MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Super Mario Odyssey

Super Mario Odyssey

Support

1. FanOfYoshi (talk) The article is good enough.
2. CappyThrow (talk)(correct me if this ain't how you support) I love the article, it is helped me learn lots! I agree with this nomination!

#Mari0fan100 (talk) Ever since this article failed to be a featured article last year, it's gotten lots of improvements. There are no red links and no improvement tags. There is no flowery/informal writing, and the entire article is very organized. The New Enemies column, the Returning Enemies column, whenever an enemy can be captured or not, the number of Power Moons needed to power up the Odyssey in a certain kingdom, etc. They're all very organized. Additionally, Doomhiker just added in the critical reception this game gets. Factoring all that in, this article is now ready to become a featured article. 3. Moustachetana (talk) The game is a great game and should become a featured article. It's good enough and it is definitely ready.

Oppose

1. Super Radio (talk) see comment
2. Doomhiker (talk) Changing my mind as per Super Radio, Super Mario Odyssey's page and sister pages are not complete for multiple reasons. There is some good sister pages such as Peronza Plaza, but there are a lot more that need to be made and improved, and SMO's page is not finished for multiple reasons listed by Super Radio in the comments. Also, per Baby Luigi.
3. Baby Luigi (talk) See comment
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Super Radio and Baby Luigi.
5. MeritC (talk) It's come a long way in terms of article improvement, yes; however, checking some sections still tells me that if anything, this should still have a "under construction" tag instead of a "featured article nomination" tag. Plus some more sections could use some tables, if anything. I say no on this one.
6. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per all.
7. Mari0fan100 (talk) Finally changing my vote to oppose, as there is a rewrite/improvement tag on top on that article.
8. Benjaminkirsc (talk) Needs Attpemtion of betterness. See comment. And per Baby Luigi and SuperRadio.

Comments

I am nearly done, but it is not finished. There is a couple of sections that need tables, so I personally think that it is currently unfinished. The reason that I am not opposing is that I may be able to finish the page soon, however this nomination should of been delayed a bit longer. Doomhiker (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2019 (EST)

Uuh, where to start:

• there sure as heck is more to say about the gameplay.
• most sections regarding elements in the game are just galleries. The article shows images of characters such as Talkatoo and Pauline, implying they appear in the game, but what role do they have exactly? We may never know, unless we visit their respective pages, but you know, that takes time. If you were a regular reader looking for brief information about elements in a video game, wouldn't it be more convenient to just scroll through the page and see them all in one place? A featured article shouldn't just look nice (although honestly this can't be said about half of this page); it should have enough information in it to satisfy as many interests as possible.
• although it doesn't exactly concern the article, and some people might comment that this is not something to worry about, this article's sister pages are... well, of mixed quality. Look at the Kingdom template. See how many red links there are? Information on Super Mario Odyssey stuff is far from being covered in its entirety, with some pages being too stubby and others non-existent. I never liked it when a page of good quality about a game entices me to look for more detailed information about an element in it, only to stumble upon a stub lazily slapped in there to meet a quota.

There's some fundamental issues that need to be solved on this page if you want it to have a chance to be featured in the first place. Then there's an even longer way of maintaining good info on as many aspects of the game as possible, both on the page and on its sister articles, until everything feels like it could satisfy you as a reader. Don't do it just because no article has been featured in a while. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:08, 2 February 2019 (EST)

Also, the wildlife section is just a good ol' classic list. How do you know nobody just came up with or erroneously added something in it? I've honestly seen this before. When I touched up the Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars page, the Objects section listed things that weren't even in the game, and were probably just copy-pasted from the Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! page, while others were listed multiple times under different names. A good way to prove whether something is in the game or not is by taking screenshots and adding them to their respective element in the list. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:16, 2 February 2019 (EST)

I don't want to vote yet, but I'd like to point out that the "Clothing," "Glitches," and "Staff" sections violate MarioWiki:Empty sections. Scrooge200 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2019 (EST)

