Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario/archive1

Mario

Self-nom, and my first attempt at an FAC. I have been working on this article for a matter of months, and I feel that it is very comprehensive on the subject, uses the NPOV, and is a good length. —The Great Llama^moo? 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Object. While the article looks fine, I've picked up a couple problems from the lead.

• The second sentence just stops the flow. Can it be expanded?
• In the third sentence, "two-dimensional sprites", "three-dimensional", and "polygonal models" should be wikilinked.
• In the third paragraph, the first sentence sounds weaselly, and "becoming synonymous with video games" should be changed too, "and his image has become synonymous with video games."
• The third sentence in that paragraph is vague and kinda redundant; the second sentence has already established Mario's games are best-sellers.
• The last sentence mentions the television, film, and comics without giving them a proper introduction to the reader.

I'll read more later.--Dark Kubrick 04:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Too fancrufty. Moving "Conception and creation" up to be the first section would be a start at improvement. There was a recent video game character article nominated that was quite good and could be used as a template for yours. Can anyone remember what it was called? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I, personally, would have waited longer on this. I was making suggestions at peer review and everything specific I suggested had been done, but I had only had time to review a small part of the article. One of the broad comments I had made was about reducing the "Characteristics" section, which has been done a little, but I still feel there is too much relative to the real world significance in the article. I would love to see this as a featured article, but I'm just not sure it's ready yet. Jay32183 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay then, it could definitely use some more improvement. I'll (and other editors), will try to improve it some more. Obviously not FA quality yet. —The Great Llama^moo? 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Article does not conform generally to the encyclopedic standard required for FA. For this kind of subject matter (reiterating a point made above), it is critical that the tone eschew any semblance of fan-driven enthusiasm. Eusebeus 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Complete paragraphs are uncited. Needs some work. Very good effort on the article though, Llama man. Good luck. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose the apperances section has no lead paragraph, and the "Cameos and allusions" is too stubby. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: To me, this isn't as bad as people are makign it out to be. I'd shorten the baby mario section a bit and move the abilities close to the top of the article. Plus, the lead isn't flowing well. --Wizardman 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - not encyclopedic enough, lacks depth of coverage on real world perspective. Appearance section needs a complete rewrite. Addhoc 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)