Shake, shake! Another cult classic, MM was a strange game—perhaps par for Treasure—but also their first Nintendo game. It had really strange gameplay centered around grabbing and shaking things—I haven't heard of it being adopted since. While it got mixed reviews at the time, perhaps due to the unpopularity of a 2D game during great hype for 3D technology, GamesRadar called the game "possibly the most underrated and widely ignored ... on the N64". So away it will be filed in antiquity, but with a really good Wikipedia article. This is the most complete rendition ever written about this game, and it will likely remain as such. czar ♔ 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Czar. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, done—how about now? czar ♔ 19:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's good. I'll try and do a prose review later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
maid - This feels like overlinking... such a common term
The gameplay revolves around grabbing, shaking, and throwing. Almost all items can be grabbed and shaken. - Any way to avoid the repetition?
E3 1997 - I'd link E3, at the very least
Later reviewers noted that the game originally received bad reviews, and disagreed in retrospection. - Perhaps "Later, retrospective reviewers disagreed with these original bad reviews, and in 2009 GamesRadar called it "possibly the most underrated and widely ignored game on the N64"? or something similar? "Disagreed in retrospection" is rather awkward.
Multiple reviewers recalled Marina's signature "Shake, shake!" sound bite. Electronic Gaming Monthly awarded the game their silver award. - Feels like the chronology is not clear here. Which reviewers? More recent ones, or the original ones?
The player-character, a robotic maid named Marina, journeys to save her kidnapped creator. - you go into more detail on the plot in the next paragraph. Why not just save this for that paragraph?
yellow gems hidden in the levels that extend the length of the ending. - as in, they add extra scenes to the ending, or?
The game has been described as "2½D" since the background is in 3D but the gameplay is in two dimensions. - This might work better further north, when you discuss this game being 2D
the company chose to take risks and released highly regarded games such as Gunstar Heroes and Dynamite Headdy. - What does "chose to take risks" add to this sentence, and how does it relate to the games mentioned?
Though its team composition was different from that of their previous titles, their lead programmer and character designer had previously worked on Gunstar Heroes. - Might want to specify that you are talking about MM here
Around the time of Mischief Maker 's Nintendo release, Enix had just signed its Dragon Quest VII—historically a Nintendo franchise—to Sony. - How is this related to the rest of the paragraph?
Its Japanese title is Yuke-Yuke Trouble Makers, or Go-Go Trouble Makers. - I don't think we usually include this outside the lede
the Clanball platforming - don't recall seeing this in the article
In the years since, Retro Gamer reported Mischief Makers as a 7 of 10 on their rarity scale, with 10 as the rarest. - what is a "rarity scale"?
Might want to be more explicit when differentiating between recent and earlier reviews.
The link to Nintendo World Report in #Legacy is a duplicate link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, thanks for this. I have a few responses, but otherwise I think I've addressed everything, so let me know what you think? I think the "disagreed in retrospection" was fine, but I changed it anyway. Also removed the EGM mention from the lede as unnecessary (minor award). I included "Yuke Yuke" in the prose, since otherwise it would be only in the lede and unsourced in the article. I didn't feel it was necessary to distinguish between original and new reviews except where the extra time would have been a factor in the choice of quote. Re: unintuitive Clanballing: "grabbing hold of Clanballs to leap to a greater height is not instinctive at first". czar ♔ 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant I didn't remember seeing "Clanball" in our article. Looking again, it's giving a passing mention, but not really clear what it's supposed to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, it's a floating ball that can be grabbed—I added that they're platforms. Also I had updated the screenshot to show the Clanballs, if you want to take another look. czar ♔ 01:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with Hann's point about the need for Japanese reviews, so I'll stay on the fence for a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - At least a bit of discussion of Japanese reviews... acceptable, though I'm still hoping for more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - No Japanese reception for a Japanese video game. That's an instant oppose, but further comments below.
I'm not sure how much value Metacritic has with its 8 reviews, when you already have 7 in the box. I generally think one aggregator is enough.
Provide a better caption for the screenshot, what's going on? What elements are on screen?
Consider just firing up an emulator and taking a better screenshot. The quality is terrible.
