MarioWiki:Featured articles/N3/Super Mario 3D World

Support

 * 1) - This article is very well-written, has no red links, and has a lot of info.

Oppose

 * 1) The list of enemies, bosses, and objects irk me. I strongly believe that enemies here may need visual representations of themselves, because the average viewer may not know what a Splounder or a Flopter looks like because the enemy is never named in game and it forces viewers to click on a lot of articles until they finally get a visual picture of the character from clicking on the correct article or a name-guess. Besides, other featured articles list their enemies and objects, namely the Donkey Kong Country series articles, an example being Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest. Addutionally, the reception section is half-assed, with no table, no Metacritic score, and some weasel-worded like criticisms, like its second, unsourced paragraph. Also, the gameplay paragraph can be rewritten. Having some enemies from Super Mario World, for example, does not exactly constitute as "elements from Super Mario World making a return". The gameplay section goes to great lengths explaining what makes a return from what previous game, when its priority is to first explain the general gameplay of how Mario functions; there's always first time viewers who may not know prior Mario information so this confuses potential first time readers and forces them to jump all over the wiki to know the full context of games. Therefore, that general gameplay should be talked about first, how the game plays, how Mario works, THEN it should list if those said elements of this game originate from a previous Mario game.
 * 2) I agree with Baby Luigi.
 * 3) Per both. Other than those major issues, everything else on the article is written nicely. It's just that those major sections are causing me to oppose.
 * 4) Large amounts of the article are lists. If we change those to what Baby Luigi said, maybe it could be worthy of featured status.
 * 5) it says that the article is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. No way should it be featured.
 * 6) The whole article seems very overdone. The enemy list is expansive; other articles just have a simple list of the enemies. And it feels like there are two lists of usable power-ups, with both the transformations and items listing the same power-ups. The article has a lot of information, yes, but there is such a thing as too much information. In other words, per Baby Luigi.

PinkYoshiFan

 * 1)  - It says under construction because we are in the process of making the tables. That actually shouldn't be there, however, because the article does not have an informal appearance.
 * 2)  - The construction template has been removed.

Comments

 * 1) When making a table of the enemies and the items (Baseball, Goomba Mask, Propeller Box etc), should we only list the first level they appear in? I'm thinking of making a table or two during next week.
 * We don't necessarily need to list the level at all, but if we gotta list the level, then yes, only the first level appearance is required. 16:18, 5 March 2017 (EST)

I just made tables for bosses and supporting cast. They can be seen in my sandbox. Do they look correct? If so, I will put it in the article. -- 23:12, 9 March 2017 (EST)

@ The construction template was added after this feature nomination started. -- 11:19, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
 * Technically, articles shouldn't even have to be under construction when it is nominated to be featured so he does have a point. 13:40, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
 * Now that you put it like that, I understand how he does have a point. I originally thought that he was opposing because he thought that the template was there before the article was nominated. However, does his vote mean anything anymore now that the template has been removed? -- 21:07, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
 * The template appears to have been added when a user was in the process of making a table. Now that the table is no longer under construction, there is no reason for the template. -- 21:31, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
 * Oh, OK, that makes more sense now. I think that is what I believed the template was added for when I added the comment in the first place. -- 21:46, 24 March 2017 (EDT)