MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Super Mario 3D World

Remove featured article status

 * 1) The intro is extremely short, several tables are incompatible with mobile, and the images are distractingly inconsistent between each other, alternating between actual artwork and screenshots both with and without HUDs (not to mention how quite a few images are low quality).
 * 2) Per Time Turner. The intro needs to be expanded a lot more than this, the bare bones amount of information especially for the infobox, as it was one of the shining examples of bad intros in this thread. The enemies and objects table is especially incompatible with mobile, if you want to make it less of a scroll fest, the best you could do is to decrease sizes of images.
 * 3) Per Time Turner.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all on this one.
 * 6) Per all.

Keep featured article status

 * 1)  The only thing the intro is missing to become on-par with the Wikipedia counterpart is information on the game's plot. I don't see what's wrong with enemy tables. I can see how, for mobile users, it might get tedious to scroll through long columns of squeezed text, but this is a silly excuse for an unfeature, as that issue didn't stop articles like Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong 64 from becoming featured. It seems to me that the problem is more on the design of the device than anything else. Not to mention that mobile phones can be turned 90 degrees to widen paragraphs.
 * 2) That's exactly what I'm thinking, now that you say it. Almost all of the basic and intro-worthy details of the article are already in there, such as the gameplay and its distinct elements, and all we need is a one-sentence summary of the plot, and bang, we are done.

Removal of support/oppose votes
Lcrossmk8
 * 1) The article has to have absolutely no major problems in order for it to remain featured. Saying in your opposition to the nomination talking about a frankly major issue is a reason to strip away the nomination rather than let it remain. Additionally, your comment fails to address the two improvement tags further down the article, a big one regarding the reception section, which I believe is far too generic and simple for it to be on the same quality as other articles who have more detail and effort put into their reception sections. The game additionally fails to note how well it sold for a Wii U game, which is very major for this article considering it's a mainstream Mario series article and that usually gets a lot of sales and media attention due to it. Also, while it is true that mobile devices can be turned 90 degrees, ads on the sidebars smash the page even further if you're reading anonymously, to the point where information on the rightmost cells in the enemy tables get cut-off entirely and thus rendering those areas inaccessible for mobile viewers.

Comments
The table for the characters seems to exist solely so that they can have a fancy table. I'm also reasonably confident that the star ratings for all of them are entirely made-up. 15:02, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * We could just delete the stars altogether and no information would be lost. I also hate the recent trend of stuffing tables one long line (another example is the boss listings in Super Mario Odyssey, as if all computers were wide-screen and could handle it without sidescrolling issues.). I mean, if the numbers were uneven, I'd see the point but for both articles, the lists are perfectly divisible, with Super Mario Odyssey's bosses being able to fit in a 3x3 table and this one a 2x3 one. 15:04, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * I have a couple of examples of the character table I was working on here during the conversation that happened on Discord days ago, if any of those are good. 15:06, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * We have to nix the star ratings altogether since Time Turner is confident they're made up. We should keep the written "advantages" and "disadvantages" in there, since they relay confirmed information unlike the star ratings. 15:08, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * To add onto that (to not make it seem like I'm just making my logic up), there's an edit revision that bumped up the number of stars from three to five for "a more 'detailed' comparison." I don't think they'd be arbitrarily changed like that if they were based on an existing source. Earlier revisions also show this for the character table, and that seems perfectly fine.
 * (Incidentally, the edit that added the stars in the first place had its summary removed, which is... odd.) 15:15, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Well that edit summary is from Mechawave, probably saying something very condescending with bad language in there since he does have the attitude for that. 15:19, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Summary was removed because of inappropriate reasons. Anyway, a number system was also discussed, like 3/5 for Mario's jump, 1/5 for Peach's speed, etc. or something. imo, there's nothing exactly wrong with whatever system we use as long as it details the highs and lows, be it stars, numbers, or words. 15:21, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Having a gauge system implies that there is an official stat system out there when there is not. We should not use a stat system if one does not exist. Words are more descriptive and meaningful than made-up stats on the spot. 15:23, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Per. Just tell people what's different instead of using overly simplistic stats. 15:24, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Ah, I see. 15:25, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Well, here are the actual stats of the characters, which will likely require a new page if you want them to be in (they are mainly useful for speedrunners, which admittedly are a focus of this wiki now). The stars are indeed not correct, even the advantages and disadvantages aren't, actually, as for example Peach and Rosalina sprint at the same moment and have the same speed.--Mister Wu (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeaaahhh some of these have to be explained. 17:47, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * Do we really need to go in-depth on every single one of these? Just saying "this character jumps higher" and whatnot would suffice for me. 14:08, 28 November 2017 (EST)
 * We did went ridiculously in-depth with the Mario Kart stats articles, though. 14:25, 28 November 2017 (EST)
 * At the very least, that ridiculousness isn't easily readable, and a more concise summary would be more helpful to readers. The in-depth stats could be included on another page, like the Mario Kart 8 in-game statistics. 14:35, 28 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's what I want to do should we go that route. Keep the general, easy to read information on the main article, allocate the more technical stuff to its own dedicated article. 18:21, 28 November 2017 (EST)
 * Just so you know, I absolutely don't want to include all stats in the table or in the main article, it would be too much vertical scrolling with little benefit to many users who would find it difficult to read the most important information among the stats. My point was just that the actual statistics revealed that the stars and the current descriptions are indeed incorrect, and must be corrected according to the now-known stats. Regarding the page with the actual statistics of the characters, I'm open to making it, if it might be useful for speedrunners.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2017 (EST)

