MarioWiki:Featured articles/Unfeature/N1/Super Mario 3D World

Super Mario 3D World

Remove featured article status

1. Time Turner (talk) The intro is extremely short, several tables are incompatible with mobile, and the images are distractingly inconsistent between each other, alternating between actual artwork and screenshots both with and without HUDs (not to mention how quite a few images are low quality).
2. Baby Luigi (talk) Per Time Turner. The intro needs to be expanded a lot more than this, the bare bones amount of information especially for the infobox, as it was one of the shining examples of bad intros in this thread. The enemies and objects table is especially incompatible with mobile, if you want to make it less of a scroll fest, the best you could do is to decrease sizes of images.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Time Turner.
4. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
5. YoshiStar28 (talk) Per all on this one.

Keep featured article status

1. Lcrossmk8 (talk) There is not much to say in the intro at all, and as for everything else, I can fix it.

Removal of support/oppose votes

Lcrossmk8

1. Baby Luigi (talk) Yes there is much to say in the intro. Take a look at how several others article in the wiki do it, especially at how some recently featured articles do it. Mario Party: The Top 100, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Mario Sports Superstars, and the current Mario Kart 8. All of them have lengthy, adequate intros that do a good job explaining the game. In this case, how is two sentences enough to introduce readers to freaking Super Mario 3D World? If Mario Party: The Top 100 out of all games can have a decent enough intro, why does this article do only the bare minimum? Hell, did you even read my oppose? I'll link to you this thread again, which this article is one of the centerpiece examples of bad intros. And you can't keep featured article status until after you wrote the changes, not before you actually make them. Results are far more important than things you'll say you do: by this logic, we should feature Mario Party: Island Tour because I am working on that article, despite its incomplete state.
2. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Baby Luigi.
3. Time Turner (talk) Per all. It doesn't matter what you think you can do in the future, as it stands now, the article's not good.

Comments

The table for the characters seems to exist solely so that they can have a fancy table. I'm also reasonably confident that the star ratings for all of them are entirely made-up. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:02, 24 November 2017 (EST)

We could just delete the stars altogether and no information would be lost. I also hate the recent trend of stuffing tables one long line (another example is the boss listings in Super Mario Odyssey, as if all computers were wide-screen and could handle it without sidescrolling issues.). I mean, if the numbers were uneven, I'd see the point but for both articles, the lists are perfectly divisible, with Super Mario Odyssey's bosses being able to fit in a 3x3 table and this one a 2x3 one. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:04, 24 November 2017 (EST)

I have a couple of examples of the character table I was working on here during the conversation that happened on Discord days ago, if any of those are good. 15:06, 24 November 2017 (EST)

We have to nix the star ratings altogether since Time Turner is confident they're made up. We should keep the written "advantages" and "disadvantages" in there, since they relay confirmed information unlike the star ratings. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:08, 24 November 2017 (EST)

To add onto that (to not make it seem like I'm just making my logic up), there's an edit revision that bumped up the number of stars from three to five for "a more 'detailed' comparison." I don't think they'd be arbitrarily changed like that if they were based on an existing source. Earlier revisions also show this for the character table, and that seems perfectly fine.

(Incidentally, the edit that added the stars in the first place had its summary removed, which is... odd.) Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:15, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Well that edit summary is from Mechawave, probably saying something very condescending with bad language in there since he does have the attitude for that. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:19, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Summary was removed because of inappropriate reasons. Anyway, a number system was also discussed, like 3/5 for Mario's jump, 1/5 for Peach's speed, etc. or something. imo, there's nothing exactly wrong with whatever system we use as long as it details the highs and lows, be it stars, numbers, or words. 15:21, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Having a gauge system implies that there is an official stat system out there when there is not. We should not use a stat system if one does not exist. Words are more descriptive and meaningful than made-up stats on the spot. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:23, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Per. Just tell people what's different instead of using overly simplistic stats. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:24, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Ah, I see. 15:25, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Well, here are the actual stats of the characters, which will likely require a new page if you want them to be in (they are mainly useful for speedrunners, which admittedly are a focus of this wiki now). The stars are indeed not correct, even the advantages and disadvantages aren't, actually, as for example Peach and Rosalina sprint at the same moment and have the same speed.--Mister Wu (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Yeaaahhh some of these have to be explained. Ray Trace^(T|C) 17:47, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Do we really need to go in-depth on every single one of these? Just saying "this character jumps higher" and whatnot would suffice for me. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:08, 28 November 2017 (EST)

We did went ridiculously in-depth with the Mario Kart stats articles, though. Ray Trace^(T|C) 14:25, 28 November 2017 (EST)

At the very least, that ridiculousness isn't easily readable, and a more concise summary would be more helpful to readers. The in-depth stats could be included on another page, like the Mario Kart 8 in-game statistics. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:35, 28 November 2017 (EST)

That's what I want to do should we go that route. Keep the general, easy to read information on the main article, allocate the more technical stuff to its own dedicated article. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:21, 28 November 2017 (EST)

Just so you know, I absolutely don't want to include all stats in the table or in the main article, it would be too much vertical scrolling with little benefit to many users who would find it difficult to read the most important information among the stats. My point was just that the actual statistics revealed that the stars and the current descriptions are indeed incorrect, and must be corrected according to the now-known stats. Regarding the page with the actual statistics of the characters, I'm open to making it, if it might be useful for speedrunners.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2017 (EST)

Added improvement tags to the article. Also, shouldn't the purple-media needed template be another strike against this article's feature status? Ray Trace^(T|C) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (EST)

@BabyLuigi: No, there is not. If there was a lot to say in the intro, then why in the world did it never get expanded for a long time, or even get fixed on in the first place? It is only now that we actually address the issue, and that is not good. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2017 (EST)

The same reason we even have the ability to unfeature articles. Oversights happen, humans are not perfect, and when an article is reanalyzed for flaws, some more can pop up that weren't caught the first time. It's why we write multiple drafts for papers. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:27, 16 December 2017 (EST)

@Lcrossmk8, that's a good start, but again, I've linked to you examples of how other pages do intros if you want to take inspiration from them. Develop it some more to be on par, the intro still needs expanding. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (EST)