Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wario

Wario

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Featured articles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. H ig hway Return to Oz... 18:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wario was promoted to featured status in August 05, and has been featured on the main page. However, it lacks the high level of quality demanded by featured articles todays, examples being Bulbasaur and Torchic. The main problem is the extreme lack of references, there are only 5 web references, for 26.2kb, and references which were added recently noting the games and manuals.

There are also no Fair Use rationales and the prose is not brilliant by any means. Personally, I believe the article is not FA standards, I have attempted to discuss the lack of references in article, but the contributors have argued in return, so I have decided to iniate the set procedure. Cheers, H ig hway Return to Oz... 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Overall, it could use some reference and copyediting work, mainly just to upgrade it to the current standards. I'll see if I can get around to a brief copyedit later tonight. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Extreme lack of references? Well, I'm sorry for not referencing every single thing that cannot be assertained from the article itself or from common sense. You made the inane claim that it is somehow original research if any fact (and yes, literally any fact) is not referenced. Seriously, you're only doing this because I refused to adhere to your extremist referencing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna nail the FU rationales, but extreme lack of references? Would that be original research written while snowboarding? ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No offence, but do you honestly think that 5 references are sufficient for an FA? H ig hway Return to Oz... 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have five references than have a reference for every single sentence, like you insisted on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't what we're discussing. We are discussing this article's referncing, and its quality, which may be FA standard, or may not. H ig hway Return to Oz... 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Demanding a certain amount of citations is not contstructive criticism. FAs have recently been experiencing extreme citation overkill, so five might very well be enough. Either way, one should specify what needs to be cited and why, not make general complaints that an arbitrary number of footnotes hasn't been included in the article. / Peter Isotalo 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (copy/pasted from the article's talk page, didn't know there was a review already). The problems: (note that I only quickly viewed this article and most likely there exist much more problems).
 * 1) Citations needed. I have put some tags, but I think there are several more citations needed than that. Also: citations should be included in footnotes and references (which should be put in two different sections also). Game manuals may be used, but they should be referenced directly in the text (footnotes including publisher, the publish date, the page of the information used, etc.). Simply saying: this article uses these manuals is far from enough. Sijo Ripa 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At least I can say that many of the things needing citations came after the featuring. Anyway, we do not need a source for, say, the fact that Wario appears as a villain in Virtual Boy Mario Land, because you can see that in the picture. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the criteria of a FA have risen substantially over the past year. I agree that some things don't need a reference (such as game specific information, which would lead to a reference to the game itself). The things I've marked as however are the minimum of phrases that need a citation. Sijo Ripa 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Pictures: 1 picture is unsourced. This is a major problem for a FA and should be fixed asap. 7 other images are considered "fair use". Note however that to be considered as "fair use" the number of images used of one company (Nintendo in this case) should be a "small number" and "proportional". 7 images is not longer a "small number" or "proportional". The number should be reduced to 1 or 2 images (simply because they are all of the same company), to be without any doubt "proportional" and "small number" (as this is a FA which should be without any doubt as it is a leading example). Sijo Ripa 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone over this a million times, it is harder to get good pictures for video game articles. Additionally, the Wario shot above, the WarioWare depiction of Wario, the Wario Land 4 shot and the Wario Land 3 shot are all necessary shots. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use rules take precedence over our wishes: the number should be "small" and "proportional". It's not because you or others don't like it that we shouldn't respect the law. They are moreover not necessary shots and pictures are not necessary for an article to be a FA. You can perfectly explain and describe te things shown in such pictures, esp. because Warrio (which by itself would possibly be hard to describe) is already depicted in the lead picture. Sijo Ripa 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Style and content: The style is often unencyclopedic and contains some weasel words (such as " many believe "). Some sections should be altered/shortened also, as they now read as a game summary and are not limited to the appearances of Wario as such (which this page is about). Sijo Ripa 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People need to know about his game. I mean, do we not describe the mushroom in Mario's page because it already has a page of its own? Also, many people DO believe that Wario and Spike are the same. How should I rephrase it? "a popular theory is that Wario and Spike are one in the same"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (a) The problem is that it does read like a game summary, which is unencylopedic (at least on a page of a game character). I would just write: he was/did this and that in that game and this and that happened to him. I don't see the need to disclose game details such as (the types of) mushrooms. (b) Use citations and you can refer to the sources you have found. For instance: "Among others,   claims that Wario and Spike are the same person, but this is rejected by among others   " because ... Sijo Ripa 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Update: Wario's Warehouse section needs a clean up (much irrelevant trivia which is currently mentioned in bulletpoints), needs wikilinks and needs citations for each "fact" mentioned. Sijo Ripa 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (section has been removed Sijo Ripa 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I think this article has its issues, but regarding the use of the manuals, FA Link (The Legend of Zelda) uses them extensively without referring to them in-text and specifying which manuals are used where. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we should mention that on their talk page, don't you think? FA's need constant improvement and the standards of a FA rise gradually. If the problems of that page are more pervasive, it should get a review also. (On first sight, that page is a major violation of the fair use rules btw) Sijo Ripa 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's worth a mention on that article's talk page as well. Citing manuals is fine, but I think in-text citations to specific manuals (and if necessary, pages within those manuals) would be helpful. --Jtalledo (talk)


