Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paper Mario: The Origami King/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 21 January 2021 [1].

Paper Mario: The Origami King[edit]

Nominator(s): Le Panini Talk 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sixth entry of the Paper Mario series. This game was considered one of the best games of the franchise (except Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door because people can't move on) and is on track to be the best-selling game in the series. It's received significant coverage, almost all of the sources being cited using Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Search engine, a video game source that only shows content from reliable sources. The game has been checked over for copy-editing by Spicy, SandyGeorgia, and Atsme during a peer review. Additionally, Gerald Waldo Luis, czar, and PhotoDrake gave their points to take care of the WP:MOS/VG. I had PresN as a FA Mentor, and Twofingered Typist did a copyedit on December 12.

Upon entering world 3, I absolutely fell in love with this game. It has amazing visuals, writing, music, combat, and I know that "It's not TTYD" isn't a valid reason to dislike this game. I like it so much that I'm going out of my way to promote the series to good topic, because why not? That's just how much of an effect the game had on me. I'll be nominating this for TFA after a hopefully successful promotion. Le Panini [🥪] 06:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do a full review, but here are just some quick things I have noticed:

  • For this image (File:Confetti! Yahoo!.jpg ), please fill out the rest of the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box. There are a few portions with "n.a." I have the same comment for File:Ring Style Combat.jpg and File:Origami Princess Peach.jpeg.
    Done (1/2). Used a general video game image template.
    Done (2/2) I asked IceWelder for help, and he just straight up did it. Thank him for that. Le Panini Talk 23:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image (File:Confetti! Yahoo!.jpg) has a non-free file size reduction requests.
    I'm just gonna have to wait for a bot to fix this, right? I'm currently working on your other request.
    That makes sense to me. I am not familiar with the template so I was unaware that a bot would automatically handle it. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if it is required, but I would encourage you to put citations in numeric order.
    Done. I see no mention of it in the inline citations guideline, but I did it anyways.

Apologies for not being able to do a full review, but I just wanted to point out some things I noticed during a quick read-through. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Feel free to leave any more. Le Panini Talk 00:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Scrooge200[edit]

So, in the plot section, you introduce Bobby by saying that he doesn't have a fuse. In the next paragraph, you say that he lights his fuse and explodes. I've played this game so I know where he got the fuse from, but this should be cleared up. Additionally, it's not technically "his" fuse; it's his best friend's, after his got knocked off in the battle against Gooper Blooper. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Scrooge200: Done. Was accidentally cut out during a re-write. That's something that really shouldn't be cut, huh? Do you have any other opinions or suggestions? Le Panini Talk 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely recommend making the confetti screenshot fair-use. Also, maybe crop it a bit to focus solely on the Toad and Mario throwing confetti, because there are some other potentially-distracting elements like the Chain Chomp. Scrooge200 (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scrooge200: Done. Zoomed the image in, and am waiting on a bot to finish off the job. Le Panini Talk 02:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scrooge200: Tarkus raised the issue that although it was suggested to be cropped, it should say so in the caption. They also suggested that it shouldn't really be cropped, and I agree, because it helps show the example of an open world format. Thoughts? Le Panini Talk 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I guess that makes more sense, then. You can keep it uncropped. Scrooge200 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scrooge200: Do you have any more suggestions, or were these your only issues? Le Panini Talk 00:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should specify where the "Toad abuse" line takes place, since this game has thousands of lines of text. It'd help verifiability to replace "in the game" with something like "when Mario and Olivia find the first folded Toad," "in the Whispering Woods," or "before Mario and Olivia arrive at Toad Town for the first time." Scrooge200 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scrooge200:I made a change, how does it look? Le Panini Talk 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good now. Thank you. Scrooge200 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of something else for the plot section. It's mentioned that Luigi goes to find the key to Peach's Castle, but isn't brought up again. In the game, this takes the form of a running gag, where he shows up during every streamer area looking for the key, but this seems like a forgotten plot thread in the summary. Scrooge200 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck it in there, but mentioning the repeated attempts seems to be too much detail to me, as it isn't important to the core plot. Le Panini [🥪] 18:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MilkyDefer[edit]

I mainly work in Chinese Wikipedia, and I have been planning to translate this article into Chinese. This is a very rare chance that I can connect to Wikipedia without a VPN. I may be forced to use a VPN at any time, making me unable to edit Wikipedia, nor responding to any further comments. I have the IP ban exception user right in Chinese Wikipedia, so if you need further comments from me, please feel free to drop a comment on my talk page on zhwiki.

@Nihonjoe: Sorry for sending an email to you. I will make use of this chance to post the contents of my email here.

