Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

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 User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008 [1].

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

[edit]
Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ »


It's gone through a peer review and has received an copyedit. Timing may have been intentional, but in any case let the nitpicking begin! « ₣M₣ » 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The game is known for being the first official crossover title" why "is known for being"?
  • Why is it sometimes referred to as just "Mario & Sonic"?
  • "as well as non-playable characters from either series" what series are these?
  • "The gameplay involves use of the Wii Remote..." do you mean controls here?
  • "at E3 2007" reader might not know what you mean by E3.
  • "the game had gone gold" what does this mean?
  • "these were omitted from the final product" do we know why?
  • Was there any music in this game?

Hard for me to comment when I don't know much about subject having only played it once. BUC (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it is a lengthy title, its referred to "Mario & Sonic". Reception on music added. The wikilink doesn't suffice for 'gone gold'? No reason was given to why those events were omitted. « ₣M₣ » 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not say "the game" instead? people might think your talking about the characters Mario & Sonic. I did check the link, personally I was none the wiser but maybe I'm just stupid. BUC (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name is abbreviated to avoid repetition of "the game", "the title" or simply writing it out the lengthy name like "The Wind Waker". There are two style indicators to avoid the mistake you mentioned; the ampersand and italics. Besides press releases [2] and journalists [3] use it. If someone else brings up 'gone gold', I'll definitely alter it. « ₣M₣ » 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • "The two publishers were looking for " - no clear referent for "two publishers".
  • "The idea of an Olympic setting for the mascots existed after Sega obtained the Beijing 2008 Olympic license." - it "existed"?
  • "The game is known for being the first official crossover title to feature both Mario and Sonic The Hedgehog, along with 14 other characters from their respective series." - It's unclear what the sentence means. Is the game known for having Mario, Sonic, and the 14 others, or is the note about the 14 others merely an afterthought? If it's the later, then it should probably be split off.
  • "The player can assume the role as one of these characters" - grammatically incorrect.
  • "Overall, critics had mixed perceptions of Mario & Sonic's gameplay, with the multiplayer interaction of the Wii game and variety of events of both versions singled out as strong features." - the idea of the sentence changes suddenly in the middle. It starts out as being "mixed", but the rest of the sentence gives no hint of negative reception. In general, actually, the lead is not structured well - unrelated or contradictory sentiments will be expressed in the same sentence or conjoining sentences. You need to take a look at that.

These are just examples from the lead; I didn't look at the rest of the article yet. I may do so later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the rest of the prose, I see it's basically of the same calibre as the lead formerly was. I won't provide specific examples, somewhat because of my laziness, but mostly because I trust you know what sort of things to look for - awkward wording, unnecessary words which only serve to lengthen the sentence, etc. I can't support unless you clean it up.
Support - prose is much better. Nousernamesleft (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Suppport
    • I'm not entirely sure whether the DS and Wii versions are adequately served in a single article, or whether they should be split. It can get confusing, for example, in the reception section when sentences jump between versions. This isn't a dealbreaker though, others may disagree and I can understand that.
    • There aren't enough screenshots, and the one that is there, a character selection screen, I find useless. If you think a character list is useful (I don't), list them, rather than using a fair use image. There should be ideally at least one gameplay screenshot from both versions of the game, to display graphics engine, HUD, gameplay, input methods etc.
    • Can we have a list of events? These should tie in with official olympic sports, and will define the gameplay. If it's too bulky, then hide it by default.
    • You've used quotes in the references section, is there any real need for them? I can understand when you're quoting a film script say, but the Eurogamer preview is only a page long.
    • Please make the EGM score reflect what was written in the magazine, so we have a clear indication of what each reviewer thought of the game. That 6.3 could have been 1,9,9, or 5,7,7.
hahnchen 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for a split, as the reception states both are practically the same in design (control itself is the only real difference) so it'll basically be a copy/paste. The way reception is structured, the Wii and DS versions have their own paragraphs about control and gameplay. The only area in reception there is a "jump" is that last paragraph which compares the two in music, graphics and wi-fi. I did that because their practically the same in that as well. « ₣M₣ » 01:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I left reception structured as is per above. Also, I'm not too certain if adding a list of events are necessary. Besides these, all points have been addressed. « ₣M₣ » 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The simulation of events is key to the gameplay. I'm surprised you've decided to list the grouped sports such as athletics and aquatics without actually stating what these entail. Athletics is such a broad term, pole vault? Marathon? Discus? I only realised that trampolining and canoeing were in game after you posted the screenshot. Why have chosen to single out the DS exclusive sports? - hahnchen 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good points. Perhaps my subconscious is meshing list of tracks in racing games with this. Though a bit crude at the moment, the list of events is added. « ₣M₣ » 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - As Olympic tennis is on the television in the background, here's my review.

