Jump to content

Talk:Super Mario Bros.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.17.45.119 (talk) at 09:49, 27 November 2007 (→‎Box Art...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleSuper Mario Bros. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 1, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Mushroom Traitors?

The Goomba's Japanese name (Kuribou) is based on chestnuts, not mushrooms. The Goomba is actually supposed to resemble a chestnut in it's shape and color. So, as oppose to mushroom traitors, Goombas are actually some kind of odd chestnut monster. -- Kendamu 14:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the manual for the US/EU version of the game, it isn't. --Hullubulloo 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming Musroom Traitors, it is also stated in the Super Smash Bros. Melee(PAL) Trophies information about Mario. 194.120.158.162 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that was "traitors of the Mushroom Kingdom", not "traitors that happen to be mushrooms", but I haven't checked.

NES Classics Version

This was also released on the GBA as part of Nintendo's NES Classics series.

That's already mentioned in the article but it's under Classic NES series, which I think was the American name for the series. Corbo 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How to use?

How can you use this with the power glove then again how can you use any mario game with the power glove?--Yowiki 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jackson reference...?

I think that reference is totally useless. There are billions of Mario Parodies around the Internet. Why is a Jerry Jackson reference here? I remember that two submissions were blammed in Newgrounds. But the moderators allowed them in the very end! Not only that, but Jerry Jackson make movies totally pointless, without any kind of sense. They are poorly drawn, with a emotionless voice, not sound at all, and they even manage to appear in the Frontpage and here in the Wikipedia. I'm going to delete that reference right now. Please, be fair.

Vs. Super Mario Bros. statement removed

The player begins with only two lives rather than the standard three, and 256 coins are required to earn an extra life, as opposed to 100 in all other versions.

I removed this because this obviously depends on switch settings. Both the number of lives and how many coins are needed for a 1-up are configurable settings. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info

I can't say that I agree with the removal of the cultural info here. I mean, the whole article is cultural cruft, we might as well acknowledge it. Its not like it hurts the encyclopedianess. I won't revet, but I think the info should be put back. pschemp | talk 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was "A Wikipedia user noticed that foo is referenced/is similar to/is mentioned in passing in bar" original research plus an ad for someone's album. If someone wanted to write something cited, that would be fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe pull the album ad but the content seems encyclopedic to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it original reserach to talk about a phrase the game uses? Anyone can verify that. pschemp | talk 02:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it original research to note how many toes a species of bird has? Anyone can catch the bird and verify that.
Synthesizing direct observation is original research. In this case, it's really, really inane original research, but it's a good hedge against Armchairs in popular culture. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first half is all "A Wikipedia user noticed that foo is mentioned in passing in bar." Super Mario Bros. or its music has appeared in the background of dozens, if not hundreds, of TV shows and movies and mentioned im passing in many; listing every single one is neither useful to an encyclopedia or even practical. We're not exactly talking about SMB3 and The Wizard, here.

The whole bit on "I'm sorry..." is full of unsourced, largely unsourcable statements:

  • It has become something of a pop culture phenomenon, similar to "all your base are belong to us." - Since when?
  • The phrase is frequently parodied and referenced in popular culture, most often in video games and video gaming related contexts. - The video game world is pretty self-referential, especially when video game series reference previous games in that series. Any reference in a source other than video game recognizing this phenomenon?
  • It is sometimes called both a meme and a snowclone. - This is an artefact of memespam being cut from the article on "I'm sorry" and is similar to "Fanfic often depicts this character as..."
  • It is sometimes cited as a good example of negative reinforcement. - By whom?

The rest is more "A Wikipedia user noticed that foo is mentioned in passing in bar."

