MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario

Support

 * 1) - Plenty of content, well-written, sufficient images, very few red links.
 * 2) - Well writed, tons of images and information, also remember that this wiki is the Super MARIO Wiki, so this article is the one of the best made in the wiki...- needs to be FA!
 * 3) - Per all. It was time Mario, the center of this wiki, got nominated.
 * 4) Mario is my most favorite character, but that's not a reason why I think it should be featured. This article has a ton of information, plentiful images (although I think some sections need a bit more images), and no construction templates.
 * 5) - Per all the reasons above and below, this should be featured since long ago, I support this.
 * 6) - This is kind of ironic, the Mario article of Super Mario Wiki is not a FA. Lol. This is very outstanding, going beyond and above what a article is. Outstanding (but not too much) length, plentiful facts, truth and only the truth, along with great headers and minimal grammar errors.
 * 7) – Per all!
 * 8) - Per all. It should have been featured a long time ago.
 * 9) - Well written, lots of images, and it's called The Mario Wiki
 * 10) - This is great article.

Oppose

 * 1) Ok it looks like everything is in good shape but... the cross-overs section is completely off-topic. It talks about Pac-Man, not Mario. And what about Mario Kart Arcade GP 2? Where's that information?
 * 2) Interactions with other characters and Appearances outside of electronic media can surely have more information. Also, comics?
 * 3) This article is terrible. It's poorly written, poorly organised, missing vital information, and doesn't cover anything well at all. It is by far one of the worst character articles on this site.
 * The "Other Spin-Offs" section has to be integrated into the History section. There are still so many appearances missing, e.g. those in the Club Nintendo magazine. Seriously, I don't see a way to feature this any time soon. Mario just appeared in too many sources which we all have to cover if we want to feature the article.
 * Ok, so the things I stated are fixed. Everything is fine, except for the cross-overs section (poorly written and it doesn't talk about the subject at all, plus no source) and there's a serious lack of images in the characteristics section. I also believe that the Super Mario 3D series should get mentioned first before the Yoshi series, but that's minor. (And I hate it how people say on their second reason for support: It's the Super "MARIO" wiki. Don't ask, I just do). I'll support if these things are fixed and I don't catch any more mistakes.
 * 1) - Now what does this make me think of...? I don't know, but I do know is that the article has a construction template, the article's sections are way too short and I'm sure it could be rewritten to be way better.

Marioguy1

 * 1) -- The article does not have a construction template. ; Which sections? ; Being "sure that it could be written way better" isn't really a reason.
 * 2) Per.

ForeverDaisy09

 * 1) -- Not specefied as to where it is poorly written. Not specified as to what vital information is missing. Despite saying that things are not covered well, claims that the article has too much information.

Comments
The NSMBW section needs to be expanded before I support. And it wouldn't hurt to add a few more images at the top of the page.

@Reversinator: Please make your oppose more specific. "Lots" and "Tons" are meaningless words if we don't know which sections you're talking about. --

@FD09: Could you also clarify what exactly you would like to see improved? --

@BLF: What makes you think Super Mario Galaxy isn't a series? There's a game one, and a game two. Looks like a series to me. --
 * Usually, we only have a "Super Mario series" where we put SMB, SMW, SMS, NSMB, SMG, NSMB2 etc.
 * OK, I'll resort them then. Although, I included the Yoshi series as a subsection already, since Yoshi's Island is Super Mario World 2, if that's all right. --

Because I don't want to edit your original comment, I'll re-paste every point you made, and cross them out as I go along, as well as comments for each one.


