MarioWiki:PAIR

It has been decided that the Super Mario Wiki will no longer support this feature. This page is kept and protected strictly for historical purposes.

Panel for Article Improvement & Recognition

As an optional part of the renewed FA process, PAIR can help toward getting an article ready for an FA nomination and have a high enough quality to pass voting requirements, but again is not mandatory.

Panel Members

Members need to :

• be dedicated to this work & active
• be experienced and successful writers
• will respond to request for review, from Category:Review Requested asap
• refrain from extending this list past 12 for the time being

1. HK-47 (talk)
2. Gofer
3. Pokemon DP (talk)
4. Cobold (talk)
5. Plumber (talk)
6. Knife
7. Phoenix Rider (talk)
8. Xzelion (talk)
9. Reversinator (talk)
10. Reddragon19k

Process

This is an optional first stage for the FA process, more importantly a way to improve an article's quality over time.

Example: A user or group of users have extensive knowledge of a certain subject in the Marioverse (i.e. Game/Character) and want to improve the article to FA status.

1. User(s) ask two reviewers for scores using {{PAIRreview}}, judging article on accuracy (facts), depth (details), grammar, images (# and quality), and formatting (organized) on a scale from 0-4 in .5 increments, on the talk page of the article. They should use {{PAIRrequest}} for efficiency. A final rating out of 20 is given by adding the individual ratings. Reviewers in the comments give suggestions for improvement, or what they disliked.
2. Article is worked on for one week, then the same two reviewers review it again. If there are no changes after a week, the users have to seek the reviewers when they are ready for another review session, but they must wait at least one week, even if they are ready (preferably, there's always something to improve)
3. Review can be justified by users working on article and by other reviewer as reasonable to be considered official, but since this is a general gist of the article's quality, and scores do not matter when nominating the article as an FA, it is not necessary to justify.

---

In the end, it is up to the users who want an article to be the best it can be and the reviewers to help them – they must work together.

Archive

PAIRreview for Boo by Gofer - July 30, 2007‎, 17:36 GMT
Accuracy	2.5	Relatively accurate, the only really major error I found was the "Streche are boo with long body." thing. There's a few minor error, but nothing glaring.
Depth	2.0	I found the "What make a Boo a Boo." section quite nice, especially considering than th past Fa Goomba didn't have such a thing. UNfortunately, most of the section is pretty much speculation (The "Bigger Hideout = More powerful Boo" thing is an example.) As for the article,It could use some depth, for example, the SMRPG section don't have much information while the same section on Big Boo have load and load of information. The SUper Paper Mario section is welll, an one-liner, unnceptable. It also lack much information for the spinoff game, esspecially Mario Striker charged.
Grammar	3.0	I let soemone else review that.
Images	3.0	Good, The article could use some more, IMO.
Formatting	4.0	Good, no problem here.
Final Rating:	14.5	Slighty above average, not FA worthy.Full of POV and speculation, also.
Reviewer:	Gofer - July 30, 2007‎, 17:36 GMT doc

