Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wario

Wario

Well, personally, I just think this has reached at least minimum standards. Other than a few minor things that can be quick-fixed, I can't see anything wrong with the article. -- A Link to the Past 03:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I do not believe it can be peer reviewed while its in this process link... --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review is 12 days old, I'd say that's enough time. Plus, I was suggested by others that it'd be okay to nominate it now. -- A Link to the Past 03:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I mean you probably need to archive those peer reviews now :) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Please address the comments in the Peer Review before putting an article up on FAC. No reference section. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
It is a problem with video games to cite references. These summaries of games were written by me, so it can't be referenced. I did reference the Spike idea and the Warui thing. And, since I'm a gamer, I can't solve the whole gamer's POV problem (NicholasT said that he would edit it to, yknow, not be in a gamer's perspective). I reduced the game descriptions, too. The gaming POV is nothing I can solve, but could you wait until Nick fixes that Gamer POV? -- A Link to the Past 04:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- That POV problem doesn't sound like 'a minor thing that can be quick-fixed'. And certainly, more references can be provided. For instance, it refers to a comic story in Nintendo Power -- issue #, pages, author? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  - Reference to comic added. -- A Link to the Past 04:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - You'll want to do more than add an external link; see Wikipedia:Cite sources#Style and how-to. Also, the article needs something about Wario's appearance and personality being that of a stereotypical villain, see Villain#Stereotypes. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
      - Really, I'd call him a doppelganger, rather than a stereotypical villain. But the moustache DOES have that certain evil nature to it. -- A Link to the Past 04:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
        I have no objections to this article. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:20, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
Support. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should anyone support an article that doesn't have references? If you want people to take you or video game articles seriously, you're not doing yourself or it a favor by supporting. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good thing there ARE references. -- A Link to the Past 12:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - I guess I'm too stuck to the idea that one should support after a nomination fulfills the minimum criteria. Link, ZScout, my apologies to you both. It's a damned fine article. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, if I add some more stuff, would that garner a weak support? -- A Link to the Past 16:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Object. The images Image:Wario.jpg, Image:Wariobounce.jpg, Image:Ss wl4 pre.gif, Image:Wario WWare.gif, Image:Vampwario.gif are claimed as fair use. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and so "fair use" images should be kept to a minimum. The images Image:Wariobounce.jpg, Image:Wario WWare.gif, and Image:Vampwario.gif seem to be surplus to the needs of the article, and should be removed. The remaining images need to comply with the rules at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. See the image description pages for the images on Sunset Boulevard (film) for a particularly good example of this. --Carnildo 06:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, okay, here are my rationales about the images:
- 1. WarioWare image - requires an image of Wario's appearance in recent times
- 2. Vampire Wario image - okay, maybe that can be dropped
- 3. Spring Wario image - needs an example image of one of his powers
- 4. Wario image - Intro image -- A Link to the Past 12:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - I put the rationalle on images 1,3 and 4 and I can conform that image two has been removed from the article. Also, Karmosin, no need to apologize. If there is something yall want us to fix, we can do that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious. Super Mario 64 is a featured article yet none of the images linked to from that article have this fair use rationale. Is this a new policy? Otherwise, how did that article ever get through this process? Looking at it's candidature page no such objections were raised there. I want to support this article, but this needs to be clear I feel. Jacoplane 18:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added fair use rationale information to the images linked to in the article. I this provides enough justification. Jacoplane 19:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a new policy, it just hasn't been enforced very often in the past. Around the beginning of July, I decided I'd start enforcing the image copyright policies, and I've been objecting to about half the featured article candidates ever since. --Carnildo 19:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I agree with you that it's a good idea to enforce this. Jacoplane 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good now. Jacoplane 20:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me - certainly better than some old FAs. -- AlexR 07:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definate FA material. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some extensive copyediting and I think it is now FA material. Support. Andre (talk) 20:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Minor object - The image at the top needs a caption. Probably one explaining where that particular image is from. See Wikipedia:Captions Support Scott Ritchie 00:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. The article is a fine piece of work through and through. It tells you all you need to know without going on for too long or ever being boring. If all the pages on Wikipedia were this good, we could all call it a day with the whole editing thing. --Matt Yeager 03:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Support - a well-written article about a subject that wouldn't ordinarily be seen featured. I think this deserves the spotlight, and it would certainly promote variety. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it meet all the feature article standard--Kiba 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great article. We only need Mario now at the FAC... igordebraga ≠ 18:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I believe this article is written well. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Optichan 19:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)