2.5D is really broadly defined, I'm not sure it adds any real understanding to the game. If everything is pre-rendered like Donkey Kong Country, I'd consider that 2D.
What does this mean? - "In his obsession, the Emperor kidnaps visiting robotics genius Professor Theo by way of brainwashed local Clancer people."
How does the game end? Does the player kill the emperor and rescue the professor?
Be clear what you mean with "take full use of the console's capabilities", because it doesn't seem to be pushing out polygons. Reading the source, it seems to use it as a figure of speech to show how the game does things the previous generation couldn't.
User:JimmyBlackwing has taken over Mitaphane's Next Generation magazine archive (because they're both awesome). He should have the print review in issue 34 (with its score) to complement the online review you've already referenced.
I prefer when composite scores such as EGM's are separated. Maybe as a note if not in the table.
@Hahnchen, what type of Japanese coverage would you recommend? I had searched for Famitsu and couldn't find anything. (Same for sales numbers other than that it sold poorly. I'd say the figures don't exist unless you know of some other place I can find them.) Thanks for the review czar ♔ 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There may not be any publicly available sales data. There will be Japanese reception though, Famitsu and Dengeki are acceptable, but I don't know where to find them. - hahnchen 23:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hahnchen, okay. I'm enlisting WTVG help on that. As for everything else, I believe I've addressed the rest with some comments to follow—let me know what you think? I left the two aggregators because otherwise someone's going to add it back in—if you really think I should drop one, I'd prefer to drop GR (fewer reviews aggregated). I added the 2.5D since the sources brought it up a few times and felt it was more important to explain and include than to exclude. Not a single source mentioned anything more about the "plot"—you think it's worth including more? czar ♔ 01:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hahnchen, Crisco 1492, I'm not getting any bites on Japanese reviews (or help getting them otherwise). Do you have any suggestions on how else I could handle this? Other than tracking down a rare issue of Famitsu from 1997, I've included everything else possible, so I'm not sure what else I can do. czar ♔ 02:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd add that my Google searches for Japanese reviews of this game turned up little more than BIGLOBE blogs and other fan-run sites. The Famitsu and Dengeki reviews are not accessible online, even in Japanese. I would assume that only a Japanese collector could provide scans of them—and it's anyone's guess where to find such a person. While I agree in principle that Japanese games should have Japanese sources, it doesn't make sense to oppose based on a missing source that cannot be obtained. When you combine that with the fact that the article is already loaded with sources, I'd say that it's unreasonable for Japanese coverage to be a make-or-break issue. Just my two cents. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey is in Japan, reads Japanese, and (one would hope) may have access to sources with reviews. It's highly unlikely that there were no contemporary reviews in Japan, and one would expect Japanese reviews for a Japanese game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll need a helping hand with titles—I was an ardent gamer until I was twenty, but I gave up on gaming entirely before I ever came to Japan. If you can give me titles of magazines that likely would have reviews, I can see if I can track them down at the library or in used book shops. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey—appreciate your help. You'd be looking for ゆけゆけ！！トラブルメーカーズ in Famitsu (the gold standard), Dengeki Nintendo 64, and/or 64 Dream around June 1997. I know Famitsuhas a preview in #448 (July 1997), which might be interesting, but we're mainly looking for reviews. Also, I can interlibrary loan issues or page ranges that you find, if it would help—I just don't have any means for finding where the game is in the magazines' back catalogs. Thank you for your help czar ♔ 15:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears that neither the municipal nor prefectural libraries in Shizuoka stock issues of those magazines. It looks like there was a review in issue 446 of Famitsu, though (two issues before the preview?). Haven't had any luck turning anything else up so far... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've added Famitsu 's corroborated score, which was enough for Final Fantasy VI (which is ostensibly even more Japanese) and hopefully enough for us. I've contacted any person who has ever posted Famitsu scans online, but since it's been over a week I'm skeptical that anyone will come through. I've also contacted academic libraries in Japan and no one has holdings of these issues. It is sufficient to say this is all that's available. I want to invite @Hahnchen, Crisco 1492 to take a look, and thank @JimmyBlackwing, Curly Turkey for their sleuthing on my behalf. czar ♔ 01:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Struck the oppose as I haven't been on top of this. But I generally expect more from 1c than just Googling the Famitsu score. - hahnchen 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would hope that the hours I've put into contacting every lead on the Internet and every suggested Japanese library for 90s Famitsu magazines would hold a bit more weight in your regard of 1c. If even a scan of a Famitsu review ever does comes my way, it would then be a nightmare for anyone—even a period expert—to verify. czar ♔ 18:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead sentence related to the "robotic maid Marina" does not make the player's role clear. For all the reader knows, you're supposed to play the emperor.