  • The reference #38 is the game's review from Famitsu. The translation of the website's title is not correct to me. Paper Mario Origami King is only a small part of the whole sentence.
    • 『ペーパーマリオ　オリガミキング』 == Paper Mario Origami King
    • レビュー == review
    • ペーパークラフトのような世界は == In a world of paper crafts
    • I cannot understand the final part: 冒険心をくすぐる遊びの玉手箱だった, and I am seeking the editor who provided the original translation for help. @Nihonjoe: Could you help me by providing the whole translation of the sentence, thanks.
  • I would also like to point out that the Chinese version of this game has caused a controversy. I think you could include it in the article's Controversy section. The traditional and simplified Chinese version of the game both removed words like "freedom" and "human rights" from the game. After the Hong Kong protests last year, many people believe that Nintendo is kneeling in front of Chinese government. The following sources (in Chinese, mainly Hong Kong and Taiwan) are usually considered reliable by Chinese community: [2] [3] [4]. I am afraid that I cannot find reliable opinions from mainland China, this topic itself may have been censored in China.
    @MilkyDefer: I added a section about the issue. Do you have any additional sources that talk about the reception of this issue? I couldn't find much. I (hopefully) left a message on the Wikiproject Video games on the zhWiki. Le Panini Talk 13:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihonjoe: Additionally, I'm gonna need help with new translated titles and was wondering if you could translate traditional Chinese. I used google translate for now, but I have a slight feeling that " Paper piece Mary Lee Europe " isn't right. Le Panini Talk 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your slight feeling is correct. Paper Mario's traditional Chinese version removed "freedom" and "human rights", making its meaning different from Japanese and English version, that's the correct translation. BTW, I responded to your comment on zhwiki. I think I got a broader view on this controversy. MilkyDefer (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: Yep, I saw. I added "Controversy" as a sub-section in "Reception". How does it look? Le Panini Talk 15:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Panini: Looks fine to me. I suggest expanding the "original poster has received some criticism" part a little bit. Also to mention that both "strange Nobbio" and "Chinobio" refer to Toads (which means that machine translation is wrong), and there is a suspected typo: "as\nd". MilkyDefer (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: Done. I was just gonna do this, but then you did. Le Panini Talk 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: While you're active, do you have any more comments? Le Panini Talk 02:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a great work. Good luck with this FAC! MilkyDefer (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just came to me that I might need to check the references. I have fixed one broken URL and one broken archive. Please double-check all references, as IA-bot can sometimes make mistakes. MilkyDefer (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MilkyDefer: I ran the IA bot, and it reverted one of the edits you made. I've ran this thing multiple times; are you sure your edit is correct? Le Panini Talk 02:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Panini: It is now correct. Last time I followed this archive URL, it presented me with a review of Resident Evil VII: Biohazard. I manually archived again on archive.today and I think the website just reused the result on IA-bot's request. MilkyDefer (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: Ooh, goody. I'm literally available for two hours, so leave any suggestions if you have any. Support? Le Panini Talk 03:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No more comments for now. Just waiting for @Nihonjoe: to finish up the Japanese translation, after that I will change to support. I am available at anytime. MilkyDefer (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks for your feedback! I'll get you a barnstar soon. Le Panini Talk 03:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: Wait a minute, while I was doing my translation job, I spotted that the table of the list of awards got its header wrong. Under the "award" column is the year. MilkyDefer (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: Looks like reference #27 and #29 are the same. You may consider a merge. MilkyDefer (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MilkyDefer: Done. That should take care of it. It also seems that Nihonjoe has been inactive for about three days, and it might take a bit to hear a response from them. While you wait, I'm open to addressing any more concerns (although your suggestions seem to be required technical changes). Le Panini Talk 12:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. I just changed two reference URLs. One of them is an archive URL, you may submit a bug report to the one behind IA-bot because it seems to misinterpret the # symbol in the URL. That's all from my technical view. I will hold my support until the results of The Game Awards come out. A quick notice is that the reference you used for the Golden Joystick Award only supports that the game received a nomination. There is no reference supporting that the game did not win it. MilkyDefer (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MilkyDefer: I put another reference in, and archived it. Thank you! Le Panini Talk 12:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: And by the way, I updating the Game Awards 2020, with citation. Le Panini Talk 00:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Panini: That's nice work. In fact, I initially meant to "hold [back] my support until TGA" (RIP my English teacher). It does not matter now. This is my official support. MilkyDefer (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: What about you Nihonjoe? Would you mind giving suggestions while you're here? Le Panini Talk 03:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I have time. Beyond the reference above, I haven't ever read this article. I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: No worries, just ping me if you start a review. Le Panini [🥪] 19:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The translated article in Chinese Wikipedia is currently under good article nomination. Someone commented that the "Reception" section was over-cited. Some sentences were supported by four or even six references, and a large number of review scores were not used in the content of the article. I'm currently doing a cleanup in response to this, and maybe it is a good idea for you to do the same thing. MilkyDefer (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MilkyDefer: I forgot to mention that I did some changes, and only kept the usual reference count to three. However, I kept the combat at four to show how much critics were split on the concept. Le Panini [🥪] 11:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds fine. In Chinese Wikipedia, an article is promoted to GA status by going through a 7-day voting period. The translated article's voting period will end in roughly a day. If I find the comments there useful, I will post them here. MilkyDefer (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: I'd honestly like to hear their suggestions, while I'm pending reviews from others. Le Panini [🥪] 11:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The voting has ended and the article is promoted in Chinese Wikipedia. Thank you for your outstanding work! Here are some suggestions from the community (when saying "article" I an mainly referring to the translated article in zhwiki):

  • Per Template:Video game reviews/doc, only include reviews if they are cited within the text. A large number of less-known and not-used reviews were present in the review box, such as VG247 and Jeuxvideo.com. As a result, they have been wiped out from the article.
    Done. But kept some sources and included them in reception.
  • It makes no sense to cite Edge to claim that "Edge gave the game an 8/10, tying with Othercide for the highest-rated title of the week in August 2020." 8/10 is not impressive, Othercide is not well-known, and it is only the highest-rated (not sold, nor some serious game of the week) in a certain week. This sentence immediately follows the Metacritic score sentence, and no one can explain properly why include this Edge sentence. As a result, this sentence, as well as the review score from Edge, has been removed from the article (and VG reviews). I replaced that sentence with a synthesis of all topic sentences of the following paragraphs.
    Done.
  • Could you find some reviews that claim "the story seems pale compared to the dialogs"? A reviewer from a Chinese video game magazine claimed that, and made its way to the article. Maybe some English reviewer has the same idea and you might include that as well. If you could not find any, that is fine to me, too.
    I've read all these sources carefully, and I've seen no mention of the storyline.
  • The Famitsu source to reference its 36/40 score is incorrect. The correct link is this. (Title translation: Paper Mario Origami King's reviews, comments and thoughts. May seek assist from Nihonjoe)
    Done.
  • A picture of Rubik's cube (namely, File:Rubik's cube.svg) has been added into the article.
    We decided against this (by "we", I mean me and ThomasO1989), as it can be explained in text alone.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Awards, noteworthy awards and nominations that contribute to the overall reception should be documented in prose in this section. I have added a quick summary of the nominations right before that table.
    Done.