  • The first time International Olympic Committee is used, put the initials in parentheses like this: (IOC). I doubt anyone can get confused by this, but it's never a bad idea.
  • Delink July 2008.
  • Gameplay: "The DS game is the same in design however, its events are less physically demanding than on the Wii." I'd prefer "The DS game is the same in design, but its events are less physically demanded than those on the Wii."
  • Some inconsistent number usage. Twice I see "twenty-four events", but later there's a 14.
  • "The Wii version has in-game characters who are taken from the its Mii Channel..."
  • "where brief facts of the Olympics can be found." I imagine it should be "about the Olympics".
  • Development: The "young people love and are very iconic" quote needs a reference.
  • "Over 20 characters were originally planned as well as some sports, such as judo; however, these were omitted from the final product." Could this be made clearer? I'm not sure if this means 20 more characters or if a handful were dropped.
  • Reception: "The Wii game sold half of a million units..." Is of really needed?
  • "that both versions have sold five million units worldwide combined." Watch for tense; have should probably be had.

I haven't gotten to the Critical Reception yet, but this should be enough for now. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hopefully I have addressed those concerns. « ₣M₣ » 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I must apologize for not coming back here for nearly two weeks. As promised a while ago, I shall now look at the Critical response section.
  • I'd like a rewording of the first sentence, which now reads: "Mario and Sonic has undergone scrutiny for starring the mascots together for the first time in the Olympics instead of in a platform game, which GamePro criticized as being "a marketing tool to promote the upcoming 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing." Starring in the Olympics instead of an Olympic-themed game? Which sounds like it's referring to the platformer, and the Olympics are over now, so consider paraphrasing the quote.
  • "GameTrailers gave the Wii game an 6.8/10..." Should be a.
  • Check the X-Play quote.
  • Don't need two IGN and Eurogamer links in the section.
  • I think current reference 45, from MCVUK, has an incorrect title.
That's all. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just glad for the comments. Ok, all done. « ₣M₣ » 01:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked with the link checker tool. Note I'm on the road the rest of this week, so replies may be delayed somewhat. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vooks.net removed. Famitsu expanded and JP gamecharts removed. « ₣M₣ » 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Kombo removed, unfortunately. « ₣M₣ » 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Maybe explicitly use the phrase "video game" in the first sentence?
  • "Due to the atmosphere of competitive sportsmanship the Olympics had to offer, Sega received approval by Nintendo to include Mario in the game" - not seeing the connection between Mario and competitive sportsmanship myself. The entire lead needs some work; the structure is not the best. Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409?
  • "Both games closely follow the rules and regulations of the Olympics." - shouldn't that be the rules of the specific sports?
  • "seen in its home console equivalent." - probably not necessary; comparison to Wii is implied earlier in the sentence.
  • Trampolining isn't really the most popular Olympic sport. I know they're overused, but can you get an athletics/swimming image?
  • "The events often require a combination of speed, timing, and strategy." - does this need to be said? Most sports do, and you've said (and continue to say) they replicate the sports. Seems like a meaningless idle statement.
  • The structure is awkward throughout; eg. stuff like "Similar events have varying gameplay aspects; for example, getting a starting boost in the 100 m dash is more important than in the longer relay race, since it will not determine the outcome as effectively." shouldn't be given when you're summarising the ABSOLUTE basics of the game, IMO.
  • Listing the sports include seems somewhat gameguide-ish (a la a vehicles list for a racing game....).
  • "creators of Sega and Nintendo's mascots respectively" - not everyone will make the connection to these being Sonic and Mario. Just name them.
  • Magazine publishers like Computer and Video Games and Market for Home Computing and Video Games need italics everywhere. Example.
  • "with their newly acquired license" - doesn't really need to be said; it's pretty much a given.

This doesn't cover everything, but is should give an idea of stuff that still needs doing. I haven't looked at the prose everywhere, obviously. —Giggy 11:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed numerous points. idk... Hahnchen did rise some good points for the event list. Hopefully the current lead will suffice. « ₣M₣ » 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, its implemented. Image aside, is there any more awkward structuring? « ₣M₣ » 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: After reading through the article there were a couple issues that stood out to me. Through comparatively minor by themselves, I feel together they warrant opposition.

