MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario Kart 8

Support

 * 1) Mario Kart 8 has been big, and it is a good article

Oppose

 * 1) Needs a few sprucing up. The controls table is sloppy and otherwise hard to quickly comprehend. The gameplay section needs actual information on how Mario Kart 8 controls instead of a single sentence of "It has the same controls as the previous game." But anyhow, I'll get on it later, this is my most concerning problem right now. UPDATE: The Online section has a severe lack of details. It may or may not work like Mario Kart Wii's or Mario Kart 7's, but it's hard to tell either way. That's bad. Articles can't be featured with a lack of information now, huh?
 * 2) per Mario, DLC is coming out for the game soon as well which will cause the article to become more outdated over time.
 * 3) Besides the Gameplay section missing information and the table being sloppy (so basically per Mario), the Characters section is a bit bland to me, at least in comparison to previous MK articles like Mario Kart Arcade GP 2 and Mario Kart DS. Their statistics are also placed several sections below the characters's names when it could probably be organized together. The "other" section of characters is rather vague as well. Are these obstacles on stages, or spectators on the bleachers, or do they help or interfere during the races? Having, at the very least, different lists for their roles would be helpful.
 * 4) Per Time Turner.
 * 5) Per Mario and Time Turner. I'm not telling the article is bad: still, the article is not good enough to get featured. The controls table is bad, and after some reading, I can tell I had some problems at reading the controls. And pretty much every single reason they gave is right. I see a lot of "random" (come one, the same thing happened with Megasparkle Goomba) votes: what about comparing the quality with another FA game? Also... maybe not everyone is aware that if the game is partly upcoming it means it is not complete and is a target of outdating? There isn't any rule preventing a partly upcoming article to be FA, but this is the main reason why Wii U didn't get featured. BTW, there is not need of much work.
 * 6) Per all. Also, with the upcoming DLC, there are unknown portions and conjectural names, which gives it an unprofessional look.

Comments
Big isn't everything when it comes to Featured Articles.

I'm mixed on this. On one hand I'm content with the way this article is written. It's packed with information, and I've made sure that it's written coherently and nicely. On the other hand, not everything about this game has been released, so this article still verges on the "unreleased article" type which still means it's incomplete in a way. So I really don't know if it's a good idea to feature this article before all DLC content is released. 15:08, 17 October 2014 (EDT)


 * While I do agree with the whole DLC thing, I don't think it's hindering the article that much. The rest of the article looks pretty good all in all.


 * It's fairly complete and timely. Additionally people are already all over getting ready for the DLC and the 2second DLC is still 8 months away. I don't think timed DLCs should effect an articles readiness especially since constant DLCs is the way the industry is heading. Despyria (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

Like Baby Luigi I'm still unsure with what to do. @Mario I don't see the table that bad...
 * Tsunami: The table is pretty darn hard to read. Actually, I don't think a table is the best idea for organizing control schemes. Maybe a listing for individual control scheme. 16:09, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

@Mario, Tsunami Several Sections, Time Trails, Online, VS Mode, Grand Prix all need images. And the DLC reason I made is more reasonable, so my oppose stays.
 * But do they need images? It isn't a must, still if you want to you can upload them yourself. I'll wait before removing the phrase a bit of time.
 * No, they don't need images. If we add more images according to you, it's going to clutter the article. The menu picture can be replaced with an actual picture of gameplay footage, but otherwise, it's difficult to tell between Versus, Online, and Grand Prix so they're all essentially the same image. Time Trials's only difference is that you get triple mushrooms, too, but related screenshots are also nearly indistinguishable. Ultimately, these images are not needed. You have made no attempt to refute what I've said about DLC, so those reasons are still utter crap and the vote should be taken down. 16:09, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

DLC will come out during November and May and FA's last a week. So how it is going to be outdated?

DLC shouldn't be any concern for this article's status. Once the DLC is out, we cover the information as normal, simple as that. It's only when the coverage is severely lagging after the DLC is released when the article should be considered unfeatured. So stop resorting to that argument and start focusing on the article's present state. 16:09, 18 October 2014 (EDT)


 * @Time Turner, let me look at your statements that I disagree with:


 * the Characters section is a bit bland to me, at least in comparison to previous MK articles like Mario Kart Arcade GP 2 and Mario Kart DS.


 * In these two Mario Karts, the character names are formed by very fancy HUDs and texture fonts. The character names in Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart 7, and this game are formed by textfiles and such. Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart 7 lacks those fancy stuff and is still featured. In my opinion, the characters sections is still presentable and fine with me, and I think it's acceptable for featured article standards.


 * The "other" section of characters is rather vague as well. Are these obstacles on stages, or spectators on the bleachers, or do they help or interfere during the races?


 * The "other" section deals with the various NPCs of the game. In my opinion, they should be organized under a larger header, "Non-playable characters" into sub-sections, "Hazards" and "Spectators and other friendly characters" or something like that. It's not that confusing to understand but it could use better organization.
 * I'll give you the first point, but for the second... no duh? I mean, if they aren't a playable character, the general assumption is that they're NPC's. My point is that NPC's can have wildly different functions, and outlining them through separate headers was exactly what I wanted to do. While not having it be 100% clear wouldn't be catastrophic, it certainly doesn't seem like an outlandish idea.
 * I agree. I may do a draft in my Sandbox today or when I have time.