Wikipedia:Featured article review/Super Mario 64/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Super Mario 64

Article is still a featured article

It's been nearly a year and a half since this appeared on the main page, and in that period nearly 700 edits have taken place. I've tried to remove the worst excesses of cruft when they appear on my recent changes list, but I'm currently being overwhelmed at the German Tranlsation Project and I don't have the time (or the patience, let's be honest) to go through this entire article. It still seems FA standard, but a good scrubbing never hurt anyone. When it comes to specifc criteria, I would have to say:

• Video game articles tend toward cruft, so I doubt the prose is still brillaint, although it is still quite good,
• I'm not sure its current formatting is in complaince with WP:MOS
• The article had a previous removal nomination, which failed, but still could give helpful suggestions. The article's original, and ancient, FAC nomination, can be found here.

Just a bit of maintenance, nothing too serious. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Yeah, it doesn't look too bad, but it is a bit crufty. I'm not sure about the list of levels. I don't want to spin it off, because it's a big chunk of the article, but it is a bit long. I'll give this a good copyedit tomorrow, but regarding the list of levels: what does everybody else think? The Disco King 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been in the article a long time, and was in while the article appeared on the main page. The formatting of the list has changed numerous times, but I remember it used to be a lot shorter. I would vote in favor of keeping it, if we can satisfactorily de-cruft it. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see this article as being particularly long, so I see no need to shorten or remove the list, personally. Everyking 13:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone through the article on my sub-page (see the diff here), and I've tried to cut out some cruft and tighten up the language. I may have cut too much, though; what do people think? The Disco King 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I don't see why your changes -- or really any changes -- are necessary. Andre (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a much needed copy edit and cruftectomy, Disco King. I support your changes. The article could no doubt use with another check by a fresh pair of eyes, as well. — BrianSmithson 13:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes, but wonder whether some of the information that has been removed should be preserved somewhere else? It may be cruft, but someone, somewhere may want to read it. They are unlikely to find it in the page history. Carcharoth 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wikibook for SM64? That'd be a natural home for, say, the "list of glitches" that I cut a couple days ago and the like. — BrianSmithson 12:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Too many lists, need converting into prose, and some sections are rather short. Some parts of the article are unreferenced as well. — Wackymacs
  • Agreed. The list of remakes and sequels is the most glaring example of something that needs to be converted to prose. — BrianSmithson 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The article's references are okay, but there are a number of good print video game histories available nowadays. These could be used to widen the scope of this article away from a simple blow-by-blow of the levels and a description of the gameplay. They would be more solid, in my opinion, than the the online sources that were apparently used to write the article. — BrianSmithson 13:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to implement the changes on my subpage now, barring any objections. The Disco King 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm still quite upset with this article. It does not meet the criteria in several ways.

1. As I noted at the first removal nomination, there are a lack of references. Perhaps the editors should see other featured articles on video games such as Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker? The references are required in sections such as "Development", where currently there are only three.
2. Is the basic controls section really necessary? I do believe that Image:Super Mario 64 jumping.jpg is a treat to include, but other video games articles do not devote an entire section on jumping and somersaulting. I think this portion needs to be trimmed.
3. The "impact" secton — all of its content is unsourced.
4. The "reviews" section should be expanded and reformatted to appear identical to the ones in the other featured article video games. Additionally, more reviews should be collected since there are many well-renowned gaming magazines.
5. "Super Mario 64 set many precedents for 3D platformers to follow." — reference? The entire "Innovation" section needs references.
6. "Voices" should be merged since the section is only two lines.
7. Too many images; are twelve pictures required to illustrate the visuals of the video game?
8. Awkward pieces of prose here and there: "The player is free to wander around and discover the environment without time limits, and may go in all directions within the boundaries of the world" — this could just be me, but does anybody else believe that this sentence sounds a bit strange?

—Eternal Equinox | talk 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've tagged some of the uncited sections you mentioned, and currently looking for some sources.--Kingston Jr. 04:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are definitely too many fair use images in this article. The screenshots are the main problem, but this can be remedied pretty easily if someone could sort through them and take out the ones that don't illustrate a significant point.--Kingston Jr. 12:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed the screenshots as best I could, though feel free to shift them around if you don't like my arrangement.--Kingston Jr. 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Status How do people feel about this one? It seems to have gotten some attention and I wonder if the nominator and others think it's back up to par. Marskell 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good. A section or two without references, although now it would mean death in FAC, shouldn't lose this articles it's status, considering it's been here for such a long time, as FA standards have gone through the roof. I think we're back on track. By the way, sorry for the slow response, I was out of state and didn't have internet access for almost a week. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked and noticed the fact request in the lead is taken care of and that "citation needed" sections do in fact have some citations. This isn't our weightiest FA to be sure but I think it's up to standard and that the review has helped. Marskell 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)