Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Super Mario 64

Super Mario 64

 * Article is still a featured article.

The article Super Mario 64 includes:
 * 1) Limited references concerning the history and the development of the game. The references in the article are not formatted correctly.
 * 2) *This objection has been addressed, somewhat. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation? The "Rumors" and "Impact" section requires citations as well.
 * 4) Far too many fair use images.
 * 5) The "basic controls" section could do with some trimming.
 * 6) Is the "remakes and sequels" section necessary?
 * 7) The spoiler warning is quite lengthy.
 * 8) The prose is awkward in certain areas.

&mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove (I also objected when this was a FAC). However, I disagree with points #3 and #5 in your list. There may be aesthetical reasons for having fewer images, but there's no legal reason. I'd be concerned if we had one screenshot of each sector from each level, but whether we have 5 or 10 doesn't matter when they are used for informational purposes. Information on remakes and sequels definitely belongs. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point concerning #5. Therefore, I have scratched the comment. I do, however, believe that there are still too many fair use images. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are only 2 fair use images, the rest are screenshots taken by the editor that uploaded them. Seraphim  23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which, BTW, are still fair use. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The only problems that you list that are valid, can be fixed in minutes. I'll agree the first paragraph needs more references, if I have time later I will find some, the history of the game is quite well known so it should not be difficult.  Comparing levels doesn't need to have a reference, nobody is going to write down something obvious that goes without saying, the fact that Shifting sand land looks like and was influenced by Desert land is extremely obvious to anyone who has played both games. Even with that said, the existance of that line can be quickly removed, it's not a fundamental issue that should cause the page to lose its FA status.  The vast majority of the images on the page are actually not "fair use" but public domain.  If you look all but 2 are screenshots taken by the editor that uploaded them, they are listed as fair use only because it is a screenshot of a copyrighted game, the screenshots themselves are not under copyright, it's what's in the screenshots.  Basic controls does not need trimming, it is listing mario's moves, it's not a technical listing of how to perform them (it doesn't say press A to jump, press B 3 times rapidly to do a punch punch kick combo). The spoiler section doesn't consist of actual plot or ending spoilers, it is simply a list of the 15 main courses, so I have removed it. I do not believe that any of your comments cannot be fixed in a very short amount of time. It would be a waste of time to have the article removed as a featured article, only to have it apply for featured article status again almost immediatly.  Seraphim  23:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is limited information on the history and development of the article. (Please see The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker for examples.) The same articles can be accessed to see how to trim the lengthy, lengthy basic controls section. Every piece of information requires a citation &mdash; Shifting Sand Land having been influenced by Desert Land is not extremely obvious for someone who has never played the game before. I must also note that the prose is awkward in several places, sort of like the paragraph I am currently typing. The article features a heavy number of images. Even if the majority of them are public domain or licensed under fair use, do we really need to display every single one of them? Personally, I believe it is a bit excessive. A minimum of two should be removed. You need to realize that I have nominated this article here because I do not believe it adheres to featured article status; the objections should at least attempt to be resolved. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, resolving them is quite easy. Your complaints are that there should be 2 less images, the line drawing a comparison between a SM64 level and a SMB3 level needs to go, and the history section needs to be a bit bigger.  The first 2 are a simple blanking away, you could do it yourself if you wanted to.  You say the prose is awkward in several places, you can either fix them yourself or point them out here and i'll fix them.  The history section is not too small, if you look at guidelines for videogame articles they are suppossed to be overviews, any indepth discussion is moved to the wikibooks project.  The correct thing for you to have done, is to post a cleanup on the article, not jump the gun and try to remove it as a featured article, without ever discussing what you see wrong with it in the actual article.  Seraphim  04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I removed 2 screenshots, I moved the rumor section back to the talk page for improvement (which I agree was lacking any references), and I removed the comparison line, i'm looking for a screenshot of Desert world to put next to the screenshot of Dry Dry Desert when I find that it will be re-added. All we have left is for you to start fixing the "awkward prose" and we will be good to go. (you really should post a cleanup tag on the article and list them there instead of on here)  Seraphim  04:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Your criticisms are unfounded at best. 1 & 2. Providing references for a level comparison is hardly necessary, and although more references would be nice, there's nothing wrong with the number currently contained in the article. Additionally, there is no "correct" reference format that all articles must adhere to. 3. As with all video game articles, screenshots are useful and necessary, and the number included is effective in portraying the game's aspects. 4. The "basic controls" section is the length required to effectively explain the controls, and I wonder if there is somewhere a "basic controls" yardstick by which one ought to judge such sections to determine if their length is appropriate. 