Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wario

Wario

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Featured articles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 18:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wario was promoted to featured status in August 05, and has been featured on the main page. However, it lacks the high level of quality demanded by featured articles todays, examples being Bulbasaur and Torchic. The main problem is the extreme lack of references, there are only 5 web references, for 26.2kb, and references which were added recently noting the games and manuals.

There are also no Fair Use rationales and the prose is not brilliant by any means. Personally, I believe the article is not FA standards, I have attempted to discuss the lack of references in article, but the contributors have argued in return, so I have decided to iniate the set procedure. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it could use some reference and copyediting work, mainly just to upgrade it to the current standards. I'll see if I can get around to a brief copyedit later tonight. — Deckill e r 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme lack of references? Well, I'm sorry for not referencing every single thing that cannot be assertained from the article itself or from common sense. You made the inane claim that it is somehow original research if any fact (and yes, literally any fact) is not referenced. Seriously, you're only doing this because I refused to adhere to your extremist referencing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna nail the FU rationales, but extreme lack of references? Would that be original research written while snowboarding? ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No offence, but do you honestly think that 5 references are sufficient for an FA? Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd rather have five references than have a reference for every single sentence, like you insisted on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That isn't what we're discussing. We are discussing this article's referncing, and its quality, which may be FA standard, or may not. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Demanding a certain amount of citations is not contstructive criticism. FAs have recently been experiencing extreme citation overkill, so five might very well be enough. Either way, one should specify what needs to be cited and why, not make general complaints that an arbitrary number of footnotes hasn't been included in the article. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copy/pasted from the article's talk page, didn't know there was a review already). The problems: (note that I only quickly viewed this article and most likely there exist much more problems).

Citations needed. I have put some ^{[citation needed]} tags, but I think there are several more citations needed than that. Also: citations should be included in footnotes and references (which should be put in two different sections also). Game manuals may be used, but they should be referenced directly in the text (footnotes including publisher, the publish date, the page of the information used, etc.). Simply saying: this article uses these manuals is far from enough. Sijo Ripa 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least I can say that many of the things needing citations came after the featuring. Anyway, we do not need a source for, say, the fact that Wario appears as a villain in Virtual Boy Mario Land, because you can see that in the picture. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the criteria of a FA have risen substantially over the past year. I agree that some things don't need a reference (such as game specific information, which would lead to a reference to the game itself). The things I've marked as ^{[citation needed]} however are the minimum of phrases that need a citation. Sijo Ripa 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures: 1 picture is unsourced. This is a major problem for a FA and should be fixed asap. 7 other images are considered "fair use". Note however that to be considered as "fair use" the number of images used of one company (Nintendo in this case) should be a "small number" and "proportional". 7 images is not longer a "small number" or "proportional". The number should be reduced to 1 or 2 images (simply because they are all of the same company), to be without any doubt "proportional" and "small number" (as this is a FA which should be without any doubt as it is a leading example). Sijo Ripa 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over this a million times, it is harder to get good pictures for video game articles. Additionally, the Wario shot above, the WarioWare depiction of Wario, the Wario Land 4 shot and the Wario Land 3 shot are all necessary shots. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rules take precedence over our wishes: the number should be "small" and "proportional". It's not because you or others don't like it that we shouldn't respect the law. They are moreover not necessary shots and pictures are not necessary for an article to be a FA. You can perfectly explain and describe te things shown in such pictures, esp. because Warrio (which by itself would possibly be hard to describe) is already depicted in the lead picture. Sijo Ripa 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style and content: The style is often unencyclopedic and contains some weasel words (such as " many believe "). Some sections should be altered/shortened also, as they now read as a game summary and are not limited to the appearances of Wario as such (which this page is about). Sijo Ripa 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People need to know about his game. I mean, do we not describe the mushroom in Mario's page because it already has a page of its own? Also, many people DO believe that Wario and Spike are the same. How should I rephrase it? "a popular theory is that Wario and Spike are one in the same"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The problem is that it does read like a game summary, which is unencylopedic (at least on a page of a game character). I would just write: he was/did this and that in that game and this and that happened to him. I don't see the need to disclose game details such as (the types of) mushrooms. (b) Use citations and you can refer to the sources you have found. For instance: "Among others, <name magazine#1> <ref#1> claims that Wario and Spike are the same person, but this is rejected by among others <name magazine#2> <ref#2> " because <reason>... Sijo Ripa 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: WarioWare section needs a clean up (much irrelevant trivia which is currently mentioned in bulletpoints), needs wikilinks and needs citations for each "fact" mentioned. Sijo Ripa 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has its issues, but regarding the use of the manuals, FA Link (The Legend of Zelda) uses them extensively without referring to them in-text and specifying which manuals are used where. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should mention that on their talk page, don't you think? FA's need constant improvement and the standards of a FA rise gradually. If the problems of that page are more pervasive, it should get a review also. (On first sight, that page is a major violation of the fair use rules btw) Sijo Ripa 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's worth a mention on that article's talk page as well. Citing manuals is fine, but I think in-text citations to specific manuals (and if necessary, pages within those manuals) would be helpful. --Jtalledo (talk)

This isn't our best work. I found this from the Community Portal. MrCEO 13:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]