Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Brawl/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 not promoted 21:25, 13 May 2008.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has already been peer reviewed by User: Ashnard in a way which was similar to FA nomination. The article itself is completely cited, all images have correct fair-use rationales, and the style of writing is encyclopedic. haha169 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am worried by the fact that much of the references come from a primary source (or I assume that www.smashbros.com is a primary source). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I don't really think that it would be an issue. If it does become an issue, we could always replace some of the references. But we'll see what happens. --haha169 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them seem to be limited to the gameplay section, so they wouldn't be controversial. It is just odd to scroll down a reference section and see so many of the same in a row. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can either reference the official site or the game itself for most gameplay. I suppose you could reference a Brady Games Guide or Prima Games Guide if you really wanted to. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* http://web.archive.org/web/20060717223706/www.smashbros.com/en/story/page_3.html gives a file location error for me.

  • Curren ref 94 (Demarrage canon pour ..) Is in French, correct? Ref should give the language.
    • Fixed
  • Current ref 95 (Analyst March a ...) is lacking a publisher.
    • Fixed
  • Ref 85 (Nintendo Power) is also a wikipedia article.
    • The above three concerns were fixed by User: Pagrashtak --haha169 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.joystiq.com/
      • A real news article. This isn't posted on its forums.
        • Yes, but what makes them reliable as a source of news? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bioshock's ref 56 uses Joystiq. Some of joystiq's articles are reliable because they are researched and written by site employees and editors, just like IGN and Gamespot employees and editors. We're not talking about user posts here. --haha169 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • THe fact that another FA uses Joystiq isn't proof it's reliable. Is there a spot on the site that says they are a paid staff like IGN or Gamespot? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will reply to this the same way Pagrashtak did on the Ocarina of Time FAC. "Joystiq is considered reliable among members of the VG project, and it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List."--haha169 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Haha, the sources need to be established as reliable per policy, not per another FA, not per a WikiProject, not per another editor. Please review WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fixed I found a alternative of that ref on IGN, and I replaced the ref template accordingly. --haha169 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, you left out the first part of my sentence: "It has been my experience that Joystiq is considered reliable among members of the VG project". I didn't state in flat terms that Joystiq is reliable, just that I had noticed a favorable reputation for it. Just below, I offered to remove the reference if that was misplaced. Anyways, glad this was resolved here—just wanted to respond since I was quoted. Pagrashtak 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.kombo.com/index.php
      • Can't find this ref in the article
        • It's http://wii.kombo.com/article.php?artid=10866, current ref 65. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ref 65 is a 1up.com article, not Kombo. --haha169 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's moved to 66 right now. Full ref is Wirgler, Matthew (9 October 2007). Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Galaxy Playable at E for All. Advance Media Network. Retrieved on 21 October 2007.
            • Oh, I saw it as wii.advancmn...and then it redirected. That's a horrible reference. I think we may have to delete the sentence entirely. --haha169 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Forget my previous comment. Some redirecting happened and I ended up in at a blog post. I don't know what to do with this. --haha169 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see this is still in the article. Two ways you can go, either remove it or prove it's a reliable site. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fixed I removed it. No longer notable anyways. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.videogamer.com/
      • It was reporting speculation, and that is what the text states, anyways
        • We're putting in speculation now? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course not. Read the text, it says "Similarly, a representative on behalf of Nintendo of Europe on December 6, 2007 confirmed with the media that the game would not be released until after June 2008." However, this was speculation because that representative was not speaking the truth. It is part of a paragraph on issues with the release dates.--haha169 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You still haven't said why this particular site is a reliable source per WP:RS. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see. Apparently, I was avoiding the issue. I'm going to bring this and kombo on the talk page, see what happens. --haha169 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Videogamer.com is published by Pro-G ([1]). Virgin Media apparently contracts with them in some fashion for video gaming content. Pagrashtak 20:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Thanks. However, I'm not sure if that works, since I'm not familiar with Pro-G and Virgin Media. Ealdgyth, is that satisfactory? By the way, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. --haha169 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I wasn't familiar with Pro-G either, which is why I mentioned the Virgin connection. Surely you're familiar with the Virgin Group in some way—Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Megastores, Virgin Mobile? Richard Branson? Pagrashtak 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • They do have quite a lot of brands. I believe I've heard of some of them before, but I've never familiarized myself with them. Does this mean that this reference can stay, or go? --haha169 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If Virgin considers it reliable, it's good enough for me. Pagrashtak 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • All right, then. Thanks for helping me clear this out, it would've been a problem if it was just me. --haha169 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I've removed the strike throughs, I'm not entirely sure that having a contract with virgin media to provide content is necessarily proof of reliability. We don't know what parts of the site are given to Virgin, nor what they do with it. Also, it's usual to let the person putting for the concern strike/hide/cap their concern, here at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Fixed Okay, I've removed it. It was talking about a previous Europe release date, which was proved false. We have the final one now with a ref from the Nintendo site.--haha169 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://wii.qj.net/
      • This one is still in here. What makes it a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried. It doesn't really look like I can replace it. I could try citing the magazine where the quote is from, but I don't have Tips & Tricks. Does anyone have suggestions?--haha169 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed You got me. I spent quite a long time searching, but was ultimately unable to find any mention except for forums and the like. This was the most reliable source, and I was unable to establish its reliability. Therefore, the statement is removed along with the reference. --haha169 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 80 (Famitsu) is a wikipedia article. Definitely not RS.
