Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wario/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Wario[edit]

Featured article review/Wario

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 00:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a nuisance to me for a while. Not because of the editing up to here. It was once a Featured Article and two years after it was delisted, a user placed the article up on the Bounty Board for $50. It has been up there for five years and is now at $250. So being the person usually updating the Video Games' to do list, I have to look at it everyday since the bounty had no expiration date. While the article reached GA status by some other editor, he/she did not follow through to reach it to FA status. So I decided to take the helm and try to make it gain back the bronze star it once had. So wither there is support or constructive criticism given out I am ready for whatever it takes to making that happen. GamerPro64 00:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bravo for bringing it here! But be warned, there will probably be a lot of improvement needed. The thing I always look at are sentences that do not end with references, that always makes me nervous, and I do see a bunch of them. I don't think it would be a bad idea to make all the sentences end with reference footnotes. Also, does he have any impact on popular culture? Merchandise? Phrases that are popular? That would be good for the reception section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1b, to the extent that the other criteria are moot. To be honest, I think this is even short of the Good Article criterion 3a for breadth of coverage. His list of video game appearances is incomplete, especially concerning titles that did not receive North American releases, such as Mario no Super Picross, Excitebike: Bun Bun Mario Battle Stadium and probably quite a few others. There is a brief mention of the Super Mario Adventures graphic novel, but that is a partial reprint of Mario vs. Wario that does not include all the original comics. Unmentioned are the character's other comic appearances, which at least include several German Club Nintendo comics beginning with "Super Mario: Die Verwandlung", plus the Super Mario-kun manga (at least the Sawada series, and I think the Takase one as well), and the Sawada spinoff Ore Dayo! Wario Dayo!!. Also probably worthy of inclusion are his animated appearance in the Japenese edutainment video Mario Kirby Meisaku Video, the Warioland 4 gamebook, and his presence as one of the properties in one of the licensed Nintendo editions of Monopoly (and maybe both, I'm not certain). I'm not sure whether a reliable source can be found for his cameo in "Imaginationland Episode III". There's also been a variety of Wario merchandise, including shirts and stuffed dolls. Some of this, especially the merchandising, would belong with the "Promotion" part of the current "Promotion and Reception" section, which seems far too small regardless for a character that has been as franchise-defining as Wario. If nothing else, Japanese viewpoints would be a welcome edition, especially with the presence of material like Ore Dayo! Wario Dayo!! that exists solely in that market. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding further sources for reception and analysis, Jeff Ryan's Super Mario: How Nintendo Conquered America has only a small passage regarding the Wario character, but it is an interesting one, considering him as an analogue to Mr. Hyde or Darth Vader, and that, despite sharing point-scoring systems with Mario, he serves the purpose of keeping Mario's motivations pure in comparison.[2] The gaming magazine GameAxis Unwired has 2007[3] and 2008[4] articles that, although centrally about specific Wario games, offer some broader commentary about the general quality of the character's games ("hovered between mediocre and above average", in the former) and the character in general ("Nintendo's way of presenting scatological humor", in the latter). There's quite a bit more to find, as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for these references. I'll be sure to look over them later. Though I'm going to have to bring GameAxis United to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see if the magazine is a reliable source or not. GamerPro64 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Later, like not at FAC? If so say so, so that the candidacy can be be closed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean like later in the day or soon. Why would you think I mean after the FAC? GamerPro64 04:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Just curious! It would not be the first time someone did that. :) Good to know you're in it to win it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think he considered "after the FAC" because I don't think there's any way this can meet the standards within the FAC time frame. I've commented at the Wikiproject about that Singapore periodical (short version: should be good), but the 2 or 3 sources I linked on the quick are not the least of your problems. Sourcing some of the Wario material is going to be hard. The CoroCoro Comics-published Ore Dayo! Wario Dayo!! and the HAL Laboratories-produced Mario Kirby Meisaku Video (with voices by Mayumi Tanaka!) are important for comprehensiveness, but will almost certainly require going to Japanese-language sources, as will Japanese reception commentary. But criterion 1b is not your only problem. You've also got problems with the formatting of the references already present; there's a lot of information missing. Several of the web sources missing author and/or publication-date information have that available[5][6]. Other links are mistargeted, probably due to restructuring of the websites. You've got a whole bunch of sources with 2009 retrieval dates, and that's really just not going to work for a 2013 FAC. ~~For example, the WarioWare Snapped! link at GameSpot doesn't take you where it needs to go (which is here -- and is missing author and publication date, which are both available).~~ Book sources ideally would have page numbers for the actual cited content. You've got at least one missing ISBN number, too (the Wessel source). One source includes a publication location; locations are optional, but generally considered all-or-nothing. And even still, you've got unreferenced content -- Chikao Ōtsuka's commercial work is mentioned in the infobox but not in the body, and is entirely unreferenced. Quite a bit of the "concept and creation" section is unsourced (the end of the second paragraph in particular: three sentences about garlic and bombs, no references). I'm happy to help with some of this where I can (although I really have no idea where to start looking for sources for some of the missing content), but I just do not see any way this can all be done in short order, and the end result would be a very different-looking article to boot, which would probably earn a failed FAC on those grounds alone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, and I was curious to see what that financial statement was used to source. The statement about WarioWare D.I.Y. (that it allows user-created minigames) may be true, but it isn't supported by the reference (which provides only a release date). At this point, I'm done with further commentary on this candidacy, because I do not think it meets the GA standard in its current state, much less the exceptional expectations of the FA process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Given the lack of commentary these past three weeks, this review seems to have stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Pls take into account the comments you've received here, and also consider working with earlier reviewers from its PRs, to make improvements. Once that's done, the article can be renominated at FAC (provided a minimum of two weeks have passed from the archive date). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.