"and Treasure's first on a Nintendo console" — Treasure's first what? If it was their first 2D side-scroller, then this leaves open the possibility that they had made other types of games for Nintendo.
"began development in mid-1995 with interest in" —> "began developing Mischief Makers in mid-1995 with an interest in".
The following sentence is clunky; here's an alternative:
"The 12-person team wanted to createa newan innovative gameplay mechanic, and implementing theirresultingresultant "catching" technique was the hardest part to implementtheir biggest challenge."
"early game learning curve and accessibility" — This is very unclear. Maybe just axe the "early game" part.
"Later reviewersCritics disagreed with thisthe game's poor reception in retrospection., and theyMultiple reviewers recalled Marina's signature "Shake, shake!" sound bitepositively." (If they recalled "Shake, shake!" negatively, then the sentence should be changed to reflect that. If they simply recalled it, then I'm not sure it's necessary for inclusion in the lead.)
"a new sequel" — "New" is redundant.
The second sentence of Gameplay begins: "The gameplay is varied". First, this is the third repetition of "the" in less than ten words. Second, "varied" has a positive connotation, which raises POV concerns. I recommend this rewrite:
"TheIts gameplay is varied, withfeatures platform mechanics at its corealongsideand additional aspects from the action and puzzle genres."
"The game has been described as "2½D" since the background is in 3D but the gameplay is in two dimensions." — More "the" overuse. Also, add a comma after "2½D", and consider changing "gameplay is" to "gameplay occurs".
I hyphenate player-character for readability—otherwise it appears more jargony czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The player character article title has no hyphen, and I've never seen the phrase hyphenated on Wikipedia. Further, the hyphen is grammatically incorrect. It needs to go. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"The story takes place on the Planet Clancer" — Since Planet Clancer is a proper name, and you introduce it as a planet right after this, the "the" seems unnecessary.
"By way of brainwashed local Clancer people, The Emperor brainwashes Clancer locals to kidnaps visitingthe robotics genius Professor Theo."
"His creation" —> "Theo's creation".
"Marina grabs these things to latch on" — This is a tautology, and the word "things" should be replaced with something more formal and definite, like "objects".
"The combat is shake-based." — More unnecessary "the" repetition.
"Shaking items uncovers new gameplay mechanics, such as guns that shoot triple shots or homing missiles." — Strictly speaking, a "gameplay mechanic" is a set of rules created by a developer, rather than an object that can be discovered in the game world. Further, "guns that shoot triple shots" is meaningless to a non-gamer. I recommend this rewrite:
Shaking items uncovers new gameplay mechanics,tools such as machine guns that shoot triple shots orand homing missiles."
"hidden in the levels" — More "the" repetition.
"boosting" — What does this mean?
"apiece" — An informal word. Consider "each".
not sure why this would be informal czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"and rides bikes and wire mazes." — How do you ride a wire maze? At first glance, this makes no sense to me, even as a gamer. Also, "bike" is an informal word that can refer to bicycles or motorcycles.
"bike" is what the source used, so it's unclear there too—I'll put it in quotes czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"The worlds each have final bosses and mid-level bosses." —> "Each world has a mid-level and a final boss."
"scaling and screen rotation special effects" — Blue links here would be helpful.
There are no suitable articles to link czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Almost all thingsentities on Planet Clancer—, including people, buildings, and pets—, on the Clancer planet haveshare the same "creepy 'sad face' mask with red, glowing eyes"."
"A Clancer named" —> "A Clancer local named".
"a petulant Clancer" —> "A petulant native of Clancer".
I established "Clancer" as the name for the people earlier, so I thought these would be okay czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"The characters and backgrounds are modeled in pre-rendered 3D similar to Donkey Kong Country's 'Advanced Computer Modeling'." — Move this up so that it follows the sentence related to 2½D. It makes far more sense there.