      • Fixed I replaced the ref citing the magazine to one from 1up that has a translation and score. --haha169 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one looks like it's supposed to be a magazine article, but it needs to be formatted like the rest of the magazines in the article. It needs publisher, magazine title, issue, year, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other links worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall work on fixing those right now. (The gametrailers ref is real, because we are citing the company (Game Trailer)'s review. --haha169 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ref 80 and 85 are citing the magazine itself. I don't know who did it, and am not entirely sure on how to fix it.--haha169 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ref 84 (nintendo power) is being used to ref "Chris Slate of Nintendo Power also awarded Brawl a perfect score in the March 2008 issue, calling it "one of the very best games that Nintendo has ever produced."" and a review score. I suspect they meant to ref to an article, but that's not what is currently there. I have no author or issue information (unless the "(Future US) (no. 226), 7 February 2008" is supposed to be the ref? If so it's not formatted like the other references. Same sort of deal for the Famitsu ref (current ref 79). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to that issue of Nintendo Power. I've fleshed out that reference (now 86)—it should be fine now. Pagrashtak 12:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still need the same fleshing out for the Famitsu ref. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to fix? Its just wikilinking the publisher like all the other references, although a few more parameters could've been filled out. While I do question the use of goNintendo, some of those sources are listed on WP:VG/S. « ₣M₣ » 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other issues:

  • Current ref 42 "Mysteries of the subspace emissary" needs publisher and last access date.
  • Current refs 30 and 31 "All Star Mode" and "Boss Battles" need last access dates.

Also, I'd like to say that leaving a politely worded note on my talk page chastising me for being "absent for such a long period of time. We need to resolve your comments quickly and move on, and it doesn't look good on a FAC to leave an unresolved issue lying there." I took yesterday afternoon off. I looked at all the FACs yesterday morning, nothing much had been resolved on this one, and I chose not to comment, letting ya'll have some time to resolve things. I'm sorry that you feel that I was gone a long time, but this is a volunteer effort and sometimes RL intrudes and folks have to take a day or two off. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left it politely as I could. I might have been a bit rude, and I'm sorry about that. And I know it is a volunteer effort, but I wasn't getting any help and was starting to become annoyed. Sorry about that. I just needed more comments and things to fix, and you were really the only one giving constructive criticism on this FAC. So I turned to you. I'll get working on the new developments today.--haha169 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The reception section is really bloated. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discuss that on the talk page, not the FAC. And I must tell you, it is shorter than some of the FAs out there, like BioShock, so will you please stop complaining? --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? Pagrashtak 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it is a non-issue. See the article's talk page under "Recent Reception Edits". --haha169 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I don't agree with his statement, this is an appropriate venue to list any concerns with the article. If Wikipedian had said something demonstratively false, such as "The article has no references" that would be inappropriate. However, this is a subjective concern and the entire purpose of the FAC process is to list those concerns and let others determine the merit and severity of any potential problems. If it's truly a non-issue, then no one will agree with Wikipedian06, and no harm will have come. Pagrashtak 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you are stating the truth. However, he posted his comment on the FAC before even consulting the talk page, which was already having an active discussion on the issue. If you'll look, he hasn't even contributed to the discussion at all, so I was merely telling him where the discussion was. I did have poor word choice, but it is annoying to have an editor start a problem, and not contributing to the discussion. It leads us to a dead end. Plus, nobody did agree with him, and no harm did start. I think this discussion should stop, I'm not too interested in having a discussion of this subject on a FAC. --haha169 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article seems perfect so long as an edit war does not spring up. Just to be sure I am going to reread the article. This article randomly goes into periods of time when edit wars happen. We really need to watch out for this.