So, where's the encyclopedic content? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the removal of info, why is it that there is a constant effort to remove or minimize the presence of the Minus World? This is something that has been around for years (as in, you saw talk of the Minus World in old magazines), and it's well-known why the Minus World is there, and yet anytime it's added to the page it's either removed completely or listed as "uncited", which is crap, as the game itself should be enough citation. 66.168.83.91 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, there's a conspiracy going on. My guess is a loser who got pissed off because he sucked too much to get there

Don't space. TTN and others keep removing it. He states it's game guide material or cruft which would be spam. Angry Sun 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Giana Sisters

There’s no mention of Great Giana Sisters, a 8-bit era computer only clone of Super Mario Bros that had to be removed from the shelves due to legal issues. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already linked off the main page for the Mario Series in general. Babrook 9:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"king cooper"?!

i'm sure the name i remember was bowser, not sure if this was mentioned in the game itself though and i don't have the instruction manual availible.

It's 'King Koopa' Babrook 10:00 23, January 23 2007 (UTC)

Killing bowser (reffered to in the article as "king cooper"

i clearly remember the manual saying that there were several ways to kill him, are there any known ones other than the two already mentioned in our article? Plugwash 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 'King Koopa' Babrook 10:00 23, January 23 2007 (UTC)

Mario and Luigi

"The game starred the Italian plumber Mario and his slightly younger brother Luigi." Something about this statement bothers me. I was always under the impression that they were twins, but I don't remember there being any information given about the slight differences in their age. Is this just an assumption or does someone have the original packaging? Either way I think I'm going to add the word "twin" to that sentence somewhere. Quixoto 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE twins. Mario was just born first. And whomever brings up that the GBA port of Yoshi's Island removed the twin statements: That was only the English version. If you were to translate from Japanese (or just about any other language included in the European edition), you'd find "twin brothers".

eu gostaria da jogar mario forever

Music

The article ought to touch upon the music of the game.--Xtreambar 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Evan1109 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minus World in the Virtual Console

The article said "the glitch remains in the Virtual Console version, but not in the form it is remembered." I did it in the original way as soon as I got the game, so for one, that's totally wrong. And for another thing, whoever said that didn't elaborate on this "difference". I changed it for now--but if this isn't a flat-out lie then please elaborate on the differences. Evan1109 16:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do you do the glitch? isn't it break two blocks above the pipe duck down and jump?

Backwards fireball

"Note the backwards fireball" What?

The "hardest level ever" video

You've all probably seen this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6204903272262158881

It looks like a mod of some kind. Does anyone of you know it? Shinobu 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the same thing. I also think that the video's famous enough on Google Video and various forums to warrant a mention in the article. Does it fulfill notability requirements? --Safe-Keeper 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to

Steven Kent's "The Ultimate History of Video Games", Super Mario Bros. was an arcade game first, then ported to the NES. --Imax80 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true. VS Super Mario bros was in fact based on the NES version. Else why call it VS Super Mario Bros, like all the other NES "remakes" appearing on the VS Arcade System? --Dez26 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're all on the same page: Kent's claim was that Super Mario Bros. was originally released in Japan as an arcade game, then ported to the Famicom. That port was then released in the US with the NES. The VS Arcade version then followed. Druff 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

This article has at times been pruned of information of wide interest, such as its popularity (cited in the peer review as a section to expand, not delete!) and the minus worlds (as above), as one can see by comparison with: archived version.

Presumably this is because the article becomes unwieldy with all this information, so I've made a separate article for more detailed information: Super Mario Bros. Technicals.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but Super Mario Bros. is a major element of pop culture.

In future, could editors please discuss deletions and refer to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, and suggest guidelines for what should and should not be included?

Nbarth 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per "Wikipedia is not a gaming guide", people have suggested instead that much non-encyclopedic information be put elsewhere, such as: [1]
Nbarth 08:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowser (smb1).png

Image:Bowser (smb1).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. for GameCube

SMB for GameCube (in Animal Crossing) is the original ROM. A full emulation; no modifications. So I moved the information about it to where the information about the Classic NES Series and Virtual Console versions are. Mega Man 5 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ID Software's PC port of Super Mario Bros?

There is a story that ID Software approached Nintendo with the idea for a PC port of Super Mario Bros (and an accompanying demo), but were turned down, which led to the creation of Commander Keen instead. If anyone would like to research this and integrate it into the main article (trivia section?), that would be great.

Music?

