MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Donkey Kong 64

Donkey Kong 64 became a featured article at 06:13, 24 May 2015

Support

 * 1) I've compared the article now to when it was first nominated and there is a huge, but good difference. The article has tons of information, no improvement tags, sub sections have preview content and the tables have pictures and a decent amount of info in them. I'd say the article looks pretty good and feature worthy. Any issues spring up and I'll see what I can do.

Comments
This article needs to be moved to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Donkey Kong 64. Anyway, the article looks good! I don't know what other problems it may have that's just my first glance. 02:45, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

There's a pretty big problem: the staff section is just random content copied from the target page.

Also as a word of advice if someone tries to fix the section due to this FA nom: when users try to fill out staff sections on game articles, they usually end up just being a succession of "[Name] was the X and, Name did the music, and Name was another X" etc, which, while "better" from a content perspective, is not interesting or useful at all. When writing staff sections, make links or give some context - say if the game was developed by most of the key staff as the previous installemnts or not, say if the game was the first/last work of someone who was important to the series, or on the contrary, if the game was the one Mario/DK/Wario game someone more famous for other things was involved in, give additional info on who did what... etc. If you're not familiar with dev teams, mobygame's "People who have worked on this game have also collaborated on the creation of the following games" feature at the end of their game credit ages provide a great base. --Glowsquid (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

@Yoshi876: Your listed improvements have been added, with a few images needed so I'll get on that. But other than that, I'd say the article is pretty good. Thoughts?
 * Looks a lot better, an image of Cranky's Lab may be needed. I'll give the article a full read through over the weekend and provided there aren't any major issues I will remove my vote then.

@Time Turner: I don't think this article needs to get into too much detail on bonus stages. I'd say it can be mentioned with slightly more detail in the Bonus Barrel part, but I don't know if we need to have a whole section for it since every minigame is mentioned in the Bonus Stage article itself. In terms of supporting characters, I'll include the notable ones (such as the Banana Fairy Princess and K. Lumsy and such), but some of the really minor ones (such as the Mermaid from Gloomy Galleon or the Rabbit from Fungi Forest) are better off mentioned in the location table, as we don't need to list off every minor character in the game.

The page as of now is Pretty Good from a content and organization perspective, but it's notably lacking a reception section (if anyonebody gets on it, be sure to use this format). --Glowsquid (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2015 (EDT)

@Yoshi876 & Time Turner: For a minor character section, what choice of listing should it be? Like a minor list of names, charts or in a similar way to the rest of the characters? I just want to know the best way to do it cause I'm not fully sure.
 * I'm not a fan of just listing the names with absolutely no information. I'd say having something like what's done with the other characters would be good.
 * Alright then. It's just a concern as to whether or not it'd end up looking messy or lack a proper presenting appearance is all, but I'll see what I can do.
 * Shouldn't look messy if it's similar to the other tables in the article.
 * Well either way, it's all good and done.

I think some more information is needed on B. Locker, he's only really offhandedly mentioned in the gameplay section.
 * The section as it is now describes literally everything he does in the game. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Should I just add him to the minor/supporting characters anyway so we can get an image of him up there?