for the images, they could easily be replaced with higher quality pictures. I don't think the article should be unfeatured for that reason alone. Also, what grammar errors are we talking about, here? | |||
==== Removal of Support/Oppose Votes ==== | ==== Removal of Support/Oppose Votes ==== | ||
==== Comments ==== | ==== Comments ==== | ||
Ummm... One question... How on earth would you expand this?! Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. {{user|Bloc Partier}} | Ummm... One question... How on earth would you expand this?! Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. {{user|Bloc Partier}} | ||
:I don't know how you could expand it either. The article already explains all her stats and appearances. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | :I don't know how you could expand it either. The article already explains all her stats and appearances. {{User|Fawfulfury65}} | ||
Revision as of 22:20, May 12, 2010
Beldam
Remove Featured Article Status
- Raphaelraven497 (talk) THough it looks as if it is long, it IS in need of minor expansion. Some grammar errors. A few pictures, in JAPANESE?!?!? This ia an ENGLISH wiki. Just not good enough.
- Fawfulfury65 (talk) It doesn't quite matter if some of the pictures are in Japanese, but almost all of the images are horribly low quality. I also found some areas that were in present tense, and others that were in past tense. They should all be in either past or present, not both.
Keep Featured Article Status
- SolarBlaze (talk) I see nothing wrong with this article, that it needs to be unfeatured. As Fawfulfury65 said already, it covers all of Beldam stats, appearances, and pretty much anything else about her. As for the images, they could easily be replaced with higher quality pictures. I don't think the article should be unfeatured for that reason alone. Also, what grammar errors are we talking about, here?
Removal of Support/Oppose Votes
Comments
Ummm... One question... How on earth would you expand this?! Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. Bloc Partier (talk)
- I don't know how you could expand it either. The article already explains all her stats and appearances. Fawfulfury65 (talk)