--Smashbrosboy 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Support the article is in great shape, even if it won't fulfill criteria 1e (stability) very much for three reasons: vandalism, new sales data and awards. igordebraga ≠ 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although new sales data and awards do, vandalism does not mean the article is unstable. Vandalism is added, it's reverted, the article stays the same. Epass (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we'll be getting new sales data for at least another 2 months, since that has been updated very slowly since I've been working on this article. As for awards, I doubt Brawl will be getting a notable award to put up...so... As for vandalism, it hasn't been hard hit recently (which I'm happy about). I'm more primarily concerned about edit wars, which pop up at random times, usually over petty things. Anyways, thanks for the support, albeit minor. --haha169 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The references are being fixed, and there really aren't many edit wars. Aside from the recent one over GiantBomb, the last was over Dixie Kong being playable, and that was a while ago, before the game came out. The sales data won't come in until June 17; the European release date, or if the Australian date is before then. As for awards, they'd have to be something pretty notable, and if there were, a sentence is added, it doesn't really affect the stability that much. The article has well spread out images, and its section are neither to long or two short. It deserves FA. Epass (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good deal of time and effort have definitely been invested into the article. I can see no pressing issues to relate, and the article has stabilized since the last dispute. If anything, I can see the only problem being minor vandalism, but that isn't nearly enough to jeopardize stability. In any case, I can think of no significant reason to oppose FA for the article. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the three editors who supported above, after a long list of questions were posted about reliable sources, are aware that WP:V is policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say that the remaining 2 one issues with verifiability is a big problem. They said "no significant reason", among others. I'm working on the joystiq one right now, as well. --haha169 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've only read the lead.
    • "As the third installment of the Super Smash Bros. series, Brawl's roster..." Misplaced modifier
      • Seems fine to me. Elaborate more, please? --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read up on misplaced/dangling modifiers (Google is your friend!), then revisit the sentence and spot what is wrong. BuddingJournalist 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I already Googled it. I still don't understand...I see how there is a minor awkwardness there, but I'm not really sure how to fix it. I think I'll go tweaking around. --haha169 (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "As the third installment..." is modifying "Brawl's roster". The roster is not the third installment though. The game is. BuddingJournalist 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh. I'll fix soon. --haha169 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did something to it. Comments appreciated on if there is still a problem with the current revision. --haha169 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • FixedSatoryu went and revised that sentence to make it flow even better. --haha169 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some of them rearranged by 38 renowned video game composers." Conflict between "some" and "38"
      • Fixed --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, kind of. Re-read the result of your edit though. It's always good to proofread. BuddingJournalist 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is! I fixed a bit, and then Satoryu found another problem. It should be done now. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still unclear; wordy as well. Let's break this down:
            • "The game's music was individually composed or rearranged by one of the 38 renowned video game composers involved in the game's soundtrack, which consists of various themes present in previously released Nintendo video games."
              • "The game's music was individually composed or rearranged by one of the 38..." Surely, you mean each individual track was composed by one of 38, right?
                • Yeah, we do. I'll correct that immediately. Consider it fixed.--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "involved in the game's soundtrack" Seeing as how you state that they composed/rearranged the music, this is extraneous.
                • It is, but some previous editors thought otherwise. I think that this makes it most clear.--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • "which consists of various themes present in" Wordy. "which consists of themes from" BuddingJournalist 01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When development of the game began in October 2005,[11] Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers in an office in Tokyo exclusively for its development." Conflict between "when...began" and perfect tense. "in an office in Tokyo..." does not seem to placed correctly; it's currently implying that the office in Tokyo is where Nintendo recruited the developers.
