Wikipedia:Featured article review/Super Mario 64/archive1

Super Mario 64

It's been nearly a year and a half since this appeared on the main page, and in that period nearly 700 edits have taken place. I've tried to remove the worst excesses of cruft when they appear on my recent changes list, but I'm currently being overwhelmed at the German Tranlsation Project and I don't have the time (or the patience, let's be honest) to go through this entire article. It still seems FA standard, but a good scrubbing never hurt anyone. When it comes to specifc criteria, I would have to say:

Video game articles tend toward cruft, so I doubt the prose is still brillaint, although it is still quite good,
I'm not sure its current formatting is in complaince with WP:MOS
The article had a previous removal nomination, which failed, but still could give helpful suggestions. The article's original, and ancient, FAC nomination, can be found here.

Just a bit of maintenance, nothing too serious. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, it doesn't look too bad, but it is a bit crufty. I'm not sure about the list of levels. I don't want to spin it off, because it's a big chunk of the article, but it is a bit long. I'll give this a good copyedit tomorrow, but regarding the list of levels: what does everybody else think? The Disco King 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been in the article a long time, and was in while the article appeared on the main page. The formatting of the list has changed numerous times, but I remember it used to be a lot shorter. I would vote in favor of keeping it, if we can satisfactorily de-cruft it. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this article as being particularly long, so I see no need to shorten or remove the list, personally. Everyking 13:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article on my sub-page (see the diff here), and I've tried to cut out some cruft and tighten up the language. I may have cut too much, though; what do people think? The Disco King 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I don't see why your changes -- or really any changes -- are necessary. Andre (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a much needed copy edit and cruftectomy, Disco King. I support your changes. The article could no doubt use with another check by a fresh pair of eyes, as well. — BrianSmithson 13:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Too many lists, need converting into prose, and some sections are rather short. Some parts of the article are unreferenced as well. — Wackymacs
- Agreed. The list of remakes and sequels is the most glaring example of something that needs to be converted to prose. — BrianSmithson 13:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]