MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Lemmy Koopa

Lemmy Koopa

Support

1. Iggy Koopa777 (talk) I checked over this article making sure there was no mistakes, no errors, etc. and did noy find any. so Lemmy should be featured

Oppose

1. Time Turner (talk) Besides several sections lacking images, like the Advance series and the comics, there's some rather sketchy writing throughout the whole article.
   1. NSMBU: "When Mario enters his airship, Lemmy gets shocked once again (when did the first time happen?), but this time (again, when was the other time?) he does an even higher backflip (compared to what?) that makes him land perfectly on his ball in a tippy toe (that amount of detail really isn't necessary).
   2. SMB3: "Lemmy's debuts (he appeared for the first time multiple times?) in Super Mario Bros. 3, where he and the other Koopalings aid Bowser in his conquest of the various realms of the Mushroom World (way too dramatic and flowery)."
   3. Description: "Lemmy has undergone a relative amount of changes (relative to what?) to his design over the course of his appearances (and nothing much has changed besides his mohawk swapping colors every now and then)."
      
      These are only a few examples among many, and these spots of awkward, overly-dramatic, or simply bad writing are too common for me to accept this article getting featured.
2. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) This article lacks images (I most noticed the New Super Luigi U section) and it has a lot of citation tags.
3. Mario (talk) The writing isn't great. The grammar is not the best, with its egregious and incorrect use of semicolons. There is an unnecessary amount of detail in the New Super Mario Bros. U section; we don't need a full-on description of Lemmy's airship. The tense isn't consistent. The article states that Lemmy appears the most times (in the imprint, whatever that means), although it mentions only "The Buddy System". Second paragraph of Nintendo Adventure books is stringy, making it hard to follow. Super Mario Adventures comic needs more details. The physical appearance and development sections are padded, describing every little detail of him when it should be more of an analysis. We don't need a description on how many segments Lemmy has on his belly. General information section in general can use some work. So yeah, if you see my points, it's the writing itself that's keeping the article from being featured.

Comments

While I think the article looks good, I'm not sure if a Citation needed tag is an issue or not. Tails777 Talk to me!

I say too Paper Iggy Koopa

Rule 5: ...not be tagged with any sort of improvement tag
I'm afraid it is. I hate when a such minor tag actually breaks up a whole nomination: the DKL case was the exact opposite of this. We can't remove the info either because it is a strong part of the personality. This is solved by browsing Internet up. TSUNAMI

He was shocked in NSMBWii, i know because i play it a lot also by relative it means like body changes, personality, etc. Paper Iggy Koopa I am going to try to expand the article by adding a Super Mario-Kun section and a Image of it. So far, no sucess Paper Iggy Koopa

If it is a Super Mario Kun thing, then sorry but I can't help, unless Intenet has full scans of whole mangas. They are SO long... TSUNAMI

I am trying to find good Images and Manga Archives but all it gives me is The Koopa Family Picture and Fanon drawings and i am trying to expand other parts Paper Iggy Koopa

@Randombob: I only see one citation tag. Granted, the article really shouldn't have any, but where are you getting the "a lot" from? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

@Time Turner: Your bullets are breaking the coding for the numbers, I suggest you take those points to the comments section Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:55, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

I reformatted it if that's okay. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (EDT)