Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Mario 64

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 promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

---

Super Mario 64

• previous FAC
• previous FAR 1
• previous FAR 2, has been on main page.

Check external links

Myself and other editors have been cleaning up and expanding this article to get it up to FA. We would appreciate any comments or suggestions that could improve the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

• Support. As one of the main contributers of SM64, I think it's starting to look like FA material. Great work everyone! The Prince (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The article has been cleaned up nicely since its first FAR. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - One of the first things I did on wikipedia was vote on the first FAR,, and supported the second FAR, so I've watched this article for a long time, and it has only gotten better and more comprehensive with time. It's time to give it back its FA star, great work. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - looks good enough to return. igordebraga ≠ 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per ZeWrestler, Judgesurreal777 and igordebraga. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
• Support - per above, nice job. Gran² 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes; do these articles not have titles? How are readers to find the articles?

• a b Edge (Future Publishing) (no. 35), 1996
• a b Electronic Gaming Monthly (Ziff Davis): 189, January 2004

Please fix the endashes on the date ranges in references; you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to do it automatically with his script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The endash and caption issue has been addressed, I don't believe I missed any. The information for the issue of Edge was obtained from the Edge Online: Reviews Database. As for the issue of EGM, I honestly don't remember when that was added, so I can't really comment for certain. Most gaming magazines have a list/index of games or a list of games that are reviewed in the table of contents, so finding the specific article in the appropriate issue isn't incredibly difficult. Will this be a problem in meeting FA criteria? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

I won't hold it up for a minor issue, but it would certainly be nice if the sources were complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. If we happen upon those specific issues, we will update the reference information accordingly. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose—1c, 2 (MOS).
  • "It is acclaimed by many critics and fans as one of the greatest and most revolutionary video games of all time.[9]" That's a major claim, at the end of the lead. But Ref 9 looks like something I fancifully posted at a whim. Who's the author, this guy who says he likes making lists? Convince me it's not trashy, this source. It certainly shouldn't be supporting such a claim in so prominent a place. I'm concerned about other refs; please audit the shady ones.
  • Nintendo took its "number-one 2D franchise and convert it flawlessly into 3D."—See MOS on quotes that start within WP sentences. (Punctuation ...). There are others, too.
  • "360 degree range"—Where's the hyphen? See MOS.
  • MOS on captions: Mario swims in the castle's fountain with the mysterious "L is real 2401" message on it—this is a real sentence, so a final period is required. Check all. Tony (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe your last three points have now been addressed and we'll look into the first. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
    • After looking at the source for ref 9, it is a bit questionable. Would it be better to use the various sources the author used? Most of them are very reputable gaming sources, in fact some are already cited in the SM64 article. I've also switched out one of the questionable references (a privately owned and operated weblog) for a review from GameSpot. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC))
• I think it is unnecessary to vote Oppose just because of that. You could've instead commented and not voted at all. The Prince (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because of what? Let me know when those issues are resolved and I'll have a look at the prose. Tony (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe they are resolved now. Except for your first issue, I had a question regarding how you felt we should proceed with it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Was bold and removed ref 9 in place for various other refs that cite the game as "one of the greatest and most revolutionary". Hope that solves the problem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.