That's all from Chinese community. Wish you best luck. MilkyDefer (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Le Panini: I'd like to remind you that I haven't heard your response to the Famitsu suggestion and the "Awards and nominations" suggestion. Have changes been made to address them, or you have decided against them? MilkyDefer (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: Oh, sorry, I've been caught up in holiday stuff. I'll have this done by the end of the day. Le Panini [🥪] 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MilkyDefer: There you go. Good job on the GA! Le Panini [🥪] 22:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition from TZubiri[edit]

  • Oppose On three bases, First that the subject is not appropriate for front page featuring. Second that the subjects youth and commercial nature would convert the feature into a commercial advertisement, which is a bad precedent. Thirdly, all of the references are web citations, this is not a good standard for an encyclopedic article, in this case it's due to the youth of the subject and its digital nature, but not a good precedent in any case.--TZubiri (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I haven't seen a luddite "non-'serious' subjects not written about in paper books should not be assessed for quality because I can't tell the difference between FAC and the main page" review in years. Please take some time to review the standards of the community you are participating in, both in regards to reviewing and what the FA standards are. This would, if promoted, be the 194th (extant) article on a specific video game to be an FA, and so not a precedent in any measure beyond how little time you spent looking into it. --PresN 05:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: I haven't seen the other 194 articles, but I bet not all of them suffer from the exact problems I mentioned, pay close attention to the comment about young age of the subject and commercial interests, notice how all of the sources are close to commercial interests and could constitute as an advertisement themselves. If some of the 194 articles suffer from this problem, I would have opposed them as well, but that's irrelevant now.
I'm not seeing a big difference between an FA and a TFA, as far as I can gather, being FA is a requirement for being TFA and the TFA process is much less stringent. So one could say that the possibility of being featured on the main page is the most important consequence of granting FA status to an article. (P.S: The nominator also explicitly mentioned they plan to nominate for TFA) --TZubiri (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm afraid these aren't actionable objections. Pls read the FA criteria re. sourcing -- the standard is quality, not book vs. web per se. If the subject passes notability guidelines then we can probably be said to have safely moved past the advertising concern. Lastly the type of articles that appear on the front page will tend to reflect their proportion among the pool of FAs -- not what's considered appropriate or inappropriate in anyone's opinion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I did glance at the criteria, they are nothing new to any wikipedia editor. Regarding sourcing quality, there is individual source quality and overall quality, an article may be based on several high quality sources, but if they are all of the same nature, web reviews made at release by the videogame journalism industry, then the overall quality of the reference corpus is low, not least because it's weak to biases. It is possible that there are no other sources on the subject to date, and you would be right in saying that this is not actionable, unless you consider waiting to be an action. Give the subject some time to breath, to develop more organic references.
I disagree with the comment regarding the absent relationship between FA and the main page, as I said, the most important consequence of a FA is that it has the possibility of being showcased on the front page, whether you consider the consequences of featuring an article or not, they exist.--TZubiri (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that we have to wait for this game to be sacred texts or something? The FA criteria is very specific of what ways an article can fail. "The article is only six months old" does not take effect. Also, all of these sources are confirmed reliable according to WP:VG/RS. Le Panini [🥪] 18:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the user did the Comments Opposition thing as if there was originally gonna be comments, but there never was. Do you have any suggestions? Le Panini [🥪] 10:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wait a couple of years for other sources to comment on the subject and for commercial interests to die down.--TZubiri (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TZubiri: I don't think that's necessary. Frankly, any mainstream interest of this game has calmed down drastically (as seen on the daily pageviews) and commercial interests hasn't been so "up in your face" as it used to. Everyone has moved on to the whole #freemelee something-or-other. The game has long received significant coverage, all of which confirmed by reliable video game sources. Le Panini [🥪] 17:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can safely ignore this oppose (unactionable). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from SatDis[edit]

I will leave some comments below;

  • In the last sentence of Gameplay's first paragraph, could you split into two sentences like this; Throughout the game, the player sets out to follow each of the streamers, which occupy wide spaces for exploration. These areas contain puzzles the player will need to complete to proceed.
  • Could you change Nintendo Switch Paper Mario to a Nintendo Switch instalment/version of Paper Mario?
  • Link YouTube.
  • Fix the order of refs [28][27] in Characters section.
  • This quote "[W]e chose the characters that would be the best fit for the events in each stage of the game". sits as its own sentence without any introduction. Was it meant to be included in the prose?
  • The paragraph that begins with Responding to criticism... and leads into the quote, doesn't have a citation until into the next paragraph (visually). I would expect a citation at least right next to the direct quote.
  • Fix order again in Reception [51][52][53][42] and [37][12][43] and [36][12][46]... just check this section!
  • I would change the title of the "Awards" section to "Awards and nominations".
  • Ref #53 and #54 are not archived - was that a problem with the Kotaku site?
  • Apparently so, but I could archive one of them.

