Editing MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Mario Kart 8

__NOTOC__
===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||3}}]]===
{{FANOMSTAT
|nominated=21:29, 16 October 2014
|passed=<!--When it is 5-0, put the time (such as 12:10, 11 December 2012) of the fifth support/removal of last oppose by copying it from the history of the page.-->
}}
==== Support ====
#{{User|The Mario Gamer}}Mario Kart 8 has been big, and it is a good article
#{{User|TikalFan9000}}
#{{User|Likesorange}}
#{{User|Whitey}}
#{{User|Nintendoplayerawesome}}
#{{User|Despyria}}
#{{User|Daemon64}}
#{{User|Iggy Koopa777}}
#{{User|SuperLuigi74}}
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}
#{{User|Thedaisyfan}}
#{{User|ToadBoy1999}}
#{{User|Chivi-chivik}}
#{{User|Peteyking64}}
#{{User|Superstarxalien169}}
#{{User|kyokencl}}
#{{User|YoshiJr}}
#{{User|SuperMarioBros}}
#{{User|TheCookieMan}}

==== Oppose ====
#{{User|Mario}} 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?
#{{User|3D Player 2004}} per Mario, DLC is coming out for the game soon as well which will cause the article to become more outdated over time.
#{{User|Time Turner}} 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#Characters|Mario Kart Arcade GP 2]] and [[Mario_Kart_DS#Drivers|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.
#{{User|Boo4761}} Per Time Turner.
#{{User|Tsunami}} 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.
#{{User|Mario7}} Per all. Also, with the upcoming DLC, there are unknown portions and conjectural names, which gives it an unprofessional look.

==== Removal of Opposes ====

==== Comments ====

Big isn't everything when it comes to Featured Articles. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}}

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. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 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. {{User:Tails777/sig}}

::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. [[User:Despyria|Despyria]] ([[User talk: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... {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
: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. {{User:Mario/sig}} 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. {{User:RandomBob-omb4761/sig}}
: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. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}
::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. {{User:Mario/sig}} 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? {{User:Iggy Koopa777/sig}}

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. {{User:Mario/sig}} 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#Characters|Mario Kart Arcade GP 2]] and [[Mario_Kart_DS#Drivers|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. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}}
::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. {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
:::I agree. I may do a draft in my Sandbox today or when I have time. {{User:Tsunami/sig}}

@Tsunami: "Random" votes often happen because it's a high traffic article, so many misinformed users come in and vote because they like how informative the article is, or they like the subject matter. But it doesn't matter how many people support the article, if our opposes remain up to December 15, then the nomination fails. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:26, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
 ===[[{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||3}}]]===
-{{FANOMFAIL
+{{FANOMSTAT
 |nominated=21:29, 16 October 2014
-|lastedit=21:29, 15 November 2014
+|passed=<!--When it is 5-0, put the time (such as 12:10, 11 December 2012) of the fifth support/removal of last oppose by copying it from the history of the page.-->
 }}
 ==== Support ====
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 #{{User|SuperMarioBros}}
 #{{User|TheCookieMan}}
-#{{User|Luma223}}
-#{{User|Hippopo}}
-#{{User|LucinaSuitSamus}}
-#{{User|Smash Bros}}
-#{{User|WiiURob}}
-#{{User|ErnestoAM}}
-#{{User|Tails Nick}}
 ==== Oppose ====
@@ Line 40: / Line 33: @@
 #{{User|Tsunami}} 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.
 #{{User|Mario7}} Per all. Also, with the upcoming DLC, there are unknown portions and conjectural names, which gives it an unprofessional look.
-#{{User|Toadbrigade5}} Per all, I feel the proposal was too fan support only, and that its being featured not because of how the article looks, but what the article is of. I don't think thats a fair idea.
 ==== Removal of Opposes ====
 ==== Comments ====
 Big isn't everything when it comes to Featured Articles. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}}
@@ Line 77: / Line 70: @@
 @Tsunami: "Random" votes often happen because it's a high traffic article, so many misinformed users come in and vote because they like how informative the article is, or they like the subject matter. But it doesn't matter how many people support the article, if our opposes remain up to December 15, then the nomination fails. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:26, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
-:While Mario Kart 8 is great and it's article is in good condition, I was half wanting to oppose and half wanting to support. The question on my mind was: Will the article be worth it? I'm going on an edge here. {{User:TheCookieMan/sig}} 9:08 p.m. October 24, 2014 (EDT)
-::Worth what? There's no point in supporting it since it won't do anything to make the article closer to featuring. Once our opposition has been satisfied, then it will be worth it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:34, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
-People should really stop supporting the nomination. This isn't like the proposals; if the opposition still stands by the end of the limit, it fails. {{User:BabyLuigi64/sig}}
-:Per this, Just look what happened to the first Super Mario 3D World nomination. Most of the support votes are fan votes or they are beginner Mariowikiests. {{User:Boo4761/sig}}
-::I'm cynical, but it's not stopping fan votes. We had this problem with the [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N1/Luigi Luigi] and [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N1/Mario Mario] nominations or [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N2/Mario_%28series%29 Super Mario (series)]. But guess what, none of them succeeded. It was much worse back then, with Luigi's nominaiton going for ''years'' before finally being shut down because of stagnation. Guys, chill, once we hit December 15 sometime, the nomination will fail. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:24, 15 November 2014 (EST)