PAIRreview for Boo by Knife - July 31, 2007‎, 19:51 GMT
Accuracy	2.0	The speculation and POV in this article is what really killed the score.
Depth	2.0	Some one-liners, the depth isn't that great. To fix this, writers should add a little info on the sub-species that were also present in the game. Also, some sections are unorganized. Why is the Paper Mario section at the bottom?
Grammar	3.0	Grammar is a little off in a few areas and can get confusing.
Images	3.5	A few more would help, but the aligning is still not very nice to look at.
Formatting	3.5	Slight, minor problems like some &ndashs are missing in the list of subspecies and perhaps a scroll box is needed to cut down the size from templates.
Final Rating:	14	An average article, but will need a lot of work before it can even get nominated.
Reviewer:	Knife - July 31, 2007‎, 19:51 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Cap by Reversinator - March 9, 2010, ‎00:13 GMT
Accuracy	3.0	For what information it has, it's correct information.
Depth	2.5	With an article on something as ambiguous as a cap, you'd expect something more... larger. I mean, it says that many characters wear caps, and yet it doesn't even give us a list of all these cap-wearers.
Grammar	2.0	Grammatical errors are piled throughout the article.
Images	2.5	Again, for what information the article has, there's enough images to go with the article. I only wish that an image of Goombario's hat itself was used and a gallery of caps was here.
Formatting	2.5	I don't have much to work with. There are little images, so I can't do much here.
Final Rating:	12.5	Let's see... needs more images, more expanding, less gramatical errors, and some more finishing touches.
Reviewer:	Reversinator - March 9, 2010, ‎00:13 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Coin by Reversinator - March 2, 2010‎, 17:18 GMT
Accuracy	2.5	Like a lot of articles, accuracy's hit and miss. I'll name one: at the beginning of the article, it says when Mario gets 100 coins, the player gets a 1-up, when obviously Mario gets the 1-Up.
Depth	2.5	I know you can't go into that much depth with coins, but surely more information could be added.
Grammar	2.5	There are many grammar error littered throughout the article.
Images	1.0	Where are all the images? I have never seen so little images in an article with so many sections. More than three quarters of the whole article needs images.
Formatting	2.5	I don't have much to work with. There are little images and little templates, so I can't do much here.
Final Rating:	11	This article needs some major rewriting and expanding.
Reviewer:	Reversinator - March 2, 2010‎, 17:18 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Goomba by Reversinator - February 23, 2010‎, 17:08
Accuracy	3.5	It's a good, accurate article, but sometimes it screws up. Like when it says Yoshi saved Mario in Super Mario 64, when in fact it happened in its remake, Super Mario 64 DS.
Depth	3.0	Again, it has some depth, but some sections, like New Super Mario Bros., New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Paper Mario, really could be more in-depth.
Grammar	3.5	Grammatical errors are few, yet they do make an appearance every now and then.
Images	2.0	Normally, the problem with articles is that there's too many images, but here, there's not enough images. The Lost Levels, Super Mario World, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, the Super Mario Land series, the Nintendo comics, Super Mario Adventures, Club Nintendo, the Mario Party series, the Smash Bros. series and Bowser's Inside Story are all missing images.
Formatting	3.5	Like lots of articles, the Paper Mario templates leave a big blank, which is annoying. Also, the infobox at the beginning stretches the page, when it could be removed by adding |expand=expandable so easily.
Final Rating:	15.5	This article is hit and miss. It's lacking in depth, lots of images could be added and the formatiing could use a fix-up.
Reviewer:	Reversinator - February 23, 2010‎, 17:08 doc

---

PAIRreview for Luigi by Gofer - July 22, 2007, 23:20 GMT
Accuracy	2.0	Its not very accurate, for example, the SM2 section state that he woke up, while in fact, it was Mario.
Depth	2.0	There isn't a lot of depth. It mostly say "Blablabla Luig defeated Bowser Blablablabla. It also lack information on some of the more obscure game like Hotel Mario or When I grow up
Grammar	2.0	Can't review that TOO much... But some of the sentense seem weird and there's a lot of time where the article refer directly to the reader.
Images	2.0	This article is cluttered up with them. Why put two near-identical image in the same section?
Formatting	2.0	There alway at least a template that bug and screw up the page, that may be just me, thought.
Final Rating:	10	Overall bad/average article. Far from Fa-worthy. The article is also full of POV, useles info ("Yoshi have showed to be as good as luig on his two feets" What?) and have some pretty horendous writting (Look at King Boo in the relationshpi section for what I mean). Meh.
Reviewer:	Gofer - July 22, 2007, 23:20 GMT doc