Is it just me, or does one of levels have a song that sounds very similiar to "Aces High" by Iron Maiden. That just dawned on me even though I haven't played this game in over a decade. However, I be confusing the song with one of the other Super Mario games...

You're wrong.Every song in the game plays at least three times.TheK12 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

This article does not currently meet GA standards. Images lack fair use rationales (which is a quick-fail criteria), it's terribly under-referenced, the random wikification of stand-alone years needs to be corrected. References also need to be consistently formatted. Currently, there are extra characters at the end of one reference. Not sure what it is, I assume accidental. I'll wait a few days before checking back. If these issues haven't been addressed, I'm going to delist the article from GA. Know, however, that it can always be renominated at a later time. LaraLove 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It needs to be organized. The Master of Suspicion 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationales are now in every image. However, the relatively few references won't meet GA criteria. I can't find a single reference in the gameplay section, which is long enough that it deserves references. I'm now delisting this article as GA until the standards are met again. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"World 0"

Someone added this under Bugs/Glitches. There's no citation, plus it appears as though it just applies to emulated versions, whereas this article is talking about the actual NES Cartridge game. Instead of removing the section, I thought I'd see what others thought, if it should stay or go. Poor Poor Pitiful Me 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since I received no replies, I took it upon myself to remove the section since emulated versions of video games aren't usually discussed in respective articles, in part due to the questionable legality of emulators. Poor Poor Pitiful Me 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1up spot in 2-2?

Is that not notable enough to be mentioned under bugs/glitches?

I believe that this bug was exploited in the 1990 Nintendo World Championship... 164.236.0.10 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Renom

I've renominated this as a Good article canidate. The two main concerns for delisting were no sources and no fair use rationales for the images. Both have been fixed by me (though for the 2nd one, I just added the article name to all of the fair use templates), so I've gone ahead and relisted. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS issue

The footnotes must go after the punctuation mark—not before. I'd fix this myself... but I can't be bothered. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Looks like I need to go back over the MoS. Completely my fault. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Ah, a classic. Some comments:

