MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/Super Mario Bros.

Super Mario Bros.

Support

1. Byllant (talk) - I bring back this rejected old nomination again, now the Development section is there. For the rest of the article, everything is well-written (there could be a small typo anywhere, though), a lot of images, article size is good, still needs more references, but eventually we'll find them.

Oppose

1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) If it still needs references, it doesn't get featured until we do. The game logo is clearly not artwork either. It's a sprite. Plus, the trivia section is quite long.
2. Commander Code-8 (talk)The story section looks as though it was written by a child. So No
3. Reversinator (talk) The Developement section has been plagiarized from Nintendopedia.

Comments

In your summary: "The long-awaited Developement section is here, partially edited from the Nintendopedia"

Tell me you hadn't plagiarized it -_-; BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I said partially, obviously I didn't just copy and paste, that would been inapropiate. Byllant (talk)

So in other words, you copy and pasted it, and then changed it? Reversinator (talk)

@BLOF: What do you mean when you say "The game logo is clearly not artwork either. It's a sprite."? --Marcelagus (talk)

• (I must recuse myself from supporting/opposing again, having edited both the talkpage and the article.)
  • BLOF: Someone drew the boxart; someone drew Mario, in all his fiery glory; someone drew the font on the box; someone drew the "Action Series" logo; someone drew the Nintendo logo. It's art. Sprites are a type of art. That is a nonissue.
  • Copying and pasting, then changing a few words is still plagarism. Someone else wrote it in the first place, and even if you replace (as an example) "kill" with "stomp" it's still someone else's work. You haven't changed the underlying meaning, the sentence structure -- nothing. The only way to add new material is to write it yourself. Toadfan (talk)