PAIRreview for Luigi by Knife - July 23, 2007‎, 20:55 GMT
Accuracy	2.5	Horribly inaccurate, agreeing with Gofer-hole above.
Depth	1.5	Content-wise, it needs a lot of work. The relationships sections are good enough, but someone should remove a few unworthy relationships like Luigi to Wario, Luigi to DK, or Luigi to Yoshi. They don't really have much of a relationship. A few sections could be merged for the apparent lack of good content. I can understand the lack of content in the platformers series, but as for the M&L series? The sections for Luigi in the ML series could be greatly expanded. Perhaps folllow the writing style given in the last section.
Grammar	2.5	Many spelling mistake, punctuation errors, etc.. The paragraphs usually only consist of 3 or 2 sentences.
Images	3.0	The images could work, but with the short amount of content, they look more messy than helpful.
Formatting	3.5	If you inspect the whole article, you will find a lot of them.
Final Rating:	13	This article is very far from FA worthy. The main part of it that needs work is the Biography and relationship sections. I hope someone can fix it.
Reviewer:	Knife - July 23, 2007‎, 20:55 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Mario by Reversinator - April 11, 2010‎, 12:58 GMT
Accuracy	3.5	So now I'm critizing Mr. Nintendo's article. Huh. Anyways, about the accuracy. Like a lot of articles, it's mostly accurate, but screws up in a few parts. Like in the Super Mario Bros. section, where it said that it was the first Mario platformer, when in fact it was the game Mario Bros.
Depth	2.0	Lots of games are missing in this article. Some of them are spin-offs, some of them are obscure games. Either way, they belong here.
Grammar	3.5	Thankfully, there are few grammatical errors, but as always, they still make an appearance.
Images	3.0	This is one of the few articles where I don't need to place a MoreImages template. But since there are missing sections, there are missing images.
Formatting	4.0	All the images and templates are A-OK.
Final Rating:	16	This article is better than most of the articles that I've seen, but it still isn't FA material.
Reviewer:	Reversinator - April 11, 2010‎, 12:58 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Mario Kart DS by HK-47 - July 22, 2007, 21:20 GMT
Accuracy	3.5	Er... Its accurate. Yay.
Depth	3.0	Actually, there isn't a whole lot of depth for such a long article.
Grammar	3.0	I found few mistakes, could use a little work there.
Images	3.0	This article is OVERWHELMED with images. I suggest taking out a few.
Formatting	3.0	Er... Its fine. Most of it. Again, the images throw it off a bit.
Final Rating:	15.5	I think the article could use a mite bit of work, but overall its fine.
Reviewer:	HK-47 - July 22, 2007, 21:20 GMT doc

PAIRreview for Mario Kart DS by Cobold - July 23, 2007 10:14 GMT
Accuracy	3.5	Might need some tweaks in the item & mission mode (not table) section, but overall accurate.
Depth	3.0	In-depth article, but not too in-depth regarding the length.
Grammar	1.5	Some grammar mistakes, many times reffering directly to the reader, point of views, exclamation marks. The Wi-Fi connection issues example lacks neutral point of view.
Images	3.0	Number of images is reasonable, but some may not fulfill any purpose.
Formatting	3.0	The WiFi and Download Play sections should appear in one block, but are separated by gameplay instructions. Karts table would need a legend.
Final Rating:	14	The article needs an overall review regarding you's and "deadly items". When a neutral point of view is reached, it can be perfect.
Reviewer:	Cobold - July 23, 2007 10:14 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Super Smash Bros. Melee by Knife - July 31, 2007‎ 20:43 GMT
Accuracy	4	This section has been fixed from the last time I reviewed it.
Depth	3.0	The article has been expanded enough to increase by .5. However, there are still a few more problems, like minor game limits are not explained (the most possible damage a character can get is 999%, the player can set 1-99 lives, how much time can a player set in how many increments, or no more than 999 Coins can be collected). There is nothing that mentions that the player can gain points in Single-Player Mode or that there are records recorded in Mission Mode. I think room can be made on the missions template to tell whether the record is measured by time or KOs. Tournament Mode needs to be expanded a little more regarding pre-tourney options. I have also forgotten one of the most important things: Critic Reception by gameranking sources. More to be explained after these are solved.
Grammar	3.5	There are still a few one liners, but I see that the majority of them are placed right under a section following many sub-sections. Instead of just pointing out the obvious, you should remove those sentences and let the sub-sections explain.
Images	3.5	I must say that this hasn't been worked on much since I last reviewed (N/O). There should be more screenshots unique to the article and one of the images are still a bit small. It needs more images on the lower half of the article though.
Formatting	3.5	Maybe another table for the courses/stages in classic and adventure mode. The Event Mode table looks a bit weird, though I'm not sure if that is intentional or not.
Final Rating:	17.5	This article is more improved from the last time and a little more might make it good enough to be nominated.
Reviewer:	Knife - July 31, 2007‎ 20:43 GMT doc