      • Fixed --haha169 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better, but the repetition of "development" (there's already "developers" there too) is ungainly. The tension of using the "when...began" construct and the perfect tense is still there too. BuddingJournalist 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your concern, but I can't really find a synonym for "developers" and "developed", and i was also unable to thing of a way to rephrase the "when...began" issue, so... --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I find that hard to believe. "Nintendo began developing the game in October 2005, and enlisted the help of third-party developers to work in a Tokyo office rented exclusively for Brawl." Wasn't so difficult. By the way, the "Sakurai, Masahiro. Foreword. Smashbros.com." reference does not work. BuddingJournalist 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your right. That works. I'm sorry, I've been fixing errors on this FAC by myself, that I've been going brain dead a bit. I'll see what I can do with that reference. --haha169 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fixed Replaced the ref with an archive of the same date, and replaced that sentence with your suggestion. Thank you!--haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spell out and put the abbreviations in parens on first use. BuddingJournalist 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really sure what you mean by that last one, but I'll get to work on the other three. We've been having problems with #2 already, and resulted in a minor edit war a few months back. I'll see what I can do.--haha169 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations for abbreviations. An example would be "United States (US)". Note that some of your use of abbreviations-as-adjectives is colloquial ("featuring CGI cut scenes" would be better as "featuring computer-generated cut scenes", as CGI is really computer-generated imagery, a noun.) BuddingJournalist 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which exact issues are you referring to? --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ahh, I see. I'll get to work on that. --haha169 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wait, actually, I still don't "see". Sorry for the shifting moods here. But which examples would you like abbreviated? Satoryu gave a good example as why not to abb. SSE, but I don't see anything else that needs such abbreviation. --haha169 (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't want things abbreviated, but spelled out. An example from the lead: "CEO" -> "Chief Executive Officer (CEO)". You can lose the "(CEO)" if you don't plan on using it later. Like MOS says, this should be done on first use for all abbreviations. BuddingJournalist 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, well I spelled out CGI. There really isn't much left. SSBB is used several times as well. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think the problem is done. You changed the CEO, right? --haha169 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry but I feel this needs a significant amount of copyediting and MOS cleanup. Examples follow:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the third installment of the Super Smash Bros. series, Brawl's roster" - the lead phrase is not modifying the intended subject here; see dangling modifier
    • We're working on that. See above.
      • I did something to it. Comments appreciated on if there is still a problem with the current revision. --haha169 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "composed and/or rearranged" - aren't these mutually exclusive terms?
    • FixedI believe its gone now. It was recently added, and I opposed it. The editor who added it removed it since. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the game's score, which consists of various themes present in previously released video games" - is this true? the entire score is made up of themes from prior games?
    • Fixed As with the comment above, that has been changed by same editor. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers to work in a rented Tokyo office exclusively for Brawl." - to work exclusively for Brawl in a rented...
    • I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current placement of "exclusively" is ambiguous. I suggested above "Tokyo office rented exclusively".BuddingJournalist 23:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. I've Fixed it, according to Maralia's suggestion. --haha169 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each character has four character-specific special moves, which often have unique effects beyond damaging an opponent." - Each character has four unique moves, which often have special effects beyond damaging an opponent.
    • Fixed. Good idea. I'll change that immediately. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These abilities may be performed upon destroying a Smash Ball, an item bearing the Smash Bros. logo. When the Smash Ball has been successfully broken by a character, the character can then execute a Final Smash." - these two sentences are redundant
    • Fixed I know, but I found myself ignorant because I couldn't find a way around it. I'll merge those two sentences. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "changing their appearances and/or capabilities." - see WP:MOS#And/or
  • "Previously only available in Tournament mode, Super Smash Bros. Brawl features" - another dangling modifier
  • "Screenshot of the Super Smash Bros. Brawl final character select screen." - this image caption is not a complete sentence and should not have a full stop
  • "Sonic battling Mario on the Lylat Cruise stage." - ditto my previous comment
  • Please add nonbreaking spaces between numerals and units (example: 500,000 units).
  • The punctuation around quotations needs serious attention throughout. See WP:MOS#Inside or outside.
    • I'll work on that. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've spotted a few issues in the reception section, but not too much. Do you have any specific examples left? I'm not too good with grammar. --haha169 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed As far as I can tell, there is no more punctuation/quotation mark misalignments left in the article. --haha169 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Reception section, most of the sources are italicized when they are mentioned in the main text, yet those same sources are not italicized in the References (examples: GameSpot, GameTrailers, Game Informer).
    • Fixed Removed italics around sources that do not come from magazines. --haha169 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please respond below the reviewer's signature, rather than interspersing replies throughout their comments. I have hidden my previous comments as most of them have been addressed, with exception of the following:

  • Punctuation in/around quotations still needs work (example: "Edge concluded that while the Smash Bros. games have often been "derided as button-mashing," Brawl features "one of the most enduringly innovative and deep systems of any fighter."")
