Zelda Wiki:Featured Content Disqualification: Difference between revisions

This article is overly long and redundant. It includes excessive redundancies and descriptions in its writing style which gives the impression of fan fiction/fanon, exaggerated events and theories which in turn carries across a very un-encyclopedic appearance.{{:User:Mandi/sig}} 20:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

#Yes, it's far more elaborate than it should be, it's full of assumptions and full-blown theories, the wording is excessive and repetitive, some information is repeated, there is information that really isn't relevant, and it reads way too much like a story, not like an encyclopedia article. {{:User:Matt/sig|~}} 03:36, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

#I agree. It's full of theories, which might be good if they didn't take up '''the entire page'''. It reads like a story, and, it's hard to get '''correct''' information if one isn't looking out for the theory warnings. {{:User:Darkness/sig}} 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

*<s>I'm  afraid I have to agree. The redundancy is terrible, along with the  theories which take up most of the article. I'm aware that this  contradicts my supporting vote, but to be honest...I only skimmed the  article. I didn't take the time to really look at the content.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)</s>

:Screw it, I'm retracting the vote. It may be a little redundant, but it can be fixed. I'll work on removing redundancies and fixing it up, myself.{{:User:Justin/sig}} 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)