Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dr. Mario/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Dr. Mario edit
Dr. Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe, after working on it slowly over a substantial length of time, it is as thoroughly complete as it will ever be and that it is an article of outstanding quality. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The article is not comprehensive/thoroughly-researched - there is little coverage of its initial release, and no coverage from its native Japan.
- There's only one review contemporaneous with the original release, and that review disagrees with the consensus statement that precedes it. If the game "reeks of plagiarism", what is it plagiarising? I'm assuming it's Tetris.
- What about coverage from EGM, GamePro, Game Players, Famitsu? I don't know if all those publications covered the game, but all those magazines were active at that time. EGM definitely reviewed the Game Boy version in issue 16.
- Mean Machines reviews both Game Boy and NES versions in issue 5. Why not use that source?
- In the reviews box, Metacritic and Gamerankings say the same thing. Although I know other editors in the VG space enjoy this redundancy.
- In the reviews box, there is no way that Play (UK magazine) reviewed the game. The reference on the Play score suggests you don't have access to the source, hence you don't know the page number or byline. So why is it there?
- The leading phrase of the Legacy section, "Following the commercial success of this game", has nothing to back it up. No sales figures, no chart data. I don't doubt that it was a commercial success, it couldn't have cost a lot to develop, but there is no source.
- Oppose I concur with much of what Hahnchen says above. Spelling is not consistent: there seem to be examples of both main variants of English. Date formats also need to be consistent. --John (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, unfortunately, per Hahnchen. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.