  • This may be opening a can of worms, but my main issue is the list of events in the game. Though they are based on real events, I feel it is an excessive level of detail about a piece of media with a fictional setting. Also, because it is something that I'd would expect to find in a strategy guide or online FAQ, I feel it does not comply with WP:NOTGUIDE.
    I believe the whole section could be summarized in a brief set of sentences mentioning that each game had exclusive events.
  • The prose could use a some massaging. Not a lot, but I felt some sentences could be tightened up and/or better clarified.
    • Some paragraphs jump right into descriptions without giving the reading the main idea. I think adding some would help improve the readability. For example:
      • For this sentence: "Both versions of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games have three similar modes of gameplay." I would tweak the end like "...similar modes of gameplay: Circuit mode, Single Match, and Mission mode."
      • The "Development" section just starts off with the history of the game's origin. I would start the paragraph with a sentence that reiterates who the developer/publisher was.
      • The "Critical response" section also starts out this way. "Mario and Sonic has undergone scrutiny..." Scrutiny from who? I think adding a sentence stating how it was overall received by critics would help give some context to the rest of the section. Since the paragraph above it focuses on sales, take out the comment about "mixed reaction from critics" and move it to the start of the subsection.
    • Miscellaneous prose issues:
      • In the "Gameplay" section, "...are less physically demanded than those..." Demanded or demanding?
      • Also, "Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games has authentic Olympic events..." Instead of "has", maybe try "features". Just sounds better to me.
      • In the "Reception" section, "...the Nintendo DS version sold 325,647 copies in Japan, according to Famitsu." Is the "according to Famitsu" necessary? I think the reference already implies this.
      • In the "Critical response" section, "GameTrailers gave the Wii game a 6.8/10..." The score doesn't really add much, I would leave it off as the rest of the sentence explains more to the reader.
  • Very minor style issue, and not a deal breaker at all. Does the X-Play review score have to use the stars? Personally, I like the "# out of #" over the stars. They look out of place, but that's just me.

Overall, this is a good article and can be FA. But I don't think it's current state is Featured quality. It's close though. I'll check back in later. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • It could just be me, but perhaps listing elements such as events should be discussed and clarified when, if ever, they are appropriate. As for the stars, I was just following {{Rating}}. It never specified if it should only be used for movies (perhaps it should). « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The prose looks better now. In regard to the stars, I've seen them before in some video game articles, but mainly music and movies. Like I said, it's no deal breaker at all. Just my personal preference.
      As far as bringing list issue to WT:VG, that sounds like a good idea, but I don't know if they can come up with a consensus quickly. The main reason I opposed was I felt the listing of individual events didn't further the readers' understanding of the game and taking it out doesn't hurt the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Well, in that case and the fact it was brought up before - I'll comment-out the event list for now until more people can weigh in on this. « ₣M₣ » 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A list of events is game guide content in my view. Making it so it can be hidden, doesn't change that. Hiding unsuitable content isn't the way to go. We need to remember: advice given here doesn't have to followed to make an article featured. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 23 little things:

  • There's an empty "Rumors" section.
  • I noticed it said who the publisher is in NA, Europe and Japan. What about Australia (since the release date is in the article)?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion for opinions on the event list: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Olympic_events. Only Hahnchen is strongly pushing for the event list, dispite it being game guide content. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bullshit your assertions when trying to illicit responses. I've asked an open question reflecting both sides of the argument, whereas you dismiss any other arguments, blithely asserting that your definition of game guide is gospel truth. Fair play there... - hahnchen 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off: there is NO need to swear about something this minor. The consensus is against you, but you refuse to accept that. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question shouldn't be whether it is useful for people who want more information an a game if they want to buy it; it should be is it encyclopedic information? WP is an encyclopedia, not a buyer's guide. Now, I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be included, just that the reason has to be right. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rob and Hahnchen, please keep your cool. I think it's best to keep this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of Olympic events. I'm sure Sandy doesn't want us making this FAC discussion longer than it needs to be.
Right now it's mainly been between a handful of VG editors. So comments from any and all editors would be welcome and appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Seriously. FAC is already a daunting experience for first timers, and even those who aren't. How many people could be turned off if they feel they're gonna be abused? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quite an interesting FAC, Matt I have taken care of the regional data you've brought up. « ₣M₣ » 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Guyinblack25's oppose been addressed to his satisfaction? The fact that it's been there for so long is the only thing preventing me from offering my support. Maybe somebody could ping him. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was moved to and has been going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of Olympic events. Right now a consensus does not seem to be forming because of the lack input from other editors. You thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
Sandy and FMF, I don't know if either of you want to weigh in on the matter, but you are both certainly welcome to along with any other editor. Any additional viewpoint would be welcome. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • With discussion in three different places aobut the list of events, no clear consensus has emerged to convince me I should hold off promotion over that issue. I do hope the involved Projects will work to develop a guideline for future articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (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/Mario_%26_Sonic_at_the_Olympic_Games&oldid=1136458299"