Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Super Mario 64/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Super Mario 64
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC) [1].

Super Mario 64 edit

Notified: Guyinblack25, WikiProject video games (plus the project's Nintendo task force), 2021-03-03

Review section edit

Super Mario 64 is an article that was promoted to FA status in 2008.... and man did it not maintain that status. The 2008 FA nominator hasn't made a single edit to the article since nearly ten years ago, and although other users have added info and content, it's not enough to keep this article FA quality. I brought up the many, many issues with this article on the talk page, with a couple of users initially considering interest in moving it back to FA quality. However, they lost interest days later due to a lack of time, so I'm taking this to featured article review.

You can go to the article's talk page for more specific details on its problems, but to put it simply, it is horribly incomplete (there's nothing about its f---ing E3 coverage, for crying out loud), disorganized and hard to navigate (at least its Reception section is), not representative of academic and scholarly literature and many contemporaneous publication opinions (even IGN's 1996 review is only mentioned for its score), has parts with a majority of their citations being unverifiable, and has so many quibbles with prose I couldn't summarize all of them simply.

If the discussion ends with the article being delisted, I'll be happy to look up the print reviews, do a lot of copyediting and (as a frequent player of Super Mario 64 and a fan of various Youtube videos about the topic) fix its gameplay section so that a lot of the most known parts of the gameplay are incorporated. As it stands, however, the article is in the red zone. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro did you read the WP:FAR instructions? Was there notice of a FAR needed more than one week ago? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the diff; notice was given 10 days ago. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering SM64's notoriety as a speed-game how much coverage can be added of that? This article became a featured article in the mid-2000s so there's presumably been a lot of recent developments in that area. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing comments
  • N-Sider is unreliable
  • I can't imagine that the YouTube channel of "Thomas Game Docs" is RS.
  • Destructoid is rather situational, is the author of that piece have good credentials?
  • There's got to be a better source than Dylan Cuthbert's tweet
    • Nominator for review here. Just so editors know their guidelines, I'm responding to this. I agree the article has several questionable sources, but this isn't one of them. WP:RSPTWITTER considers tweets reliable sources "if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." The account is definitely verified and is of "lead developer on four Star Fox titles," which Star Fox is by the same company as Nintendo. HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. It's fine as a primary source. I wouldn't use it, but that's just a personal preference, not policy. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may be an official account, but it’s still a marginal source for that kind of statement (we are taking the word of one individual who says they were an engineer on the project?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Silicon Investor" source is a forum message board
  • What is Ownt and what makes it high-quality RS?
  • While comicbook.com is listed as "other reliable" at WP:VGRS, the linked discussion actually calls that source to be on the fringe of reliability, which means that it ain't gonna be high-quality RS
  • What is sourcegaming.com and is it high-quality RS
  • The source "Nintendo SpaceWorld '96: Miyamoto Interview + Super Mario 64 on 64DD + Rumble Pak Unveiled." likely fails WP:COPYLINK.
  • Sources 99 through 103 are all random YouTube videos that probably fail COPYLINK and wouldn't be usable as sources anyway.
  • What makes ETeknix.com reliable?
  • We cite Nintendo Life several times; VGRS says for editorial content, author reliability is needed. So this needs watched out for, and is this even really a high-quality RS at all if the editorial content can be dodgy?

There seems to be a lot of issues with bad sources. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source that shows a live demo of SM64 during E3 1996. (https://www.destructoid.com/stories/this-live-demo-of-super-mario-64-is-an-amazing-retro-e3-moment-511570.phtml) Maybe we could use it? Blue Jay (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Destructoid is a little marginal if it qualifies as a reliable source, so we'll need to know if the author has good credentials. I'm not familiar enough with video games journalism to make that call here. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll go find other sources. Blue Jay (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "Jordan is a founding member of Destructoid and poster of seemingly random pictures. They are anything but random." That's it. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so its unreliable? Blue Jay (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on progress? Blue Jay (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really need an update on progress, when the article is unchanged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Blue Jay (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When closing, for recordkeeping, this is a re-promoted FFA.
Not sure why you're asking me, but I support delist. Popcornfud (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is because we tried to improve the article during its FAR. In either case, as much as I hate to do this to a fun game I very much enjoy playing, I reluctantly say delist when it isn't comprehensive enough given the above comments. Sourcing doesn't seem as problematic at the moment. Hopefully someone can later get it back up to par after the review concludes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. From my perspective I was just doing standard editing work at random, heh. Popcornfud (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw you had worked on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, some work by Popcornfud and SNUGGUMS, but problems persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Improvements made, but problems still persist per above, as well as scattered things such as N-Sider still being used. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Super_Mario_64/archive3&oldid=1017478852"