Well done with the article, I hope these comments help. SatDis (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I've addressed all your concerns, but did some rewording for better flow of transition. Le Panini [🥪] 03:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making those changes, I support this nomination. It is excellently written and referenced. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my featured article review. Thanks so much and good luck with your nomination! SatDis (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would I be if I didn't? In the spirit of Christmas, I will, but it may take some time as the article is pretty lengthy. Le Panini [🥪] 05:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, ha, thank you! Feel free to focus in on specific areas of the article if it's too large. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ImaginesTigers[edit]

Hi there, Le Panini! I'm about to read over the article and give my overall impressions. Following your response (and if you decide to implement my edits), I'll apply the FA criteria and we'll see where we end up. Overall, my initial impressions are pretty good.

  1. The first sentence in paragraph three of the lead just reads very strangely to me: The Origami King's development emphasized innovation to a greater extent than previous games in the series. Development cannot really emphasise anything, right? So it'd be the team emphasising innovation during development, or something to that effect.
I shoved a little "team" in there.
  1. Does "Scenario" really need to be its own sub-heading? It’s only a paragraph, and it doesn't seem all that significant of a piece to be packaged so discretely. Especially because it begins by talking about design, and so seems suited to just be slotted into the next section as a self-contained paragraph.
I guess you're right, so I combined the sections.
  1. The game's Reception is wonderfully done. I'm really impressed. I do think that your paraphrasing is so excellent elsewhere in the article that there's no need so many large quotations elsewhere in the article, though. Especially the large block quote at the end of the Paper Mario: The Origami King#Design, about it having a puzzle solving element. I definitely think you have your own style as an editor; but that quotation just doesn't need to be there to that extent.
It's more or less not my style of writing; when I set this up for peer review, everyone was all like "too many quotes" (because it was bad before [6]), but a copyediting brought some of these quotations back. There was a reason (to help it read better), so I left it as is.
  1. I see that "role-playing" has been typed out in full several times before it is given its "(RPG)". I also understand why; it doesn't make sense to do it in the prior instances. At that point, though, may it just be better to remove it and stick with the fully written form? For consistency's sake.
That's an error; I've made some changes.
Sourcing is excellent. Not a single besmirch-able source. Kudos, really.
Right back at ya. Le Panini [🥪] 04:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all pretty minor things. You've done a really great job with this article. There are some things I'm not a fan of — lots of quotations instead of paraphrasing — but ultimately that's my own style. You did a really great job. I don't really need to list the criteria to know (though I will, for posterity). I'll come back tomorrow to apply it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: Okie dokie! I've also responded to your initial comments, and I assume the quotations are Twofingered Typist's writing style (who did the copyedit), which brought along some additional quoting. I might not respond to you swiftly, being Christmas Eve and all. Le Panini [🥪] 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looking forward to reading your next nom (feel free to hit me up for proof-reading)! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GamerPro64[edit]

Going to stake a claim to review this nomination. Will go over this soon enough. GamerPro64 05:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going to be honest. I came into this article with low expectations. But this is honestly a much more detailed article than I expected. My only gripe I have is noticing that some sources in the Reception section are not in numerical order and should be rearranged correctly. But once that gets done, I would be comfortable supporting this. GamerPro64 03:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GamerPro64: Done. It seems that IGN was moved up to ref 12, and made the organization all wonky. Le Panini [🥪] 04:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me now. Support - GamerPro64 07:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Le Panini: please don't change by header after I already changed it for you. GamerPro64 22:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: Sorry, I like to add the Comments thing to show that you previously had comments. Change it back if you'd like. Le Panini [🥪] 22:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi Le Panini, I can see some commentary on images and sources (including coverage) but didn't notice a formal image review for licensing or source review for reliability and formatting. This being, as I understand it, your first FAC I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I'll add requests for these to the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a message to Buidhe but never got a response back. I'll be here to deal with any changes. Le Panini [🥪] 07:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Hi, Ian. I'd be happy to carry out a review of sources tomorrow given that this one seems to have stalled. I'd already looked through a handful of the sources, but I didn't realise I should have logged them. I'm quite familiar with WP:VG/RS because I've done a lot of editing in that area. I can do it tomorrow if you think that's okay, logging them as I go and looking for close paraphrasing. The article has 83 references—if you are okay with letting me do so, what is a reasonable amount for a spot check (percentage-wise)? It'd be good to know what is standard for my future reviews. Hope you're well! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImaginesTigers, thanks for offering to do that, and I realise now I didn't put these requests at the top of WT:FAC as I said I would... :-P There's no hard and fast rule for how much to spotcheck but I'd trying aiming for at least 10 percent to start with, and if there are a few problems coming up then perhaps another 10 percent to get a good feel for how things are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Hi! I was just checking in on this one, and I see that it’s still awaiting a source review (I labelled mine that, but I realise now it was a spot check I did). It might be worth shoving it into the requests on WT:FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Sorry, Le Panini, I wasn't able to do a review back then, due to some burden on other stuff. Will help with this candidacy.