  1. The caption for the image in the infobox is an interesting pastiche of OR and POV. "As was typical of NES games in America at the time the cover shows a scene from gameplay in 1985." Such a statement, even if made in the body of the article, would be highly suspect and require a citation. It needs to be changed to something very factual about the picture. It's not even really a scene from gameplay, but more of a hodgepodge of game elements. On the opposite side of the coin, "a gameplay screen shot" is not a very descriptive caption.Caption removed until I can think of something to write without stating the obvious NF24(radio me!Editor review) 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why I shouldn't do reviews later at night — you actually don't need any caption since it's the cover art, which is self-evident. So this concern is done with. Cheers, CP 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Super Mario Bros box.jpg needs to have sourcing information.Request left on uploaders' talkpage NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Where did you get the cover art? From a website? Did you scan it yourself? That needs to be noted in the summary.Not necessary. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Same with Bowser (smb1).png. Who took the screen shot? Was it taken from a website?Required information already on image page NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Again, with All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros box art.jpgSource listed as "classic-gaming.com", though as Pagra said, it's no necessary.NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) and SuperMarioBrosSNESTitle.pngSource listed as "Video-game or computer emulator". NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC). These are non-free images, and every precaution must be taken.[reply]
    • Box art and screenshots only need to list the game and copyright holder for source. It is irrelevant if the image came from a user scan, a user screen grab, or from the internet, as it has no impact on the copyright status. Pagrashtak 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to cover all major section of the article (for example, it doesn't at all cover the large game play section) and not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article (for example, "Although often wrongly credited as the first scrolling platform game (there are at least a half dozen earlier), it is the first console original in this genre to feature smooth-scrolling levels" is not mentioned in the article itself and, to boot, is an unreferenced statement as well)Unreferenced statement removed, lead cleaned up NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. After using Mario/Luigi for half of "Power-ups," the section makes it seem like only Mario can grab a Super Star.Fixed. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Referencing Wikiquote, as you do in power-ups, is not acceptable as a reliable source, and the statement itself is rather trivial to the entire article.Fixed. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "If Super or Fiery Mario touches Bowser at the exact same time as the axe, Mario will flash as if he was hit (but still remain big) while the bridge is destroyed. Mario will then glide towards the Toad retainer as opposed to running towards him." requires a citation (Small Fiery Mario). This statement could be easily challenged, perhaps by someone who can't manage to pull of the trick and thus questions its existence.First sentence rewritten, second sentence removed. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The "Music" section is far too small to stand as its own Level 2 heading. It needs to be expanded or merged with another section (maybe a Technology section that discusses the graphics as well?)As I'm not an expert on the graphics, I've merged it into the Gameplay section. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The "Game and Watch" and "Famicon Disk System" sub-headings do not contain enough information to stand on their own. They need to be either expanded or merged.Merged into an "Early re-releases" section. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. All one-two sentence paragraphs needs to be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.Done. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hacked versions should be a Level 3 heading under "Alternate Versions," not its own Level 2 heading.Merged into Re-releases section. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Under "Re-leases," "Virtual Console" and "Animal Crossing" do not need their own Level 3 headings, unless they are expanded, and "Animal Crossing" needs a citation.Combined. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What should I do with the Animal Crossing section? I can't seem to find a reliable source (aside of a Youtube video) for it. Should I just remove it? NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Given the great importance that you put on the reception of the game in the lead, the reception section is exceptionally thin. The lead should probably be toned down a bit (would help it seem more neutral a bit) at the same time as this section is expanded Certainly for such a seminal work, there must be more to say about reception and legacy. For example, the reception section for games that had little lasting legacy such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES game) and Major League Baseball (video game) have longer reception and legacy sections.Expanded section; un-strike if it's still too short. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I have to be so tough on this article, but it has been delisted once before and is high-profile enough to be under the scrutiny of multiple contributors. Anyhow, to allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Please note as well that this is only a preliminary review, and that I will be conducting a secondary review that will address, among other things, the references to make sure they are all working etc. The hold will not be extended for my second review, so please ensure that the above concerns are taken care of in a timely manner. Thank you for your work thusfar. Cheers, CP 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it a look and strike out things I'm done with. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references need to be formatted also. Pagrashtak 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm a little concerned about the refs overall. There are a lot of refs to TMK. I wouldn't have a problem with a few, but when there are this many it may cause the reliability of the article to be questioned. I think part of the solution is to remove some unneeded refs. Stating that Mario primarily attacks by jumping on the enemy is so basic it doesn't need a citation. At the least, this could probably be switched over to an instruction manual cite. I have the instruction manual at home; I can look to see what can be switched over to that when I get home if you need me to. Pagrashtak 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just chose TMK because it has been and always will be very reliable. I can go ahead and remove the unnecessary refs, but unfortunately I don't have the manual. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed the unnecessary refs (the article now has 26 refs instead of 38; wow!) and have fixed the rest to use {{cite web}}. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Part 2

