Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Reception
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Gameplay written like Game Guide
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Gameplay section.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Why does Pic#2 have two rationales
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Passable but a better Pic#2 could be used.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Issues must be addressed before passing. Suggestions are only suggestions. There are enough issues for a quick fail but I'll wait for these to be addressed.


Issues[edit]

  • Gameplay is written as a game guide and needs to be rewritten completely.
  • Why does the second picture have two rationales?
The rationales have been merged into one. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 has died and become a redirect.
  • Ref 16 dead.
  • Citation needed in development
  • Ref 18 dead.
  • Ref 19
  • Where is the ref for the rest of the multiplayer segment in development.
    • Added ref. The official site is fine, right? Darrman (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The Multiplayer segment in development. Not the multiplayer section.
  • Ref 24 is dead
  • Ref 25 is no good
  • Bottom half of last paragraph in development does not have a source to cover that information.
  • I am done checking for ANY dead links. Most of Nintendo.com links redirect to its homepage.
  • ref 30 parameters.
  • Music, second paragraph mostly unsourced.
  • Are the English titles official translations? The article states only a Japanese release was issued.
  • Why mention the other games in reception?
If you're talking about the other top-selling games mentioned, I think it's nice for people to be reminded which games have been bundled with the system. If we leave this out, people might be wondering why the overall vs. non-bundled rankings are so different. However, if you feel this is unnecessary or too much detail, I can take it out. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It sounds more like justifying Galaxy's ranking and should be removed.
Removed. Mario777Zelda (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't mention an outdated sales number in reception.
  • Third highest on that website. Outdated info
Corrected. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 61
Seems fine to me. Darrman (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Do not cross off the reviewer's list. And secondly, the refs location have been shifted when references have been removed or added. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Darrman, use this version: [1]; I'm assuming it's the one used for the original reviews. Anyway, ref 61 there was a dead link, and since the source isn't the greatest and the review quote was rather bland, I've removed it from the article for now. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it referred to the OMN review, not the ref at review start. I think it was pushed down when I added a release date ref. Darrman (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Reception is disorganized. Reorganize the information. Something like Sales/Awards, Aggregate Reviews and User reviews, then whatever is left. Do not take this organization to heart. It might not work here.
Reorganized. There's now a brief introduction with an overview of sales and reception (in the form of aggregate reception scores), and then a section on the actual reviews and a section for awards. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Awards and nominations section? Even though awards and nominations are mentioned in reception already?
Merged into reception. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing release dates ref in Sequel section.
I added a ref for the overseas release dates, if that's what was needed. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

  • |lead=yes in Nihongo title
  • "(which Mario had in the previous two games)" Try to avoid in word brackets to for better flow

I removed that line. Darrman (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Replace the second picture for something more legible to general readers if possible.

Progress[edit]

The sales numbers in the reception have been updated, and the figures from ~2008 have been removed entirely. The ranking for Top Ten Reviews has been updated from first to third. The awards section has been consolidated into the reception section, since these were almost word-for-word the same. Also, there is now only one rationale for pic #2. Mario777Zelda (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to each point under the issues presented so I know that's the issue that you've tackled. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave a general rewrite, trying to remove original research. Hopefully it meets 2c now! Darrman (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't. If significant progress isn't made in ~2 days from now, I'll have to close this GAN since it doesn't look like it will meet the requirement in a good amount of time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the progress on the gameplay rewrite? Also, I will fail this if there isn't a plan on how to fix the refs. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In the rewrite, I was trying to remove original research , that's all. As for the gameplay, how do want it organized? Darrman (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay should be written on what it is instead of how it is. Look at Super Mario 64 which doesn't describe everything and anything of the game. I'm going to fail this as GA since there's too much that needs to be done. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)