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 Gr e at Llama^moo? 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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 Gr e at Llama^moo? 18:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose the apperances section has no lead paragraph, and the "Cameos and allusions" is too stubby. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]