Added improvement tags to the article. Also, shouldn't the purple-media needed template be another strike against this article's feature status? 17:32, 5 December 2017 (EST)

@BabyLuigi: No, there is not. If there was a lot to say in the intro, then why in the world did it never get expanded for a long time, or even get fixed on in the first place? It is only now that we actually address the issue, and that is not good. 21:25, 16 December 2017 (EST)
 * The same reason we even have the ability to unfeature articles. Oversights happen, humans are not perfect, and when an article is reanalyzed for flaws, some more can pop up that weren't caught the first time. It's why we write multiple drafts for papers. 21:27, 16 December 2017 (EST)
 * @Lcrossmk8, that's a good start, but again, I've linked to you examples of how other pages do intros if you want to take inspiration from them. Develop it some more to be on par, the intro still needs expanding. 21:37, 16 December 2017 (EST)

Would it be better to replace the enemies/obstacles and items tables with glossaries like we did on Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy 2? These would be mobile-compatible and would take up less space. I also don't think the descriptions are necessary. Here is what that would look like. Should this also be done for bosses and power-ups? -- 20:10, 19 December 2017 (EST)
 * Perhaps so. In articles that have lots of enemies, it's annoying scrolling down long lists of characters. Though on the other hand, I do enjoy small snippets of information for each enemy. 19:47, 20 December 2017 (EST)

Okay, come on now. What the heck can I put in the intro? I've put all I think I should in the intro, and it is still not satisfying anyone. Number one, what should we put in the intro that deserves to be there, and number two, if no one is going to help with the intro more than they already have, then does that mean we are all letting this article get dropped into the unfeatured article status? That sucks. 20:37, 20 December 2017 (EST)
 * This is the third time I've said this: look at the other articles that I've linked to you again and take examples from that. Take inspiration even from Super Mario 3D World's Wikipedia article, which has a better intro than this (though please don't plagiarize it). And no, the intro isn't the only thing very wrong with this article, please reread everything else that we said. 15:16, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * I thought that everything that was a problem except for the intro was fixed. Other people have fixed up the tables to be compatible with mobile systems, and the writing has improved a little bit. I don't know if it's just me, but I wish that we would be more specific with regards to where exactly the problems are with these articles. 15:59, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * I can't really say what an intro needs aside from looking at how other articles do it as an example. Not to mention, there are still two more improvement tags further down: one for the reception section and another for the media missing tag. While the latter was added pretty recently and applies to way too much featured articles right now, we can't feature the article with a reception section like that. It definitely needs expansion to be on par with, again, how other featured articles do it recently. 16:11, 21 December 2017 (EST)

@Super Radio: What about the game's reception and media sections? They have an improvement tag, and articles shouldn't be featured with them. Granted, the media-needed tag was added far too post-humously, but I feel like we can't feature an article with a reception section that's pretty much the bare minimum. 16:41, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * Correct. I didn't "read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes". Both improvement tags have to go. Is there a possibility to remove my vote? -- 16:56, 21 December 2017 (EST)

@Lcrossmk8: I appreciate the initiative to expand the reception section, however that doesn't seem to solve the problem. You only re-iterated what's already stated in the table underneath... -- 17:02, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * You're free to remove your vote but I have other issues with your vote. I'll copy and paste my original vote to remove reason: "The article has to have absolutely no major problems in order for it to remain featured. Saying in your opposition to the nomination talking about a frankly major issue is a reason to strip away the nomination rather than let it remain. Additionally, your comment fails to address the two improvement tags further down the article, a big one regarding the reception section, which I believe is far too generic and simple for it to be on the same quality as other articles who have more detail and effort put into their reception sections. The game additionally fails to note how well it sold for a Wii U game, which is very major for this article considering it's a mainstream Mario series article and that usually gets a lot of sales and media attention due to it. Also, while it is true that mobile devices can be turned 90 degrees, ads on the sidebars smash the page even further if you're reading anonymously, to the point where information on the rightmost cells in the enemy tables get cut-off entirely and thus rendering those areas inaccessible for mobile viewers."
 * I'll also write the intro, to show you how I want the intro to be done. 17:03, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * @Super Radio: Not completely. I added in a new quote from the IGN reviewer. I've got more coming up, so stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. 17:04, 21 December 2017 (EST)

@Baby Luigi: As you can see, I don't have a problem with ads on either of my browsers (Chrome on the first three, Samsung Browser on the fourth), browsing anonymously on both of course. So I don't know what you're talking about. From personal experience I can say that navigating these otherwise long tables isn't such an issue, as I can easily sidescroll them if they do not fit on the whole screen. -- 17:25, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * I forgot to mention that those ads can be collapsed. What if it's a problem on specific phones only? -- 17:34, 21 December 2017 (EST)

The intro's going to be fine, Baby Luigi, I checked it myself. It's top notch, and just how I like it. 17:28, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * I am still not convinced that the reception section is good enough. You added the opinion of one reviewer who doesn't appear in the table, said that it's a new quote and called it a day. The rest of the paragraph is a repetition of what is already in the table. For what I find to be a good model for a reception section, see Mario Sports Superstars. There, reviews from multiple gaming sites are summarised and quoted selectively. The tables serve as a list of verdict opinions from reviewers whose work was summarised in the preceding paragraph, otherwise they wouldn't be there. -- 17:47, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * Uh, if you have not noticed already, I already have multiple sources written in the reception section. I didn't just take from the table, you know. Look at it again. 17:52, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * Sorry, I tend to ignore things (it happened above too). But the quote from GameSpot still appears in both places. -- 17:57, 21 December 2017 (EST)
 * I will rewrite the intro section regardless. 18:12, 21 December 2017 (EST)