I'll be back later to review the rest of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"mid 1995" —> "mid-1995"
I don't think this has a hyphen because it isn't being used as an adjective (use case #1 in NOAD) czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"generally interested" —> "interested"
"The new console's" — You just said "the console", so changing this to "The Nintendo 64's" would be better.
"more advanced visual effects" — More advanced than what?
"first on a Nintendo console" — First what?
"did not have a "special relationship" with Nintendo for the release" — What does that mean? Definitely needs clarification.
"Previously,The companyTreasure had historically worked on games for Sega consolesgames, in part becausepartially due to what they deemed an easier development cyclefound them easier to develop for than competing systems."
"AlsoHowever, although the Nintendo 64's cartridges were more expensive than CD-ROMs, though they loaded data instantly in comparison and were thus more conducive for action games such as Mischief Makers."
"The team did not use technical methods specific to the hardware when making the game, though the bosses built in 3D required special attention." — This sentence needs massive clarification. It's so vague that it's basically meaningless as it stands.
"Treasure's founders had come from Konami, where they worked on Nintendo Entertainment System games such as Castlevania and Contra,. Theybut found thethis development environment restrictive and left on a mission to try riskier concepts and to singularly focus on making "great games"."
"An average of 12 people worked on Treasure's Mischief Makers development team" —> "An average of 12 people worked on Mischief Makers".
"Though theThe game was made by a different team composition was different fromthan had developedthat of previous Treasure titles, although itstheir lead programmer and character designer had previously worked on Gunstar Heroes."
"Treasure's CEO said that the company likesliked to expand into new genres, though they plannedexpect to primarily work primarily in genres where they havehad experience."
"new and original" — This is redundant. One word would be enough.
"As forRegarding the game's aesthetic, Treasure CEO Maegawa felt that the company'sTreasure's games did not "have a particularly foreign,... non-Japanese look" as compared to those of other Japanese game developers."
"their known expertise in the action game genre" —> "their expertise in the action genre".
"Treasure chose Enix with their decision to make the game for the Nintendo 64." — I have no idea what this means.
"At the same time thatJust asMischief Makers marked Treasure's switch to other video game consoles from its reputation as athan theSega Genesisdeveloper, Enix had recently ended its longtime loyalty to Nintendo in signing theirby developingDragon Quest VII—historically a Nintendo franchise—tofor Sony 's PlayStation."
"its release date was pushed earlier" — Earlier than what? The Japanese release? If not, then you should specify the original and revised dates. Use month-year to avoid redundancy with the next paragraph.
"Japanese launch in June 1997" — Its launch time was just mentioned; axe the date.
"release in September," — Should be a colon instead of a comma.
"The game received 'mixed or average reviews'" — Since you were just talking about Bangai-O, it would be clearer to say "Mischief Makers" instead of "the game".
"short length" — This phrase is the scourge of WikiProject Video games. Try "brevity".
scourge? I prefer "short length" over "brevity" because it's more specific and has better syllabic conservation (two versus three syllables) czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Short length is a borderline oxymoron, and it's been criticized multiple times in the past at FAC. I went ahead and replaced it myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
what is this I don't even czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Gamasutra's John Harris notedcited the game's gameplay as ararerarity for 2D platformers, with 'tremendous variety' in levels,from a Track & Field remake to recipes to outrunning a missile barrage, and commented that 'it is obvious that Treasure poured their hearts into this game.'"
"predicted that most players will not play the game through more than once" —> "predicted that most players would not complete the game more than once".
"Bartholow also saidfound that the game felt limited by its cartridge space, since awith its small selection of tiles, objects, and soundtracks are reused throughout the game,. He also cited the game's dearth oflimited sound effects, and its generally bland backgrounds (compared to the "impressive" boss battle animations and effects), as examples of hardware limitations."
"a new sequel" — Again, redundant.
"Nintendo 64 games if only for its "unbridled quality"." —> "Nintendo 64 games, because of its "unbridled quality"."
"2D nature during a period where players expected 3D games on a console known for 3D" —> "2D graphics, during a period when players expected 3D games from the Nintendo 64".