 * The intro has an "uncited" statement. (It's been "cited" now.)
 * The history section groups different types of games when it should cover each game separately, in the order of release. (According to Time Q Here, and the Manual of Style Here, it's correct at this point.)
 * I couldn't even find his description for appearing in comics or cartoons. (But yet you criticized the "Apperances outside of Electronic Media section as being "the wrost random section")
 * The spin-offs are completely separated from the main history section regardless of the fact I had a gigantic proposal removed about why we should separate the comics and cartoons from the videogames but someone here seems to think it's okay to separate spin-offs which obviously have more to do with video-game sof the main series than comics or cartoons ever could. (Is there a specific rule about this?)
 * The Brawl sections is ridiculous. Characters do not need a whole 'nother character box. And the moves should have their own page. Finally, the coverage of what he does in brawl should be left to the subspace emissary page while it should simply sum up his role in the game. (There was a proposal a long time ago that merged all of the moves with the respective character article, so that's fine.)
 * Why do the sports games just combine every sports game together? Aside from Mario Party which doesn't usually have a story, I've been able to write full descriptions on Daisy's appearances in spin-offs, Mario's should be even easier to write about. (I don't really understand what you mean on this one)
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. this is something I can deal with myself, as any moron can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly. (Flaming is bad. :
 * His powers and abilities is written out in different tabs. WHY? No other character's is like this. (Why not?)
 * His powerups section has its own mini gallery? BECAUSE? No. His art gallery is here for a reason. (To give a visual representation for each power-up while the reader reads the verbal discriptions would be my guess.)
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is ridiculous and unnecessary. (Where do we draw the line?)
 * He has a cameos section which seems very random and badly done. (I may organize that section a little better, but how is it random?)
 * He has an occupations section when while Mario has done certain things doesn't mean we can just say it is one of his "jobs". No. (Occupation doesn't necessarily mean "job", but the section is pointless nonetheless so it's been removed.)
 * Half of his Aliases are from the cartoons and aside from that why is this here? If by chance a character calls him a certain name it should be something covered on the games story section on the games article or if possible his interactions section. Why does this page have so many sections no other page would use? (What's wrong with the names being from the cartoons? Canonicity has been long-abandoned.)
 * Why in his official statistics/profiles section are the smash sections both randomly at the bottom? (I'll probably get to reordering that so it's chronological by series)
 * What a truly pathetic image gallery. Does anyone know how easy it would be to get screenshots of the Mario series main character for every game he's been in? Just as so for his artworks? Wow. (Ok, did you not see the link in the section to Mario/Gallery? There was a proposal about this long back.)
 * Why aren't his video-game quotes linking back to the quotes section rather than being on his page? Isn't even Peach's fixed like that? Ugh.
 * Appearances outside of electronic media, wow really? Quite possibly the wrost random section I've seen on this page. (Ya rly [insert owl]. But yes, Mario has appeared in comic books, merchandise, toys, etc.)
 * You call that a trivia section? (I wouldn't call it the Quotes section)

--

What is this? That's not proof.
 * Thiel, Art (2003). Out of Left Field: How the Mariners Made Baseball Fly in Seattle. Sasquatch Books. pp. 44–45
 * You're missing the point. It's technically fitting to the style, but it is not well done. It can be better.
 * Because it doesn't go with the manual of style. Get it?
 * What do you mean, specific rule?
 * Yes it's fine in terms of whether or not it's allowed to be like that, but it's still terrible looking. I'll just have to create a proposal to undo that then.
 * What I mean is, rather than have a section for each game Mario has been in, it just groups together each sports game from a specific series into one paragraph rather than how the Daisy history section is written.
 * Flaming is bad? I flamed an undefined group of people. Are you kidding me?
 * Why not? That's not a defense. If that's the best you can do then don't try to nominate an article. Why not? Because it makes his section unfitting to the style of EVERY other page.
 * Your guess doesn't back-up why it is here in terms of its relevance to the style of the page. I'll be removing it.
 * We draw the line somewhere along the lines of characters like Rosalina. I'll do this myself as well I guess.
 * Lets see how you organize it first then.
 * Alright then.
 * "Canonicity"(not a word) isn't the point. Don't bring that into this. "Canonicity" has nothing to do with how relevant the cartoons are to the video-games. As you respect that there isn't a canon don't try to group different types of media into one.
 * Okay then.
 * Somehow I knew someone who replied to that would act like I didn't know. The questions is, DID YOU? The screenshots section still has VERY FEW images and the artworks are missing many as well.
 * Yes, and this section should cover that elsewhere, not on his page itself.
 * Neither would I, because it's terribly done.

FD09


 * Actually, canonicity is a word. --
 * True.


 * Your fifth from last point makes no sense. If there's no canon, we should treat every appearance exactly the same. If you separate them by media, you make an assumption; if you put them all together, you make no assumption at all. Don't try to avoid those standards again.

