Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paper Mario: Color Splash/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2022 [1].

Paper Mario: Color Splash

Nominator(s): Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game published by Nintendo back in 2016. It's a part of the Paper Mario series, which you may have seen my work on in the past. This is the part where I try to lure reviewers in by talking about its importance and interesting aspects, but not only are there little positives to say about it, I have never played this game. If you were to ask, "If you have never played this game, why did you work on its article" I would probably respond with, "I don't know".

I was here before with Paper Mario: The Origami King about two years ago. I'm a little frustrated with myself on how I handled some things, and now that I've got a much better grasp of Wikipedia and its policies, things should hopefully go much smoother than last time. This article is currently a good article (review), and received a peer review a little while back (review). It is currently part of a good topic (review), and once this article and one other (probably this) are promoted, will be re-nominated as a featured topic. Panini! • 🥪 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass image review from Nikkimaria

Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have much to add here, but the references from 1 to 6 at this version is hard to verify by an outsider. I think that having a source that does not require you to buy the game would be more independent and reliable. I would also suggest to remove these categories: "Mario role-playing games", "Intelligent Systems games", and "Wii U games", because they are the parent of other categories listed in the article. Overall, it's real great work, the prose is solid, and the text-source integrity is preserved. I wish you the best luck on the FAC, though I don't support the nomination because my drive-by comment is not a complete review of any featured article criterion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane, per MOS:PLOTCITE, the game credits itself can be used as a source as it's considered a primary source within itself. Since I couldn't find a secondary source that mentions these staff members by name I had to cite the game directly. I've also removed the parent categories you've mentioned. Panini! • 🥪 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good to me! It's just a bit harder to verify the source, so I asked you for another independent source. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now can support the nomination following your improvements. That line on chewing with my mouth closed also amused me :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

I feel good about this and I have changed my opinion to support. I still say that the reception section goes a step passed comprehensive, and it loses the value of a good summary. As a reader, I expect to see a summary of why this received "generally favorable reviews", including a summary of what critics found favorable or not. The approach you took gives me a dense list of individual critical opinions about individual elements, and I'm left without a real understanding of how critics remember this game. I think of Wikipedia's featured articles as being pretty standardized, for the benefit of readers, and there are risks in doing things in your "new" way. Of course, the article is still well-written, and I willingly admit WP:VG/REC is a little ambiguous on how to write a reception section. You should see my comment as something to consider as you complete the review process with other editors. By my eyes, this has reached featured quality and I am happy to support it. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Fixes look good; this is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Nearly three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning, @Gog the Mild. Has it really been three weeks already? I'll go see who else can leave a review. Panini! • 🥪 16:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ping the peer reviewers? FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to Shooterwalker and Jaguar, and since I've had less personal interaction with the others, I'll ping them here instead: SNUGGUMS, Guyinblack25. If you lack the interest a second time, please ignore. Panini! • 🥪 15:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, an update, this FAC has received and image and source review and five general supports. Panini! • 🥪 20:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

I don't really have any comments beyond those already above. Once they've been addressed, I can go through the article again and bring any comments. You can ping me if/when that happens if you like. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake, comments above were addressed. Panini! • 🥪 15:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, when you move comments to talk, as you've been doing, can you leave a clear link to either the diff of the move or to the section on talk that contains the moved comments? To be honest, I'm not a fan of moving comments to talk -- I'd rather leave them on the FAC, or if they're really long, collapse them with {{cot}} and {{cob}} -- but if you feel you have to do it I think it should be obvious to other reviewers what's happened. When I review I usually glance at the other reviews to see if there's anything controversial or outstanding, and in this case I didn't know there was anything to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, yes, I will do that from now on. I've been doing this due to concerns at WT:FAC#FAC instructions on subheads. Panini! • 🥪 14:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that discussion is that the issue is putting the word "Support" into subheadings -- it's not to do with moving comments to the talk page, so (again just speaking personally) I'd rather not see it happen unless there's a really good reason for it. To be clear, there's no proscription, but if you do it I'm sure both reviewers and coordinators would agree it has to be very obvious. The reason I don't like it is because I don't want to have to go back and forth between two pages to understand the review -- I'd rather read it linearly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake, courtesy ping. Panini! • 🥪 19:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panini! Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

Why are parts of some of the references in bold? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references are bolded because those are cited "quotes" directly from the video game; it's lists of names from the credits. This is what I did for Paper Mario: The Origami King (FAC) but if there's something else I should do instead please let me know.

I was not aware that this was an acceptable citation style. But as the criteria only require consistency it would seem that doesn't matter, however odd it seems. And I may merely be demonstrating my ignorance of some citation systems. I know that these are quotes - you put them in quote marks; why add bolding for some words as well? I assume that Mike is happy with it - just checking that this is so. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, I think it's OK -- it's in the quote parameter, and I think it's OK for the source formatting to be reproduced in that parameter. I don't think it's necessary but it's harmless, and as you say it's consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Can I point out that moving comments to the nomination's talk page is not in line with the FAC instructions. (And that I personally find it difficult to track reviewers comments with a view to closure when they are spread across more than one page.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, very well, but at this point it's practically over and there's not much point moving them back now. The references are bolded because those are cited "quotes" directly from the video game; it's lists of names from the credits. This is what I did for Paper Mario: The Origami King (FAC) but if there's something else I should do instead please let me know. Panini! • 🥪 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, it was just an observation. As you note, it's practically over. Congratulations. (Almost ;-) .) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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