Lead
  • "...video game for the Nintendo Switch console." I would restructure this to "...video game released exclusively on the Nintendo Switch console".
    Done.
  • "The Origami King features cross-genre gameplay, blending elements of action-adventure, role-playing (RPG), and puzzle games." Supported by ref 1. It has been cited about in the body, so it's encouraged to have as little references in leads as possible.
    Done.
  • "...used enemies uninvolved with the Mario franchise"-- I would suggest changing "with" with "in".
    I believe with is the better use here. It's implying that new characters created for the game cannot leave a mark on the Mario franchise, like in timelines n' stuff.
  • "Anticipating an inability to satisfy every fan"-- "every fan" makes it seem delusional. Perhaps have it "...to satisfy fans".
    It's because everybody wants different things, and the developers couldn't cover all of the grounds. The "every" part is in there to show that different people want different things.
  • "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed, being praised for its innovation and criticized for its difficulty and lack of purpose." There's a double and here, so suggest changing to "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed: being praised for its innovation, and criticized for its difficulty and lack of purpose." I would also refurbish "lack of purpose" to "vagueness", but that's just me.
    I don't see how this would fix the problem, as two and's are still present. I went with "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; being praised for its innovation, there was also criticism for its difficulty and lack of purpose."
  • "The game had sold three million copies by September 2020"-- I would have this fragment followed with how many months/weeks/days passed by from Sep 2020 since its release, so it'll be "The game had sold three million copies by September 2020, two months after its release". Gerald WL 13:53, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
    Done.
Plot
  • Linking festival seems to be too much of embeds.
    Done.
  • "...into origami enemies called Folded Soldiers." Perhaps "into origami enemies called the Folded Soldiers"?
    Done.
  • "...five multicolored streamers"-- which of the streamers is it referred to? I don't have the game, and am not generally a fan of the Mario franchise, so just asking here.
    Like, those streamers you'd find at birthday parties. Are those going to get an article? I can't really do anything about this, but its been addressed before.
  • Olly is your typical antagonist, eh? Gerald WL 16:13, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
    Yep, but Olivia isn't your typical Navi.
Development
  • Vague ref 14 following "Intelligent Systems,".
    Oops, Done.
  • "The YouTube announcement"-- Link YouTube?
  • Entire third paragraph relies on ref 27 and 28. So, perhaps move ref 27 to below and remove the initial ref 28 to save space?
  • I can't stand that image of Princess Peach. It's fucking cute.
    I removed it.
    No, no, no, that's not what I mean—
  • "...review by Nintendo's intellectual property (IP) team"-- Suggest linking intellectual property. Also, is the term IP used later in the article? If no, it seemed vague.
    Done.
  • "The announcement of Mario having companions throughout the game caught many reviewers by surprise, as it was a feature that had remained absent from the games since Paper Mario: Sticker Star. However, critics were still disappointed that the allies did not seem to have much functionality, and were hoping for partners that would help solve puzzles progress in skill alongside Mario." Suggest removing the initial ref 31, again, to save space. I'll continually refer to this suggestion below as "initial-save-space".
    Done.
  • "...backside of Hole Punch"-- links to the typical hole punch, but with the capitalization, I think it's a character in the video game instead. Mind addressing?
    Done. Did some clarification.
  • "Bowser Jr. "was an exception"; The team"-- decapitalize "The".
    Done.
  • Initial-save-space on last paragraph.
    Done.
  • Initial-save-space on Design para 2 and 3.
    Done.
  • "...as opposed to the "chapter"-based style"-- The term chapter is not uncommon in video games, so I don't see why the quote-endquoting.
    I just changes it to linear.
  • I don't think it needs a block quote; it's not that long anyways. Gerald WL 16:13, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
    It's the biggest quote that doesn't paraphrase, however.
Reception
  • "According to Hong Kong's unwire.hk people"-- Needs clarification on unwire.hk to not make it seem like a typo.
    Done. Added some clarification.
  • "on the GfK chart of digital sales." What is GfK?
    No idea. I removed it, as it didn't serve much to the text anyways.

Hope my comments help. Gerald WL 16:14, January 2, 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns. Le Panini [🥪] 19:22, January 2, 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis Nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Nudge? Le Panini [🥪] 18:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nudge. GeraldWL 00:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Spot check[edit]

Not sure how to format this, but I've learned via the Project's Talk that formatting is a bad thing, so this is going to look completely hideous... I'll try to just use bold to separate.

Ref 2: Although the source is in German, it mentions the paper and cardboard theming repeatedly, and uses the German word for "linear". Neither are a close paraphrase of what the article expresses. Pass.

Ref 8: This citation supports an especially long part of the gameplay, but the wording and expression is sufficiently transformed. Basic words that can't be easily substituted are retained ("limited"), but there's some creative use of language by Panini in other places ("transitions to a battle screen"). Pass.

Ref 9: This one took a minute to realise because it was so creatively transformed. The nominated article says that items can be used to restore HP points; the review says that it will take more consumable items to finish a mission if you take damage. It says "obtainable hearts" earlier in the article, but it’s clear they're consumable items. Pass.

Ref 14 and 15: Two citations, supporting one sentence, properly attached to the respective statements. 14 supports that IS developed the previous games in the series and this instalment; 15 supports both that they developed the game. Counting this as 1 reference. Pass.

Ref 18: The Eurogamer article says that Nintendo "was hoping to lift the lid on its Mario plans at E3 [with the] release timed to celebrated the 35th anniversary of Super Mario Bros. in September". As someone who follows gaming news, I know that E3 was cancelled because of the pandemic (prior to the Eurogamer article's publication). The nominated article says "but had to change plans after the convention as cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic", but Eurogamer doesn't say that. Eurogamer omits it, I expect, because it’s well-known (but is an error on their part imo; they should have mentioned it). This is a philosophical question more than anything. This could be resolved by adding another source says that E3 was cancelled because of the pandemic (and wouldn't be synthesis IMO—it’s just relating two separate facts, and there's no analysis). I think this is a pass, and will count it as one. Ian, as an experienced reviewer I'd appreciate input here!

I've added a source that E3 was cancelled anyways.

Ref 28: Straightforward corroboration; no issues. Pass.

