MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Donkey Kong 64

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.

Oppose

 * 1) I find the bosses and mini-bosses inconsistent with other tables in the article as they could easily include an image of that boss, I also feel that like with many other FAs (Yoshi's Island DS, Donkey Kong Country) the enemies could put into a table with its name, an image of it and a brief description of its attacking patterns. Also the staff section should be converted into a paragraph instead of a list so it's not a simple copy-pasta from the main article. . Per TT. An "Other Characters" section could work.
 * 2) Per Yoshi. Also, here are some missing bits: besides a one-off line in the Bonus Barrel section, Bonus Stages aren't mentioned in any capacity, which includes all of its minigames, and considering the sixteen of them show up multiple times throughout the game, it's probably worth detailing; neither Wrinkly Kong nor her Wrinkly Doors are mentioned at all; the Banana Fairies and their Princess get namedropped a bunch of times, but they're really not fleshed out; actually, a lot of the minor/supporting characters, from Snide to Troff and Scoff to the Worm, are only mentioned offhandedly; and so on and so forth. I don't have much knowledge with the game, but I'm reading the guide and most of this is early-page stuff, so it seems to me that they're worth mentioning.
 * 3) Per Yoshi!

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)