MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Super Mario Land

|3}}
When I first looked at this article, I saw it had a lot of potential. I have since added a pre-release and unused content section as well as a section for the items found in the game, in addition to other minor improvements and miscellaneous changes. I have also looked over the requirements for nominating an article to be featured, and everything seems to be an order.


 * The article is well-written and the sections are detailed. I have looked over the page and found no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The references to earlier and later games are provided.
 * Any information appears to belong to its appropriate section/s.
 * The article is not tagged with any improvement tags, not even for more media.
 * The article has a good lead, noting a majority of the basics, including characters, the gaming system, the date, the producers of the game, and more. Can be condensed to one paragraph, if necessary/requested.
 * I have only found one red link on the article, for a staff member.
 * Many of the images and sprites are of excellent quality.
 * The article is certainly long enough to be nominated.

Support

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.
 * 2) This article seems good enough to be a featured article.

Oppose

 * 1) Still needs many necessary citations, especially the IGN reviews. Also, the worlds and levels section doesn't need to add details on each level; I feel like the world articles would be able to handle it just fine.
 * 2) While this article otherwise has a few fairly standout positive traits like the images being nice to look at, and the brief but easy to understand detail it goes into about each level, the citations in the reception are nonexistent. That being said if the citations in Reception are added I might support this. Voting against the article being featured because there’s an overview of each level isn’t a good thing too, see my Removal of Opposes vote reason even though I oppose the article being featured right now.

Removal of opposes
Archivist Toadette


 * 1) Adding this removal of oppose as "doesn't need to add details on each level" is a poor complaint, as the article looks much better with a short, not overly detailed summary of each level. I don't even think the Super Mario Land article is even FA worthy at least yet because like you said there aren't enough citations, so I will remove this removal of oppose if the "doesn't need to add details on each level" part is taken out as a reason.
 * 2) Per Taste. Like i said, i don't know why we shouldn't briefly summarize the levels here and then link to the main page with the full description. There isn't anything wrong with that.
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
I think for world images, if you look in the game's gallery page there is at least one image of each level. The manga images could be replaced with one of those which best represents that world. 15:03, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
 * That sounds like a good idea. 17:56, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
 * Many of the issues and suggestions have been implemented or added, including this one. The world and levels section is much more visually appealing, at least to me, manga images are fully replaced with sprites, glitches section revised, reception section expanded, and an obstacles/objects section added. Since I have acquired more free time as of late, I will continue to revise this article, and add any objects or items I may have missed or forgotten. 22:07, May 31, 2021 (EDT)
 * Good job! But I think the world section is awkwardly organized, the worlds part blends in too much with the levels. 00:34, June 1, 2021 (EDT)

Also, the reception section could be expanded a bit, I feel. 01:45, June 1, 2021 (EDT)
 * Both suggestions have been implemented, though I will still be focusing on them as well as a few other sections during this time. How are the worlds/levels sections? Is the reception section of decent length? 11:08, June 5, 2021 (EDT)
 * Sorry, been busy lately. Anyway, that GameStop line could use more information than just a number. What were common praise for the game? Common criticisms? 18:01, June 7, 2021 (EDT)
 * The worlds/levels section looks outstanding. Sometime tonight I'll go through the enemies section to make sure the sizes are consistent and the table resembles more of the others, as well as the objects and obstacles section to ensure none are missing and also for consistency. I was considering adding a characters section, but there are really only two, so I wouldn't find it necessary. 18:07, June 9, 2021 (EDT)

As a side note, I'd recommend splitting some of the double sprite images to a single sprite each, and also not enlarge the sprites (especially by amounts that are not direct multiples of the images' actual sizes; inconsistent pixel size is distracting and doesn't look good). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:54, June 9, 2021 (EDT)

I think there should be some references in the reception section, such as for the sales part. 19:19, June 9, 2021 (EDT)

@Archivist Toadette "The worlds and levels section doesn't need to add details on each level." Really? I don't see why it shouldn't. Giving a short summary on the levels here on the main SML page and having a link to the level article where it gives the full summary seems fine to be honest. I don't see why we wouldn't do that. Somethingone (talk) 08:05, June 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * I think Archivist Toadette wants it consistent with other articles of its nature like Super Mario World or Yoshi's Island. Though I think with the limited amount of levels it has, I do agree that some leeway can be given for increasing content to make up for the less amount of levels here. 17:33, June 19, 2021 (EDT)
 * Thus why I added the Removal of Oppose, there aren’t that many levels and the level descriptions look brief but good, so “all level descriptions are bad” is a bad reason. 19:10, June 20, 2021 (EST)

We still need an admin to remove Archivist Toadette’s oppose, thus I would encourage any admin or higher rank to look at this FA nomination and the reasons I stated both in the Removal of Oppose and the Comments section to see why I think it should be removed (unless Archivist Toadette drops the “level descriptions are automatically bad” reason) despite opposing fairly strongly the article being featured AORN. , 19:37, June 21, 2021 (EST)