Ref 31, 32, and 33: I don't think this one is straightforward. The nominated article says that critics were surprised by the addition of companions, but I don't see any of them indicating surprise. The three citations are all attached at the end, but all three aren't in total agreement (though they do all agree that they are underused; it’s the prior sentence that's the issue). I think that 'critics' is too vague language here; I recommend breaking this sentence up and properly attributing the critics. "[...] caught many critics by surprise" =/ "to the devastation of many fans". Not passed.

I've removed the beginning sentence, and replaced it with something that makes more sense. The sentence I removed was true (As I also did research on YouTube), but couldn't find any publications talking about the matter.

Ref 2, 42, 49: Paraphrasing is good. Pass.

Because of the problems with Refs 31, 32, 33, I looked back at other grouped references which spanned two or more sentences.

Ref 29 and 36: I wasn't sure if this was synthesis, so I checked with a long-term WP:VG editor and admin, and they have said it isn't. It is just providing an example, and the guide is by a paid staff member of a reputable publication. That said, the sentence is a bit long and clumsy, so I do recommend splitting it up. Pass.

On an unrelated note to sources, while reading I noticed a part in Development about glitches in the game. That feels more related to release than development. I understand why it’s there... but the location—sandwiched between a non-chronological account of development—does seem strange.

Conclusion: A couple of issues. Fifteen total references were checked. The article's strongest point is a creative use of language, preserving ideas and rendering them recognisable (and findable by readers) while sustaining the ideas. Sourcing is judicious and well-researched. One instance of a two long sentences being tethered to three citations, feels a bit muddled. Need Ian's input about the E3 thing. Once these are addressed (in whatever form that takes), you can consider this a passed spot check from me. Happy to do any follow-ups as needed but I anticipate no issues given how straightforward most of it is.

Now, more and more info about the game's release came out as time went on, but I couldn't find a proper spot for it. I could add a sub-header, but I'll need your opinion on it. This is what it would look like. (and don't worry, I was concerned about the FAC nom page, you can view it here. Le Panini [🥪] 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like that! Release is usually a separate section (as you know), but I understand why you're hesitant to do that. It would just look a bit unprofessional. There's no specific WP:VG rules that says it has to be a subheading, and being flexible based on what the article include is really sensible (imo). The section sets its own scope well, and although it’s structurally different from previous VG FAs, it makes more intuitive to me than what was there before. I've seen the below comment (edit conflict, I'm tacking this onto what I had written), and I disagree re: plot (it’s a lot of work with no meaningful benefit to the reader for this sort of game... I can see an argument for games like Chrono Trigger, but Paper Mario: The Origami King is not Chrono Trigger.) I think what they said in bullet point 2 is what we've just discussed you changed. Unless Ian wants more (happy to do it!), I'm happy to support again. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi ImaginesTigers and thanks for that. I am just checking if the above is just a spot check, and so a separate source review is still needed, or if it constitutes a source review as well? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog. It was just a spot check, unfortunately. I'm still learning how to identify "high quality" reliable sources, so I didn't feel qualified to do that (I didn't even know the difference at the time). Someone else will have to do that one—I left a message about it under the coordinator note, and asking Ian to add it to the template on WT:FAC (he said he would at the end of last month, but these things slip through, especially when your reviewers are new and don't know what they're talking about quite yet). I was literally about to leave a message on Ealdgyth's page to see if she'd be up for it, since it’s been here for so long, but Panini beat me to it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Le Panini [🥪] 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, no worries, it has been on the source review needed list for a while and I guessed that you had only done a spot check, but it seemed worth checking before I poked the usual suspects. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Is a source review one of the only things holding this back from being promoted? Le Panini [🥪] 15:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking broadly, and skipping some caveats, yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Is there something specific you mean by "some caveats"? I'm open for fixing if any. Le Panini [🥪] 01:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Let's get a source review and see where we are. I anticipate that a clean source review will allow a promotion, but I am nor guaranteeing that in advance. If you have any favours you can call in for that, I suggest that you do so, I am conscious of how long this has been open. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sent a message to WT:VG. Le Panini [🥪] 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Man, the critical reception of this game sure is a little different from the mixed consumer reception I've seen, if a like/dislike ratio on a Nintendo Youtube video is any indication. But I did see it on Wikipedia's DYK recently, so what the heck, let's talk about it...

  • Just a suggestion if you're a perfectionist: cite the plot section with video game quotes (see also Chrono Trigger)
I've decided against doing this, as there isn't much that needs explaining. It's a Mario game, after all. (EDIT: I did anyways.)
  • The second paragraph in the development section does not belong in a development section; it belongs in a separate "release and promotion" section because it discusses how the game was revealed to the public and what happened shortly after release. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "The Origami King launched at number two in the United Kingdom, behind Ghost of Tsushima in terms of digital sales.[67] It was the second best-selling game during its first week on sale in Japan, with 109,092 copies sold.[68]" To make this sentence a little more concise, do something like this: "The Origami King launched at number two in weekly sales in the United Kingdom and Japan, selling 109,092 copies in the latter nation."
Done. Although, I kept the Ghost of Tsushima part in.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: I've addressed your concerns. Le Panini [🥪] 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Was doing a lot of work on Conker's Bad Fur Day, so I decided to look around on what else to do as a break. I've more of the article to look at, so I can't make a definite support/oppose comment just yet. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and other comments by David Fuchs[edit]