Wow, it was really silly to remove all those references without checking with me (the actual reviewer of this article) first, because now an article that was fairly well-cited before is now just missing many citations. TMK was reliable for much (perhaps not all) of the things that it was citing (such as game play) and now that you've removed them and I can't tell where it would have been alright to use TMK or not. Until the citation issues are addressed (all potentially contestable issues and the gameplay) section, I will not be re-reviewing the article for other things. I said before that I would be checking the references in my second review, which I do because it's better to toy around with those once everything else is ducky (except, of course, when there are references that are flat out missing). I would have checked, as I said, for reference quality and workability after everything else is complete. To re-review again would be the equivalent of re-reviewing the article in its entirety. Please re-add the citations as they were, and I will let you know where more reliable sources are required in a second review. Cheers, CP 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the problem I have with GA. I can make suggestions to improve the article all i want, but the nominator will always allow your comments to trump mine because you're the "actual reviewer"—whether I'm right or wrong. So I'll just list my major concerns with the article here, and let CP line-item veto and tell you which ones you should actually bother with. As stated before, gameplay has many superfluous references, often to websites with possible reliability issues. Sentences like "Super Mario Bros. was scored by Koji Kondo, and its themes are easily the most widely recognized of any video game score to date." are what need refs. The gameplay section is too detailed. No respectable video game FA would allow such an in-depth discussion of the mechanics as this snake of a sentence: "King Koopa may be defeated in one of two ways: either by touching the axe at the edge of the bridge (thereby dropping King Koopa into the lava) or, as Fire Mario or Luigi, throwing fireballs at him to defeat him directly, revealing what enemy is in disguise; this is the only method one can use to receive points for Koopa's defeat." There's also a lot of glitch discussion. I will agree that the Minus World should be in the article, but small fiery Mario and jumping the flagpole is not notable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines for more on this. Remove the flags from the infobox. WikiProject VG convention is to use {{Vgrelease}} or similar, but no images. Pagrashtak 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this far too personally. I didn't say that your comments were right or wrong, I just said that's silly for someone fixing up an article to mix up two sets of suggestions. I have a method for reviewing articles that allows me to keep track of changes so that I can make sure that everything is in tip-top shape. The problem was not your suggestions, it was that the person editing this article took them up at the same time as they took up my suggestions and, in doing so, made it nearly impossible to track changes because now the article has changed substantially from the version that I reviewed. The concerns you brought up were legitimate, quite possibly even things I wouldn't have noticed on my own. But the editor implemented them intertwined with my suggestions, and I can't tell what's what. I likely will ask the editor implement many of the things that you suggested, but this is a very high-profile article and a structured approach to this review is the only way that it will be able to maintain Good Article status if it is implemented. Please assume good faith and don't take it as a personal attack, as more suggestions for improvement can only help. I asked the editor to restore the citations not because I thought that they were wrong, but so that I could track the changes. Anyhow, I will take a look at the article again later today and say what else needs to be done, likely incorporating User:Pagrashtak's commentary. Cheers, CP 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking this personally at all. My problem is not with you, but the way GA is structured. Although, if I can identify ref problems now, I don't see why they can't be fixed now, even though you're not looking at them yet. Pagrashtak 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the continuity of my review really; the only way I can manage these is to be a bit of a control freak. I don't mind input, especially from someone who obviously knows what they're doing, such as yourself, it's just frustrating to be presented with an article that had many of references missing. Anyhow, no hard feelings, I do appreciate some of the concerns you raised. Now, on to the changes!
  1. The lead still needs some work per WP:LEAD. For example, I personally think that the first paragraph is still somewhat POV, although perhaps I'm wrong. Also, given how large the game play section is, it's highly underrepresented in the lead.Fixed POV; added more information about gameplay. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I had one GAR put on hold and among the concerns was that the screenshots and box images had no direct source to link to them. Pagrashtak's argument about it not affecting the copyright status makes sense to me, so if they'll (singular "they" by the way, since I don't know Pagrashtak's sex) back me up on it, it should be fine without it.
  3. All of Pagrashtak's suggestions under this heading make sense to me except the removing of the last glitch. It was my understanding that the jumping over the flagpole thing was significant, especially because it was actually useful in some of the other version. Here's a compromise: if you can find a non-TMK, reliable source to discuss the glitch, keep it. If not, then it probably isn't notable enough to merit inclusion. NES Vids doesn't qualify (in this case) as a reliable source, by the way.
     Question: The source there is a website with a couple of screenshots and a movie. So does that count as a reliable source? It's not related to TMK or NESVideos. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    Responded on my talk page. Cheers, CP 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the discussion on User talk:Canadian Paul, there are not enough sources to establish notability for the Jumping over the flagpole glitch; thus, it has been deleted. Information on the Minus World glitch has been merged into the Gameplay section. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 01:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. References 18 and 28 need to use WP:CITET or a similar format as has been used in most of the rest of the article. Actually, Ref 18 should just be removed, since it's a)Not really an acceptable source and b)Is citing something that doesn't need to be in the article anywaysRemoved Small Fiery Mario section; formatted Ref #27 (28 was already correctly formatted) NF24(radio me!Editor review) 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah, because when you deleted ref #18, ref #28 became ref #27 =P Cheers, CP 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another reason I shouldn't edit Wikipedia in the early morning. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've heard conflicting reports on citations in the game play section. When I had my VG articles reviewed, I was told to cite everything in the game play section. When I reviewed one of the Zelda games, I was shown examples of FA articles that didn't have them. So I'll default to User:Pagrashtak on this one. Whatever they say about citations in that section is what you should do.Pagrashtak has switched most of the citations to the instruction book. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Some statements require citations:
    Under "Music," I don't feel that all of those statements could be considered "common knowledge" by someone who's played the game. Stating that "Overworld" is the primary theme is fine, but the other three are so specific in musical terms that they require a citation.Rewritten in layman's terms; that is, without all the references to time and whatnot. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "This glitch has been fixed in the Super Mario All-Stars remake as well as in Super Mario Bros. Deluxe." (Minus World)Referenced. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "As one of Nintendo's most popular games, Super Mario Bros. has been re-released and remade numerous times, ranging from an arcade version released soon before the original NES release to the game being available for download on the Wii's Virtual Console." (Alternate versions) You've already sourced its popularity, I'm more concerned about the fact that it was released. Surely that must be citeable somewhere?References added. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I would get rid of the Hacked Versions section. Lots of games have hacked versions, they're not inherently notable.Removed. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Reception and legacy has a citation that's not included between ref tagsFixed. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The "Development Staff" should probably be incorporated into the main body of the article, or the infobox.Inserted into infobox under Designers. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 01:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to check the references now an d will get back to you on them. I'm going to post this part of the review now though, since my computer has a habit of crashing when I check refs, and I don't want to lose the rest of this. If Pagrashtak gives you the go ahead to remove the references in the game play section, then that should simultaneously take care of their concern regarding the overuse of TMK. Cheers, CP 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be good enough for now. Tell me when this is all done. Cheers, CP 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a long weekend coming up (Election Day in the US), so I'll work on it then. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 10:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally switched any gameplay references I could over to the instruction booklet. It still seems a little over-cited, but now that it's using what is definitely a reliable source for the bulk of it, it's a very minor problem if you ask me. Pagrashtak 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last two things (hopefully)

