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)
3. Arnold232 (talk)
4. SuperBlueYoshi64 (talk)
5. NapalmRosalina (talk)
6. Fandro (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. Per all of my comments opposing this nomination.
2. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Time Turner.

Removal of Opposes

TimeTurner, Randombob-omb4761, and Fandro

1. Ashley and Red (talk) Issues that you listed are fixed. The flowery writing is gone.
2. Icemario (talk) There really doesn't seem to be any more problems with the article any more and everything you've brought up has been dealt with now.
3. Epic Rosalina (talk) Per all
4. bluetoad63 (talk) Per all

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)

Yeah, I believe I've removed the vast majority, if not all of the flowery writing present in the article. Unless there are any further objections, the current opposes have been rendered invalid unless proven otherwise. Icemario (talk)

I didn't see anymore "flowery" writing. You fixed all. The opposes should be removed TT and RandomAshley and Red (talk)

"creating an army of demonic beasts", "most vicious attacks", "in disgust of his beliefs", "When in a dire circumstances", "subduing the entire world"... Just through a quick glance, I can spot several instances of flowery writing, which is against our standards for good writing It also tries to fuse game mechanics with story elements, which, as I linked to, isn't good. Just go to the page I linked to, cross-reference it with this article, and then you'll see what needs to be fixed. Time Turner (talk)

I've gone through the article once more using the given guidelines, and I don't think there's any flowery writing left on the page to fix now. Icemario (talk)

At the time of your messages I was off. Icemario really fixed all the flowery writing. Thanks again. Ashley and Red (talk)

I really don't like the enemy infobox (the big one in the middle) in this article. Is there anything we can do about that? Mario (talk)

I think that nit. All the other anemy bix loks like this one. The only we can do is move it to other olace or replace the screenshot with a spriteAshley and Red (talk)

We can remove that giant empty space and move that screenshot to the gallery, although it still looks messy. Mario (talk)

How about moving the break to the end of Super Mario-Kun section? Icemario (talk)

We can try that, although the problem is fixed only slightly. Mario (talk)

Eh, may as well. I've also used the incorporation of trivia points to remedy this further, though it still looks somewhat cluttered. Icemario (talk)

I will chamge the screenshit of the enemy box by an sprite Ashley and Red (talk)

What does this looks now?Ashkey and Red (talk)

It looks pretty good now, awesome job with that. Though the choice of image for her slightly bugs me, it still looks pretty good and changing it back would ruin it. By the way, all those images kind of clutter the page and lessen the quality, so I've removed them to preserve it. Still, though, great job. Icemario (talk)

:) I only wanna that TT and Random remove their opposes [[User:Ashely and Red|Ashely and Red]] ([[User talk:Ashely and Red|talk]])

So, what about the article now, guys?? Ashley and Red (talk)

@Fandro, are you voting because you agree with TT's oppose or because he opposed??I wanna know Ashley and Red (talk)