1. Intro can be maybe further expanded. Take a look at Super Mario 3D World or Mario Kart 8. Talk about its reception on the Switch, how much it sold (the best-selling Mario game on the Switch currently), etc.
2. The story section can be trimmed. We don't necessarily need to list every single kingdom Mario visits, that's what the kingdom list is for in the article; for example, the story section does not need to state that Mario has visited the darker side of the moon or that the Sand Kingdom is a listed kingdom unless said kingdom contains plot relevant elements. Merely grabbing a multi-moon after the Ruined Dragon's defeat is not plot relevant and can be cut out of the story entirely.
3. Gameplay can be further expanded, instead of merely listing Mario's returning moves from previous titles. The co-op mode of the game is just summarized in one sentence without explaining exactly how Cappy is controlled.
4. Character galleries is just an inconsistent amgladation of characters. It's only slightly better than using a mere list. In addition, is the wildlife list really necessary to the article?
5. The kingdom boss table is still really badly organized and terribly inconsistent with the enemies table (which is how they should be organized). You can easily make a 3x3 table rather than a 9x3 table that the article has. Take a look at Mario Party: Island Tour or Mario Party: Star Rush to see how their bosses are organized.
6. Article shows signs of incompletedness in its items and objects section, with a good portion of the section still having a regular gallery.
7. The reception section should be expanded on to meet articles like Mario Party: Island Tour, Mario Sports Superstars, Super Mario Party, etc. In addition, someone just copied the table from another article because the yellow cell from the reception percent from Metacritic is unchanged and inconsistent with higher scoring games like Mario Kart 8.
8. The staff section is an empty section. You can say more about it than simply a list.

And also anything that Super Radio said basically, just expanding on it. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (EST)

@Baby Luigi: I think the article at one point had a 3×3 boss table, but it was rejected. ^(T|C) 12:14, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Yes, because it was objectively ugly and tried to force Bowser as being at the end, despite that being inconsistent with the rest of it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Even so, the current table is completely incompatible with mobile devices such as my own. ^(T|C) 16:17, 3 February 2019 (EST)

The current table is far far far worse than a 3x3, and as TTA explained, utterly incompatible with mobile devices. I still don't see why the boss section should be different from the enemies section anyway? Look at Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island for instance. (also nice misuse of the word "objective" bud) Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:48, 3 February 2019 (EST)

If a table has as many row identifiers for the same subject as it does pictures in said row, that's a waste of everything, and that it just a fact. Maybe trim down the row identifiers to have the info in the same space as the image, but other than that, it's just nasty. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2019 (EST)

Either way, the solution is to add descriptions to these bosses. That would make the tables less of a waste of space. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:41, 4 February 2019 (EST)

There, BLOF, I made it a 3x3 that isn't so ugly Wario would win a beauty contest against it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2019 (EST)

Don't worry, we have almost two whole months to fix the addressed issues. Mari0fan100 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2019 (EST)

This is where you wait until everything is in tip-top shape in the article, as featured articles must meet every single requirement as much as possible. Another thing: I helped add some of the co-op info, but I'm having trouble expressing myself there. Anyone want to help improve it? ^(T|C) 12:12, 3 February 2019 (EST)

@Toadette the Achiever I expanded the co-op information and improved the critical reception section. There still is a lot that still needs to be improved and added, though. Doomhiker (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2019 (EST)

The article has been changed quite a bit. What else should be improved to remove the rewrite tag? Mari0fan100 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2019 (EST)

There are more tables that need to be added, the enemies section needs minor rewriting, there is more to be said about gameplay, the staff section needs to be more than a list, and it should be decided what to do with the wildlife section. Doomhiker (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2019 (EST)

@FanOfYoshi please note that an FA must meet all of the requirements, and as pointed out by the comments the page is far from meeting all of the requirements. Doomhiker (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Support votes don't mean anything if there are oppose votes anyway so meh Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:51, 3 February 2019 (EST)

@MeritC, which specific sections in the article need/should have a construction tag? Mari0fan100 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2019 (EST)

It's kind of a dull thing and will need alots of improvement. Anyways there is options to improve. The assemable fails the line of support =(. If you witch, there is a under condicion to give you an idea. That the end of my summary, the truth is that it is alittle organized. But some are good to show, but if there needs sharpness then go ahead and mark an improvement anywhere. But organization needs a tip. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (EST)