  • Images:
    • File:Paper Mario The Origami King.jpg—bog-standard "for identification" rationale, appropriate resolution, fine.
    • I'm not really sold on the fair use rationales for the remaining non-free media. They're all just the boilerplate, which doesn't really fly, and I think the intrinsic benefit of File:Confetti! Yahoo!.jpg and File:Origami Princess Peach.jpeg is pretty low. They don't have much critical commentary in the reception section, it's tough to see what's going on in the former, and the latter only supports a small paragraph that's not a huge part of the developments section. I think if the fair use rationale is buffed up File:Ring Style Combat.jpg has a much stronger case, as two paragraphs are devoted to it in the gameplay section and it's the focus of a paragraph in the reception section as well, in addition to the developer comments about gameplay.
      Although I removed the origami Peach image (so sad), I disagree with removing File:Confetti! Yahoo!.jpg. It's simply an image of core gameplay; all game articles have an image like this one, with a picture of what core gameplay looks like. This one is standard practice, and the combat has its major purpose of being there as well, which is why two images are present. Originally, there was a second image covering boss battles, but was removed after this comment from TarksusAB: "The boss battle image is not necessary because it's just a variation of the standard boss battle. Rather, use an image of Mario walking around the environment normally. That's oddly missing."
      • With respect to Tarkus, we don't get to include non free images just because they feel essential, and "standard practice" doesn't mean they meet NFCC. Right now the fair use rationale is basically akin to the argument for using the cover art, which implies that one isn't necessary because they're both being justified by "it helps readers know they found the article" and the cover art has a much better claim to that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
    • File:Kensuke Tanabe GDC 2011.jpg is appropriately described and licensed, but it's kind of a terrible picture. I think cropping a two-shot of Tanabe and whoever he's talking with from [7] would be a nicer image; he's still in profile, but at least his mouth isn't hanging open and his skin isn't being blasted by flash.
      Done. Although I used a different image found on the Commons.
  • Other comments:
    • I'm hesitant about the use of block quotes in general, but the one highlighting the Tech Radar review should absolutely go. It's being used for decorative reasons, not because Matthew Forde's opinion is singular or his prose is so affecting it must be included.
      Done.
    • The final paragraph of the reception section (about the localization bit) doesn't seem like it belongs in reception at all versus release. There's no major critical commentary on it.
      Done. I've moved the section to Promotion and Release
    • "By September 2020, the game has sold almost 3 million copies"—is there a reason we're using present tense instead of past tense for a historical fact?
      Done. Probably just a typo.
    • "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; being praised for its innovation, there was also criticism for its difficulty and lack of purpose." — the use of being strikes me as odd in this construction, versus something like "while praised for its innovation" which ties more directly into the second half of the clause.
      Done.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've addressed your concerns. Le Panini [🥪] 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "there was also criticism for its difficulty" - don't see this in the text
  • Done.
  • Some of the details in the infobox are unsourced
  • @Nikkimaria: Almost done here, where could I source some of this information? I've been told it's best to not to cite inside the infobox? Panini 🥪 01:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable guidance is WP:INFOBOXREF: first if it makes sense to do so include and cite the material in the article text, and then as a second choice cite it directly in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I could source some of the stuff, but for other things, I can't. For example, simply searching Tadao Nakayama comes up with no reliable results. How could I source these people? Is there a way I could source the credits? Is that even a good idea? Panini 🥪 03:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite credits as a primary source in some limited cases, but take a look at that policy first to make sure that every case in which you would want to do so is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Should I cite a YouTube video of the in-game credits? Apart from this, I can't find much else about it except some other fan wikis. Panini 🥪 03:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely - unless the upload is from or authorized by the copyright holder, a YouTube video is likely to fall afoul of WP:LINKVIO. You can just cite the game itself for what is listed in the in-game credits, bearing in mind the caution above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kensuke Tanabe, developer and producer of the franchise since Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door." - source?
  • Done.
  • FN2 is incomplete
  • Done.
  • FN3 should include the original title and language
  • Done.
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher for web sources, and check publisher vs work (eg CNET is listed as both)
  • Done.
  • FN4 is missing date. Ditto FN5, check for others
  • Done!
  • FN12 is missing author. Ditto FN13, check for others
  • Done.
  • What makes VG247 a high-quality reliable source? Shacknews? Destructoid? Unwire? Easy Allies? Nintendo World Report? Siliconera? iMore? RPGamer?
  • If I'm correct, all of these should be replaced now.
  • Don't nest quote marks within quote marks
  • Done.
  • Not done, see for example FN33. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. Should be done now.
  • Citations to non-English sources should include indication of language
  • It looks like this is done, with only one source in German needing translation.
  • FN68: other web sources have accessdate, why not here?
  • USgamer or US Gamer?
  • Done.
  • According to the company page, it's USgamer. I've made the changes.
  • FN74 is incomplete
  • FN68 is a dead link, check for others
  • Looks like just two, both fixed.