Although it's generally my policy to remain decision-neutral during a review, I suppose I should make it clear that I oppose this article's promotion until my concerns have been addressed. As it stands, the prose fails 1a. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing, I'm halfway through your edits. I should be finished tonight. czar ♔ 17:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing, thanks for the detailed prose review. I appreciate your help. I think I've addressed everything—take a look? Some of the suggestions went against the sources, so I made the changes I thought appropriate and added a few notes above, where necessary czar ♔ 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. Nice work. I went through the article and made a few final adjustments. Of note, I removed the "culinary recipes" mention, first because three examples aren't necessary, second because it was too vague to mean anything without a beefy digression. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a comment - I've read through parts of the article, and while it's excellent, two of the notes seem superfluous and seem like they should rather be integrated into the main text. Note (a) lists a number of objects that are to be grabbed, then links to a note that most game objects can be grabbed. I know this was in the prose before and has been criticized for repetitiveness, but I don't think making readers klick on a note to surprise them with the repetition instead is a very good solution. And note (c): "Treasure exclusively worked on games for Sega consoles," (reference) -> note: "Treasure thought it was easier to develop for Sega consoles." (same reference). I don't see the reason to make people click on a note link for that. Why not just write "Treasure exclusively worked on games for Sega consoles, because the company thought them easier to handle," or something like that? Derboo (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Derboo, good point. I repurposed the notes—let me know what you think? czar ♔ 03:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me now. Derboo (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Shaken objects sometimes reveal new features, such as homing missiles and multi-directional gun shots" - What do you mean by "reveal"? Does she get those abilities? Do those objects attack her when acted upon, like the monster chests in the old Final Fantasys?
Does her jetpack have a time or distance limit, or is it infinite? If there's a limit, how is it represented onscreen?
""creepy 'sad face' ... with red, glowing eyes"" - Why is this quote significant? Who's it from?
"An average of 12 people worked on Mischief Makers, with up to 15 at times" - Is there any info on how frequently members joined or left, or on who stayed the longest?
"As compared to other Japanese games, Treasure's CEO felt that their games did not reflect a "non-Japanese" aesthetic" - Did reflect, or did not reflect? Perhaps "did not" is correct, but IME Japanese media creators don't usually see their work as non-Japanese, even if the rest of the world does (as the thousands of search entries for "why are anime characters white" can tell you), and Mischief Makers doesn't look especially Eastern to me.
"Near the time of the game's Japanese launch, Treasure announced that they were working on another Japan-only Nintendo 64 game for a September release: Bakuretsu Muteki Bangaioh, which was later introduced to North America as Bangai-O" - Relevance?
"Critics praised the game's inventiveness, personality, "variety", and boss fights, and criticized its brevity, low difficulty, low replay value, sound, and harsh introductory learning curve." - Why is this summarized at the start? Shouldn't this kind of overture go in the intro?
"Marina can collect three extra health bars" - You mean like Pieces of Heart from Zelda, or just health replenishers? If the latter, are there only three in the whole game, three in each life, or three in each level?
@Tezero, I believe I've addressed everything. Take a look? Limits to boosting are not covered by the RS or even the instruction manual. I could add it and cite the game, but only if you feel it's necessary. The "creepy" quote is difficult to rephrase and would appear non-neutral if rephrased. The only other information on the specifics of the staff would be its credits (not listed at AllGame). Bangai-O part is supposed to indicate that they liked the N64 enough to continue developing for it—let me know if you have a rephrase. Not sure what you mean about the Reception opener, but my first ¶ is designed to give an overview of the most important points of the section. czar ♔ 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer if you did cite the game for what seems like an important gameplay detail; you can take it out later if someone else objects.
What about "grotesque sad face with glowing red eyes"? If there's truly text where you placed the ellipsis, this shouldn't be a close-paraphrasing violation.
Make it clear that motivation to continue N64 development is why you're including it, then.
I know summary is what it's designed to do, but why does it need to? It's a section of the body text, and it's redundant as the article already has an intro. The reader will be perusing Reception for detailed information and will not need a summary. You don't summarize any other sections within themselves; why do it there?