FD09
 * The intro has an "uncited" statement. The statement added now has no proof that it's even real PROOF.
 * The history section groups different types of games when it should cover each game separately, in the order of release. Mario as the main character should be able to have full descriptions for each game, including spin-offs, I can't say this enough.
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. This is something I can deal with myself, as any person can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly.
 * His powers and abilities is written out in different tabs. WHY? No other character's is like this.
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is unnecessary.
 * If by chance a character calls him a certain name it should be something covered on the games story section on the games article or if possible his interactions section. Why does this page have so many sections no other page would use?
 * Why in his official statistics/profiles section are the smash sections both randomly at the bottom?
 * Does anyone know how easy it would be to get screenshots of the Mario series main character for every game he's been in? Just as so for his artworks? Wow.
 * Why aren't his video-game quotes linking back to the quotes section rather than being on his page? Isn't even Peach's fixed like that?


 * It's a book reference.
 * They're supposed to be sectionalized by series.
 * It would be very helpful if you could do that.
 * Because he has so many more compared to other characters, and it's easier to read.
 * Which ones do you think are unneccessary? IMHO, it seems like each of them are significant enough.
 * Because we don't have specific guidelines that every article must follow, and thus some articles have sections :that others do not. Just because something has more than everything else does does not make it bad.
 * It's been reordered to be by chronological appearance now.
 * There's already a separate page for a gallery, is that not enough?
 * I still don't understand what you mean.




 * So what? You could add the information of any random book. For proof we need something like a scan of the page or a quote from the book. Just recently I had to remove made up quotes for the koopalings because someone said they were from the manual when, while the manual had quotes for the koopalings, they were completely different quotes. We need real proof.
 * Yes, but they can still cover each game under the specific section. Otherwise it's missing the potential to be fulfilled. Why are you making up excuses to not improve the article?


 * I'm sure it can be changed regardless.


 * It does make it bad if it's not good. Self explanatory.


 * Okay, you just missed the whole point. It's not the smaller gallery that I'm complaining about, not in that sense. The gallery page's gallery is even still extremely small. Once again the whole point is that it can be improved, and once again, with ease. FD09


 * Here. Google book preview. Page 45, look at it. I hope you are now satisfied. (And no, the author is not a liar, if that's what you're going to say)
 * Don't assume that I'm making excuses to not improve the article. (I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish; in fact, perhaps you should do it yourself, if you're accusing me of making excuses :/ )
 * Ok. That's not really a valid oppose, though.
 * What's bad about tabbed Abilities?
 * The character page is being nominated, not the gallery page, so somewhat irrelevant. "It can be improved" is not a valid oppose.

BLOFFY: I see no construction template anywhere and the Super Mario Galaxy "Series" and the New Super Mario Bros. "Series" are reverted to just Super Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros. Too bad this article DOES need more images. Or else your vote can qualify for deletion. Heh.
 * I've added images to the history section and some of the others (power-ups section, physical traits section, etc. about 15 images). @BLOF: Are there any sections you find that still lack images? --

Uhm, hello? My comments are what clarify what's wrong with the page, you can't remove my vote. The fact you think this page is good enough is just, ... silly. If you care about this article enough to want it to be featured, you should try to fix it as much as possible first. Come on now. STILL NOT RESOLVED: FD09
 * Mario as the main character should be able to have full descriptions for each game, including spin-offs, I can't say this enough. I wrote out Daisy's game appearances in full detail regardless of the fact they're spin-offs. Someone should be able to do even better with Mario's.
 * His personal descriptions are terrible and spaced out across the page. This is something I can deal with myself, as any person can write about a character's appearance, it just seems I'm the only one who knows how to do it correctly.
 * His powers and abilities is written out differently than other characters when it can be the same.
 * His interactions with other characters seems to cover every single person he has a relationship with. While other characters might still need a section for Mario on their own page, having every character here is unnecessary.
 * His gallery section is missing tons of screenshots, still. I mean the main gallery page of course. Also, this IS related to the article as a whole regardless of the fact it is technically on a separate page.


 * Why should the powers and abilities be written the same? The way it is now works perfectly fine. There are many things it could be, such as purple font.
 * No, it doesn't cover every single person. It only covers the most important ones.
 * No, it actually isn't related because it's not the same article. That's like opposing for an article because its Quotes page is bad, or opposing for a Game article because its Glitches pages is bad, etc, etc, etc.

--

FD09, I think you're overreacting. This article seems near FA worthy, it just needs a complete rewrite on this section.