MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Super Smash Bros.

Support

 * 1) -- I think it follows all of the guidelines, and the Character, Stage, and Items sections are organized. The only thing I'm concerned about is the Training, Bonus Practice, and VS mode sections could be longer. Otherwise, great article.
 * 2) - The article seems to look fine after the little expanding rewrites I did. While it doesn't have the information the modes need, the rest of the article looks good.
 * 3) Looks really nice except the none playable characters isn't very organized but i'll fix that!
 * 4) per all.
 * 5) - Organized, plenty of info and pics, very informative, and is basically as good as we can get it.

Oppose

 * : Instead of stating that the game was "very successful", which is basically POV, there should better be a "Reception" section. There is no image of a Crate in the Items section. Also, I think someone should read through the whole article again and add more links (e.g. link "Donkey Kong series" to Donkey Kong (series), "Warp Pipes" to Warp Pipe, "lives" to Extra Life etc.), correct typos ("Bob-ombs will starts...", "abilites", also we should decide whether to capitalize the word "series" or not), and also "outrageous Nintendo-themed stages" in the openening paragraph sounds very strange and POV-ish to me.
 * 1)  - there is no source for the characters "initially planned but left out because of time contraints" in the Trivia. I've seen this claims often enough, and each time people failed to give a source, with the excuse that "it's a known thing". That doesn't stop it being unveryfied.

Comments
I'll see if I can expand those sections, GM.
 * Done! :) --Palkia47 12:15, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! (I wish I had the game itself)

I fixed that little bit(I wish my copy wasn't stolen).


 * TimeQ: "very succesful" is not pov... Would you disagree that games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario 64, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Halo 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and such, were "Not very successful"? Anyway, fine, I'll start fixing those.
 * Also, I can't find artwork for the crate... is it vital for the article to be featured? EDIT: Image found.
 * It is POV, since there is no objective way of classifying games into "successful" and "not successful". Stating that it was successful is your point of view. I don't know if the image for the crate is "vital", but it definitely looks strange when a featured articles states that an "image [is] needed". Your solution certainly looks better than before, but I don't know if it's good to merge these items into one. I've only played the games once, and that's been years ago, so I won't oppose for this, of course. Have you really read through the whole article again? You only fixed the issues I pointed out, but these were only examples. Also, please don't edit my oppose, I can do this myself. Just to clarify: I'm not opposing in order to annoy you. I just don't want to see an article featured that isn't "the best we have to offer" and therefore casts a damning light on the wiki (put exaggeratedly, of course). 14:02, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry I crossed out your opposal by my self; I didn't know there were rules about that. Also, the definition of a succesful game is a game that sells for more money than it took to make total. Anything else is considered a failure (e.g. Virtual Boy). As for the items, I would have also perferred if I could make seperate tables for the container items, but that's the only image I could find. Also, container items only contain other items (large ones may contain small containers, h/e). They can damage other players, sure, but not in a unique way (Just a throw and hit type of item). I actually did read through the article again, fixing as I went. Did I miss something? I even linked to things like "Star" in star rod, although Starman was already linked. Sorry if I did miss something. But I can honestly say I read the whole thing over. I know you're not trying to annoy me, TimeQ, and I see your point about the "Damning Light". We both just want to make this wiki a better place to be.

The entire article has now been read through again, with any missing links added. I did add a reception section as well. The Trivia section has been removed, due to a lack of a citation or source. I would appreciate if the opposers could cross out any sections of the opposes that have been solved.

It'd be efficient if someone could add a small bit about each of the non-playable fighters (polygons, Master Hand, Metal Mario... Am I missing someone?). It helps so that you don't have to flip back and forth between the pages. I mean, just a brief summary would be great, and then if the reader wants to know more, he/she can click the link. I'm not opposing cuz that would reset the time so that it could be featured, but I will oppose if it's not fixed by the date above. ;)
 * Uh... ok. I'm really busy with homework and all, but I'll try to pull it off the best I can...
 * Is it really necessary? I tried doing one for Giant DK, and here's what I come up with. "Giant Donkey Kong is a larger, more powerful form of Donkey Kong. He is fought on the 6th level of 1-player mode, on Kongo Jungle." That's really short. You see, the descriptions just for that game just get too short, and makes the article look more messy, rather than resourceful. I think it might be better to leave as is. I did add a little note to the section, though.
 * Um, no, it's not technically necessary. And yeah, I think adding that small amount would be useful. That was exactly the amount I was talking about. And how does it make the article messy? I personally think the templates make the page messy, but that's just me. Oh well, do whatever you want. I won't oppose.
 * It's just that... on the actual article, it takes up less than one line, which makes it look somewhat unproffesional. They don't have a lot of information in the first place, and making it shorter just makes it way too short. Thanks for your understanding, IS. Oh, and I might change the N64 games template; it does look rather greenish.
 * Yah. And go ahead and change that template, it's a horrible color.