@Tezero, done. The Reception summary explains the game's overall reception in a sentence. Because I don't structure my Reception ¶s by topic, the summary sentence even explains reviewer agreement about some aspects that I did not have the space to go into with the prose, which is likely at its reasonable capacity. czar ♔ 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I typically prefer leads to have the framework of "Intro with key dates", "Description of gameplay", then "Reception overview". However, it seems that there is some different context for this game, as it's a cult classic, so I'm fine with the way it is.
"The company began Mischief Makers's development in mid-1995 with interest in, but little knowledge of, the console's features" - I would rework this sentence, as it seems a little dicey with commas. The part I specifically am not terribly fond of is the "interest" portion. My suggestion would be "The company began Mischief Makers's development in mid-1995 with little knowledge of the console's capabilities". I mean, obviously they were interested, so I think that's unnecessary.
I wouldn't include the mention of Metacritic. I would rather give a statement about "mixed reviews" and leave the mentions of the aggregators to the reception section.
I would cut out the "Video game journalists from outlets such as GamesRadar and Nintendo World Report cited Mischief Makers as ripe for reissue either through the Nintendo eShop or in a sequel or franchise reboot. In 2009, GamesRadar called it 'possibly the most underrated and widely ignored game on the N64'" portion from the lead, as it seems rather specific. I like the general statements beforehand, though. That being said, perhaps more general statements could be included in place of the over-specific ones?
"Mischief Makers is a single-player 2D side-scrolling platform game, the first on the Nintendo 64 console." I would change it to "Mischief Makers is the first single-player 2D side-scrolling platform game on the Nintendo 64 console". A little less convoluted.
The writing of the gameplay section is indeed in fine order, with proper references and what-not. However, the information could be split to make room for a plot section.
Does Marina's creator have a name?
I am not all that fond of the Nintendo 64 console image being there. Does it add anything substantive to the article?
Other than that, I admire the quality of the writing in this section. It would appear as though editors have worked arduously to ensure its quality.
This section seems a little too heavy on the citations, as there are many cases in which the same citation is used repeatedly in the same sentence. Likewise, the citations seem a little stacked up in places, which I find slightly cumbersome.
I feel as though this section has a bit too much in detail. Not every review needs to be written out, so my suggestion would be to trim about a paragraph's worth from this, because that's about how much excess their is. Other than that, I do like the quality of writing and content. Just, a little less content would be welcome.
Provisional support - This FAC has been open for quite a while, which is complemented by the effort that has been put into making the proper modifications. It is my opinion that if my suggestions are answered, this article will be indeed worth of Featured Article status. In the meantime, I welcome you to provide your input at my own FAC for Dota 2. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 19:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@DarthBotto, thanks for the review! Really helpful suggestions. I believe I've addressed them all—take a look? Explanations: I prefer to cite an aggregator's view of the reception than to make the claim myself (which I see as a kind of OR), so that's why I credit it to Metacritic. Otherwise I'd be crediting it to some news outlet. I try only to put in the specifics when the fact is likely to be challenged, which makes it more believable. Marina's creator is Prof. Theo (Theo's creation). I like the N64 image for those unfamiliar with the console. The first ¶ of Reception will be dense on the citations because it's making a lot of points, but I believe the rest should be fine. Unless you have specific recommendations on what to cut, I'd like to leave what currently remains from my own cutting. Also, can I interest you in doing a quick source review? czar ♔ 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Source Review - Most everything would appear to be in good order, with reliable and third-party sources. My one gripe, (which may not be fixable), is that I cannot tell who the author of "Now Playing" from Nintendo Power's October 1997 issue is. Would this information be obtainable? Other than that, I will be ready to give this FAC my stamp of approval when this one source is commented on in an adequate manner, or else amended. ;) DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 01:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@DarthBotto, thanks, again. That section is by the magazine as a whole and doesn't have an author byline. Just to clarify, did you do a verification spot check of the sources with your review? czar ♔ 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I did, Czar. I nearly vomited from all the old school nostalgia I experienced, but other than that, most everything seems to be in order! I cannot personally verify the integrity of sources , as well as those by GameFan, as I am having trouble finding the latter and the former requires access to the game, which is impossible, considering I have not my N64 where I live. Other than that, I am satisfied with the integrity of these archived sources. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 01:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)