Quite a few references missing available bibliographic detail here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Hello, and thanks for the review. I'm gonna work to replace the references (like Shacknews and VG247), but what about the reviews in reception? Those are critic opinions, so should those be left in? Panini 🥪 12:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you include a review by anyone as a critic opinion? If no, what's your rationale for why these specific reviews warrant inclusion, if they're not reliable either because of the publication source or because they qualify under WP:RSSELF? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've removed their uses in the Reception. Now, though, what about the instances in other sections, such as development? Sources here, such as references 29, are here to support the primary source interviews with secondary, reliable (WP:VG/RS) sources. Would it make sense to keep these in? Panini 🥪 00:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe they're reliable, can you explain why? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Here's my research. Keep in mind I'm new to FAC; I'm not that keen with high quality sources just yet. I would like to say, these sources I found from what WP:VG considers reliable; do you have some discrepancies with these sources in general yourself?
  • Siliconera: The first two sources are written by Jenni Lada, the editor in chief of the website. She's written for mutiple other publications, according to her about page. The site is owned by Enthusiast Gaming, owner of several reliable sources (well, according to WP:VG/RS). The other source I'll work on replacing.
  • What other reliable sources has she written for? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After one more, thorough search, none! I'm working on removing them.
  • Imore: I've removed this source entirely, with one source supported by Tech Radar and Eurogamer.
  • VG247: The first two cases I easily removed, as it was supported by other reliable refs. The third occurrence is about the top selling games on Amazon; would it make sense to replace this with the actual list?
  • I can't link it here, as it is on the Wikipedia blacklist. Instead, go to reference 72 and follow the links to it instead. The VG247 removes the other gaming-related purchases, like headphones.
  • Looking at the original source, I'm actually not convinced it warrants inclusion. The way it's framed in the article sounds like it's much higher on the list than it actually is - really it's #47 on the actual Amazon list, and #unknown-but-past-10 on the condensed list. (Could you check that there's no other examples of this kind of boosting in the article?) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shacknews: One reference, about leaking the game prior to announcement. Removing this would be ignoring facts.
  • No, it wouldn't - citing the leak itself would be a primary source for the leak, and we prefer secondary. Have other sources commented on this leak? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, and funny enough, no. I replaced this with other leaked content.
  • Destructoid: Removed most cases, but this source has been considered reliable by the community; OpenCritic rated it one of the most reliable video game publications. Also owned by Enthusiast Gaming.
  • Considered reliable by the community why? Link for the OpenCritic rating? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here [8]. Easy Allies is ranked number one, but what's done is done. WP:VG is careful to make sure blog posts aren't cited, and in this case, Chris Carter is a staff writer. He only "sprinkles in his thoughts" at the end; everything else is info, which is cited in the text.
  • The link to the original OpenCritic post in that source doesn't seem to be working; can you explain their process/criteria for selection? What is Carter's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blogpost (which is what that is) also includes a yikes statement of: Others on OpenCritic’s most trusted list like PC Gamer still rank high despite them coming out against movements like #GamerGate, claiming that they chose to ignore the corruption in media, despite the fact that one of their own executive editors was dating a Ubisoft employee while promoting their games. Similarly, the list is WP:USERG, not written by OpenCritic. You can find the archived version here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unwire: Considered reliable by the Chinese Wiki (see above), according to MilyDefer.
  • Any idea what factors led to it being considered reliable there? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent him message. I'll ping you again once I get a response.
  • I'm here. I admit that I used the unwire source just because it is on the first page of Google result. There is no discussion on unwire 's reliability in zhwiki. There is a similar article from zhwiki-community-reconized reliable source Standnews, covering the same contents from unwire and something more. I wrote them on my talk page in response to Panini, and here is the link: zh:User talk:MilkyDefer#Yep, I'm back. Milky·Defer 04:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said "reliable" back then, I meant that 4Gamer and Yahoo are reliable. I thought that since unwire is widely used on zhwiki, that should be reliable. But looks like I'm a little bit too optimistic... Milky·Defer 04:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I just found out that Stand News has its own article, in which it said that "Stand News was ranked highest in credibility among online news media in Hong Kong in two public opinion surveys conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2016 and 2019". I think there is no doubt that this IS a reliable source, and I would do that replacement if I were you. Milky·Defer 16:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Panini!: It's a pure coincidence that I checked my email before going to bed after reading a visual novel overnight. I have changed the article. I noticed that the date format is not consistent because I just carried over the habits from zhwiki. You may archive the new source, and make some wording changes if necessary. Milky·Defer 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being perceived as credible, and being reliable, are unfortunately not always the same thing! Any information on the editorial policy of the site, or the background of that particular author? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stand News is founded by Tony Tsoi, former co-founder of House News. Its editors (and board members) can be found at [10] (Traditional Chinese). On the same page it also documents its policies. That particular article has "立場報道" on it, which means that this article is a news report and is written by the editor team. You may refer to our discussions over its reliability at here (discussed in 2019). Milky·Defer 04:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I do not read Chinese; would you mind providing a summary? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Sure. Its board members include an ex-lawmaker, a writer, an former red cross secretary, a professor and ex-editor-in-chief of another newspaper. They are non-profit, and accept donations without conditions from general public. They gather materials on an independent basis, and they are not getting affected by sponsors or political powers. Any earnings are solely used in publishing and news reporting, and their stakes and assets are managed by a trust. Their policy also says that they fight for freedom speech and allows different opinions present on their website. Milky·Defer 14:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, this is the first time that I am being questioned about the reliability of a website, and I am not sure whether I am getting the information you want. Milky·Defer 14:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I did some search. According to the 2020 report of Reuters Institute's Digital News Report [11], Stand News has gained significant popularity and trust, which I think can prove that this media is noteworthy. The editors are chosen as the members of Hong Kong's fact check agency, which I think can prove that the editors are reliable. Milky·Defer 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, popularity and popular credibility do not necessarily correspond to reliability. The second part of that is more helpful though, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Allies: Only used in reception, removed.
  • Nintendo World Report: Only used in reception, removed.
  • RPGamer: Only used in reception, removed.

If this does not make the slightest of sense to you, I understand. Panini 🥪 01:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Pinging. Panini 🥪 02:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Panini 🥪 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT, the infobox part slipped my mind. I'll get to that now. Panini 🥪 02:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Okay, now I'm done there. Panini 🥪 23:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1 is incomplete. Ditto FN69, check for others
  • FN42 has an error in author name. Ditto FN68, check for others
  • FNs51 and 52 are missing language. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I know you rarely support on source reviews; is this a nod of approval? Panini🥪 03:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King/archive1&oldid=1001919544"