Great work thus far! I just have two more concerns:

  1. I still don't feel the lead completely summarizes the article. There's a large weight placed on game play, but there's still no discussion on what Mario and Luigi actually do in the game, what their mission is and how they accomplish it etc. etc. There are many references in the lead to game play elements (King Koopa, Starman, Goomba etc. etc.), but these are completely outside of the context of the game itself. Right now, if you read just the summary, you'd know all about the re-releases, the impact it had, some random elements, the music etc. etc. but you'd still have no idea what the game itself is about.Also, I feel that you haven't really summarize the "alternate versions" section either, although all this would require would be something like "The game spawn many alternate versions as well" and then maybe a "such as..." afterwards if it wouldn't make the lead too detailed. Done. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Now that Animal Crossing is gone, "Newer re-releases" should either be expanded or merged with "Classic NES Series" and remain solely under the Level 2 heading of "Re-releases," as a Level 3 heading can consist entirely of 2 sentences.Expanded section; changed title to Virtual Console. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do this, and I think it should be good, unless Pagrashtak has any more comments. Cheers, CP 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last little thing now: now there's a small issue on the other side of WP:LEAD. In the lead you state "Super Mario Bros. was one of the first games to feature a storyline..." a fact that is not in the body of the article. Given that it's potentially challengeable too, you should probably provide a citation for wherever you put it in the body of the article. Cheers, CP 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Removed sentence; also have rewritten the lead NF24(radio me!Editor review) 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like it's time to pass the article! I do recommend that, if you want the status to last, you keep this page watchlisted and watch for crufty and game guidey changes, which will quickly deteriorate the article, since it's a high traffic page. Anyhow, congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box Art...

The cover depicted in the article shows the US version. I'm wondering if Japan's box art was different?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_Bros.&oldid=174104517"