Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Goomba

Goomba

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

A quick skim through this article is enough to see that it lacks the criteria for featured status. Below I have listed several of the reasons for this:


 * Various grammatical and stylistic errors such as the word "Goomba" existing throughout the article both capitalised and lowercase and the word, "Mario" in reference to the Mario video game series existing unitalicised.


 * At the end of the introductory paragraph, the off-topic sentence, "there are quite a few enimies, besides the one listed here, that appear in most Mario games" exists.


 * The sections Characteristics and Goombas in Mario games seem redunant, as both spend some time explaining how different types of Goombas interact with Mario.


 * Bits of original research are scattered throughout the article, including the sentence at the end of this paragraph: "In the film Super Mario Bros., (1993), the term Goomba refers to someone who de-evolves after being hit by King Koopa's de-evolution ray. As with most of the characters in the film, the Goombas are drastically different in appearance in comparison to their video game counterparts, represented as large reptiles with an ogre-like appearance. They are played by human actors in costume and do not resemble the small in-game Goombas at all. However, this can be a reference since the original game described them as former members of the Mushroom Kingdom and the de-evolved versions are also former members of the Mushroom Kingdom"

For the time being, I believe that this article's featured status should be removed. Once it is cleaned up sufficiently, then perhaps it can be restored.--Conrad Devonshire 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove - I have explained myself above--Conrad Devonshire 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Have you raised this issues in the talk page before coming here as per bullet #1 of the nomination procedure?Joelito (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I standardized the spelling to initial-capitalization, added some italics and chopped some OR. What do you think about it now? BrokenSegue 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I voted to keep at this article's last FARC and I stand by the decision. All this article needs is a copyedit and footnotes. The issues should be raised at the article's talk page prior to nomination. Granted, there are only two references, but I think we're better served by keeping this featured and improving it's quality rather than de-listing it. RyanG e rbil10 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would have been faster to fix many of these problems yourself then to write up this nomination. -- SCZenz 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some minor ones. maybe, but the more I look at it, the more it seems to lack featured article criteria.-- Conrad Devonshire  Talk  21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove per the previous FARC (not so much this one). It seems obvious that the references are staggeringly inadequate and do not verify all the facts contained in the article. It is also not very comprehensive: there is no discussion at all of who designed the character or of its real-world background. This is not up to current FA standards. The first issue, at least, was raised more than a month ago and has not been addressed that I can see. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Invalid nomination —No notice was given on the talk page. This nomination should be removed so that the prescribed process can be pursued. See above:


 * Before listing here: post comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave time for them to be addressed before nominating the article here.

Tony 11:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerns about this article were raised in two months ago at the first FARC, which was certainly linked to the talk page such that anyone watching the article would be aware of it. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's entirely besides the point. During the last FARC, a lot of issues were brought up; some were addressed, some weren't, but in the end, the result was Keep. If you feel that the criticisms made at that time were inadequately addressed, how do you expect the editors of this article to know that? The nominator MUST place notification on the talk page of the article well in advance of nominating an article here. Editors aren't mind-readers. Since this is an invalid nomination, I propose that the nominator withdraw the nomination in order to fulfill the FARC criteria. The Disco King 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice was placed on the talk page in advance of this nomination, in the form of the previous nomination. Anyone watching that page would have seen the FARC posted and followed it to the page where the concerns were listed. People have had two months to address these problems, and they have quite obviously not been addressed. It seems safe to say that nobody intends to address them. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding. When the result of the last FARC was Keep, editors of the Goomba page could assume (and would be correct in assuming) that the article was still of featured quality, and that no more improvements were needed to maintain this featured quality. If the article was not of featured quality - that is, if the issues which you mentioned and which were also mentioned during the last FARC were large enough to merit demotion - then Goomba should have been demoted last time. It wasn't; consensus was that it was an FA as it stood. If you want to launch a new FARC nom on the same grounds as the last one, you need to give notice on the talk page first, because it is a new nomination, and even though these criticisms were brought up in the last FARC proceeding, any reasonable editor would presume that these criticisms were either misguided or otherwise no longer applied, since, as I've mentioned a few times now, the result of the last FARC was Keep. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Disco Thing: another warning was required to be posted before this nomination for it to be valid. Tony 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the problems were brought up long ago. The editors of Goomba have had ample opportunity to address them, and they have not. The fact that the last FARC ended in keep is irrelevant, as it that doesn't make the problems that were brought up disappear. They should have been addressed in any case. If the editors of Goomba read the previous FARC to mean that the problems didn't exist, that's pretty foolish of them -- most of the people who commented there clearly don't appear to know what they are talking about. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the old FARC (a link is below), and the chief complaints were: weasel words, non-comprehensive, and that the article was fancruft. The third complaint was soundly opposed by most people commenting; the second complaint was dismissed due to the limited amount of information available on Goombas, making the article as comprehensive as it could possibly be; and the first complaint was addressed by User:CyberSkull in a copyedit. So precisely what complaints from the old FARC were the editors of Goomba supposed to deal with? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The first complaint is that the article has two, inadequate, references. This is still the case! The latest reference is from 1990 -- I guess Goombas haven't appeared since then? This alone is reason enough to remove featured status. Moreover, the fancruft complaint is quite accurate as well -- the article makes no attempt to connect Goombas to the real world. It doesn't even mention, as a start, who created the character. This problem has been ignored rather than addressed (the first FARC being a testament to this), and likewise is reason enough to remove featured status. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See the previous FARC here.
 * remove per all criticisms from previous FARC nomination, noe of which are addressed. Zzzzz 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Maybe someone could just fix it, though. S  t  e  v  e  o  2  19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: if you spotted some grammatical errors, why didn't you just fix it? Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)