5. Fredrik has already said it, but I find the inclusion of this point patently absurd. 6. I don't understand. Is there an ideal spoiler warning length? Should it not be as long as need be to explain the spoiler? 7. Please be more specific, or fix the prose yourself. This is hardly a reason to remove FA status. Andre (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Sure, this article could use some cleanup. However, the objections raised are not major enough to warrant FA removal, they should just be discussed and fixed if needed. This article appears to actually be in (somewhat) better condition that when it became featured from a rough glance, and has less fair use images to boot. I don't think the "Basic Controls" section is too long. As for the spoiler complaint, an editor recently removed the spoiler tags, but you essentially argued that everything within the tags was spoiler material. That should render point 6 moot. --Pagrashtak 04:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear for people reading this, I am the editor that removed the spoiler tags. My reasoning was that the list of levels in a game does not contain Plot and or Game Ending secrets, which is what the spoiler tag is for.  Seraphim  04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good arguments. Therefore, I will delist the removal candidate nomination as long as speculation is removed from the article and a few other references are added. Actually, I too believe that it's a decent article with excellent all-around contributions. The principle reason why I nominated this article for removal is because speculation has to be proven &mdash; Shifting Sand Land may indeed have been influenced by Desert Land (or whatever its name is), but without a citation, this could have been added for entertainment purposes. Also, the prose requires some clean-up. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article still lacks verifiable references and a more in depth look at its development. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_64&oldid=7253914 is the version that was given featured article status. I see no history section, or references in the rumors section. Unless the FA requirements have changed I don't understand your argument.  Seraphim  23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that version would be promoted today though. Officially, the FA requirements have not changed AFAIK, but there has been a definite increase on the level of scrutiny articles receive in FAC. For example, when the article first became a FA, none of the screenshots had the Fair use rationale. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with listing the article here, as it help reassert the quality of the article, and shines a spotlight on potential areas for improvement. Jaco  plane  05:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it that this article was promoted to featured article status when it contained only two references? Only one of the footnotes cites its development while the other is a review. I am perplexed by how this was made a featured article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at it's FA nomination discussion here you can see that they decided that the reference section was not very important since alot of the article is a direct observation of playing the game. Seraphim  02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This section of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask lists eighteen verifiable references. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker lists even more references with twenty-six. Surely there is nothing special about Super Mario 64 that enables it to list a mere two references. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can list pages that even have more references then those. It doesn't matter.  If you feel they should be featured articles nominate them.  The fact that one article has a 30 paragraph long history section and 18 references does not mean it fits the featured article criteria (which does not require a certain number of references or a history section) any better then an article with no history and no references.  Seraphim  03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In regard to your comment about meeting the criteria, this article fails point 2C: "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Verifiability). As I've noted above, there is nothing special that stands out about this article over Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker. It should list all of its references and/or citations in order to meet criteria 2C, which it currently does not. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A good example would be that there is no reference for the game's supposed eleven million sales. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 15:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any other comments? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I read the whole thing, I thought it was a good article :/. Homestarmy 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. Twelve "fair use" images.  Aside from the "Development" section very little of the article relies upon prose.  References lacking (ex. Many were inspired from real life; for example, one character is based on director Takashi Tezuka's wife who "is very quiet normally, but one day she exploded, maddened by all the time he spent at work. In the game, there is now a character who shrinks when Mario looks at it, but when Mario turns away, it will grow large and menacing." is unreferenced).  While a good article, isn't the best of Wikipedia.  Jkelly 05:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've referenced that particular example now. EE, would you mind striking your issues that have been addressed, please? --Pagrashtak 06:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done so. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 19:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is very complete, slightly conversational but still a strong one. Also, the objections have been very constructively dealt with, and the article is much improved as as result. The remaining objections are not very strong, so it should be retained. Under the Rumors section, where in Zelda does the Luigi texture appear? I think people may want to know. - Judgesurreal777 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)