 * This isn't our best work. I found this from the Community Portal. MrCEO 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficient references (2c) and images (4). Marskell 09:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Though probably tougher to fix than StarCraft, I would like some time to fix this article too so we don't lose a featured article. Judgesurreal777 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *Comment - Images fixed, unreferenced sections have been referenced or removed. Will next copyedit the article for good measure. If there are any other objections, please let me know. Judgesurreal777 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per 2c. I have a lot of the same problems here as I do with Memory Alpha; using the official sources relating to the subject should go hand in hand with outside, "unofficial" sources, for the purposes of critical examination and assessing the subject's impact. That and there are still unresolved citation tags despite the nearly four weeks since the FAR process began on this article. Andrew Levine 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to do anything with this article, I've been juggling my life plus getting a job plus that waste of time with those Mario lists plus the review site I work on plus cleaning my house and plus just relaxing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -Images fixed, unreferenced sections cited or removed, article totally restructured to comply with the manual of style for fiction. Again, the issues of this candidacy I believe to be resolved. If there are any other objections, let me know :) Judgesurreal777 05:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, here is the day it became an FA: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wario&oldid=21170016


 * Remove per lack of references and bad prose. H ig hway Return to Oz...  17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Highway's vote. I can't help but assume bad faith - Highway is a complete zealot when it comes to referencing, and he wouldn't want to keep this article as features even if it had double what it has right now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As this article has been extensively copyedited and had all of the reference tags filled, please be specific, as previously requested, as to what needs fixing. Judgesurreal777 22:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, stop harassing me, here, or my talk page. The article stills has unsourced statements, and lacks a inclusive outside view of the character. It also lacks mentioning any of the comics or the Japanese manga (there may be a line somewhere, but certainly not enough). At the end of the day, 19 references still isn't enough for that amount of text. That is my honest opinion, which is valid, evin if I am a "complete zealot". H ig hway Return to Oz...  22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Harassing? Now you're just making yourself out to be a victim. Omg, I addressed you in a negative fassion! Clearly, I am harassing you, and not just pointing out the simple fact that you are, in the middle of the article being copyedited and referenced, vote to remove it without contributing anything to the article, but rather choosing to suggest it be removed. So, you don't think there's enough references? Well, then, instead of saying "there's a bunch of things that need to be referenced, but I'm not gonna tell you nyah nyah", list them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have to agree. The article goes paragraphs and paragraphs without a single reference. 19 refs is barely GA standard. -- Steel 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - for the Third time, please state what you want referenced (within reason). Judgesurreal777 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that you can't see any unreferenced statements in the article? -- Steel 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the article recounts his appearance in various video games, which are already wikilinked Judgesurreal777 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources for this one. -- Steel 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, we need to clear something up; this works like FA; you say "These five sentences have no reference", then I fix them, then you say "the article needs copyediting", and I copyedit it, and we continue this until the problems are cleared up and it keeps its status. Judgesurreal777 20:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have the time (or motivation, for that matter) to go through the entire article sentence by sentence and pick out what needs to be sourced, but I did see this from the lead paragraphs: He is greedy and manipulative and will do anything to gain wealth whether it be good or bad. Wario has a bellicose cackle and an intense jealousy of Mario which fuels his fierce competitiveness. -- Steel 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove The reference problem has been addressed somewhat, but the article is generally in bad shape and could do with a rewrite and expansion in some areas. The development of the character should be pretty comprehensive, but at present the skin and bones 'concept and creation' section just doesn't cut it. Not the best of wikipedia IMO.--Kingston Jr. 11:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Try as I might, I do not know where to find the information on its conception, which is crucial to its retention as an FA. Judgesurreal777 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This one is long past due now, but I realize Judge is willing to work and don't want to be too hasty. I'm afraid this suffers from something similar to the in-universe problem we've seen elsewhere. Steel identifies one sentence. Another: "The character is renowned for his greed and is thought to be a cruel and clever enemy of Mario who will do anything for wealth, especially as a means of upstaging Mario, of whom Wario is envious". Renowned where and amongst whom? The other video game characters? I can understand in first drafting a page like this that there may be the thought "treat him as a real person", but he is not a real person. We need to see design and artwork, marketing, concept, etc. to have an article like this show our best, not strings of adjectives describing a one-dimensional persona. Marskell 06:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think I'll be able to find anything. I am not sure where to find print resources, and there are no creator interviews.....Maybe this article should be "regrown" to a GA and then and FA once the materials needed present themselves. As of now, I can't find them. Judgesurreal777 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright Judge, I will move to remove. Kudos to you for showing a willingness to engage the article. I agree with you above, BTW, that "you say A, I fix A" is how this process should work. But when there is an absence of material that is needed to make it comprehensive and you can't find it there's not a lot that can be done. Marskell 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is nobdy's "fault" as it were, just the nature of the subject. -- Steel 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)