PAIRreview for Super Smash Bros. Melee by Phoenix Rider - August 17, 2007‎, 02:23 GMT
Accuracy	4	The different controls and modes are explained well and accurately. Very good quality without seeming overwhelming.
Depth	3.5	The General Moves section could be expanded, maybe adding some advanced tricks in addition to the basics. Some of the characters have long descriptions, while others just have one or two sentences. They should be even one way or the other. A few of the single-player modes could be expanded. A little more could go in the way of the Critical Reception sub-header, as I know there's a lot more the critics have said about the game.
Grammar	2.5	Minor grammar mistakes, but they happen all over the article, particularly in the single player modes.
Images	3.5	Great on the various pictures in the tables, but perhaps some screenshots of actual gameplay would work well here.
Formatting	3.5	Good balancing of text and images in the first quarter of the article. Maybe implement a show/hide feature on the tables to make it seem less overwhelming. Event Match table looks a bit odd.
Final Rating:	17	Good article, just needs a bit of tweaking of grammar and expanding on some sections.
Reviewer:	Phoenix Rider - August 17, 2007‎, 02:23 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Wii by Reversinator - April 20, 2010, 00:20 GMT
Accuracy	4.0	Well, I don't have much to work with, but I'll give it a try. I only saw one accuracy fail, and that is when it states that both Super Paper Mario and Mario Strikers Charged Footbal were each the first traditional Mario game. Make up your mind people. Other than that, it's all accurate.
Depth	2.5	I really don't see how come each of the Mario games don't have a short explination of its games, like... Alright, none of the console articles explain their games, but still, it should be done. The same goes for the Virtual Console. You explained WiiWare, so why not Virtual Console?
Grammar	3.5	Grammatical errors are few, yet they do make an appearance every now and then.
Images	4.0	Hooray! This article totally doesn't need more images!
Formatting	3.5	Sticking with my previous idea, the games should be placed in a table. It would have the short explination, an image, the date of release, and a rating. The same should be done with the channels. But looking at what's actually in the article, it's ok.
Final Rating:	17.5	While it's certainly better than many articles I've seen, it still needs a few more tweaks.
Reviewer:	Reversinator - April 20, 2010, 00:20 GMT doc

---

PAIRreview for Yoshi by Plumber - July 23, 2007‎, 02:04 GMT
Accuracy	4.0	Very accurate.
Depth	4.0	Amazingly deep.
Grammar	4.0	Fantastic grammar.
Images	3.5	This article has many images. It seems to be the right amount, though it wouldn't hurt if one or two was put in a gallery.
Formatting	4.0	Formatting is good.
Final Rating:	19.5	I think this article is one of the best in the wiki.
Reviewer:	Plumber - July 23, 2007‎, 02:04 GMT doc

PAIRreview for Yoshi by Knife - July 23, 2007‎, 20:24 GMT
Accuracy	4.0	Tis very accurate.
Depth	4.0	Very deep.
Grammar	3.5	Unfortunately, the grammar can be a little confusing and there are some sentences that consist of three or four words, while some are run-ons.
Images	3.5	The article has a good amount of images and doesn't not need anymore, however the style of arrangement is somewhat bad. Most images are aligned to the right. This is minor, but the images in the gallery could be arranged alphabetically or by date.
Formatting	4.0	It can't really get better.
Final Rating:	19	This article is amazing and well written. Good job SoS!
Reviewer:	Knife - July 23, 2007‎, 20:24 GMT doc