  • Logical quotation is still an issue; nearly every quotation in the 'Reception and sales' section needs ending punctuation to be moved outside quote marks.
  • Punctuation in image captions still needs cleanup (example: " Selection of characters in Super Smash Bros. Brawl that are available for play.")
  • "Each character has four unique moves, which often have unique effects beyond damaging an opponent." - You need not use my phrasing, but using 'unique' twice is weak
  • "Most of the individual tracks within the game were arranged by one of 38 renowned video game composers, which mainly consists of various themes present in previously released video games." - Two problems: (1) the first half can be read 'most of the tracks were arranged by the same guy'; (2) the second half reads as though it modifies 'composers'.
  • This now reads "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers. The soundtrack ultimately consists of various themes present in previously released video games." Neither sentence is really crystal clear: did the 38 composers actually collaborate (I got the impression they just individually composed tracks)? Are all the tracks based on preexisting video game music, or only some of them (I think I asked this question before, but didn't see an answer)?

I have not struck my oppose as I still feel this needs significant work. The plot section should be intelligible to a reader who is not already familiar with Mario games. The article still needs a thorough copyedit to fix grammar and punctuation issues beyond the examples I provided. Maralia (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'll do it this way. How is the music sentence in the intro now? I separated it into 2 sentences as well as did a major revision. The plot was fancruft in my opinion, but I don't really know if I'm allowed to delete it. I'll bring it up in the talk page. I'll work on the rest tomorrow. Thanks for the reviews! --haha169 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also went and fixed the image caption. I see how my previous revision did absolutely nothing to address your problem. Sorry about that. --haha169 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my comments, crossing out a couple addressed issues and elaborating on some of the remaining ones. I will gladly keep plugging away with you on specific examples, but this truly needs a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check out the reception sections of some FA video games for ideas on how to fix the quotation marks. As for the copy-edit, do you have good copy-editor to suggest? I'm not much of a copy-editor, and I've never brought an article up to FAC before, so this is my first time here.--haha169 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the quotation issue in the lead and reception section. --haha169 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral- This article needs some work. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 21:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really would appreciate it if you could be more specific like the editors above. I already know the article needs some work, but if you could give examples, that would be immensely helpful. --haha169 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands from that of its predecessor, while also being the first in the series to feature third-party characters" - sounds choppy...I get what you're saying, but it could be worded better (I think the "while" kills it somewhat)
  • The setup of the lead is awkward for a VG article. Check last month's VG newsletter, IIRC Masem wrote quite a good piece about that sort of thing.
  • "Brawl was announced at a pre-E3 press conference by Nintendo president and Chief Executive Officer Satoru Iwata" - in which year?
  • "At E3 2007, Nintendo of America's president, Reggie Fils-Aime, stated that the game would be released on 3 December 2007 in the Americas." - I think only the first comma is needed
  • In the lead it's somtimes referred to as Brawl and sometimes by its full name...be consistent.
    • Actually, this issue occurs throughout.
  • "Mario and Kirby fighting Bowser and King Dedede." (image caption) - it's a free for all, don't imply there are teams
  • The SSBM FAC had plenty of issues with citation and stuff on gameplay...might want to look at it and see if there's anything relevant there for this one.
  • The characters can fight each other using a variety of attacks...characters have access to more powerful smash attacks" - some issues with these sentences. 1) You can attack by simply pressing a button and not touching the control stick (eg. simply pressing A or B on the GCN controller). 2) What's a smash attack and how do you get one?
  • "and are usually invincible" - usually implies exceptions...I'm fairly certain all the pokemon are invincible, not so sure on assist trophies?
  • A lot of the gameplay discussion involves statements like "as in the previous game". IMO this isn't necessary; the article discusses THIS game, not the previous ones. You can draw connenctions in cases of notable similarities/difference, but not for every case...
  • Smash Bros. DOJO!! referencing needs work; halfway through it changes from being the publisher (no italics) to the work (italics)...be consistent.
  • "SSE has a team system for the characters." - sounds clunky...for the characters - for who else??
  • "Masahiro Sakurai claimed that this mode..." - you don't need to wlink or use his full name every time...only use his surname subsequent times
  • "which transports part of the world into Subspace" --> "transporting part of the world into Subspace".
  • The /vast/ majority of gameplay content comes from one source (Smash Bros. Dojo)...not a huge deal, but more sourcing from gaming publications (IGN, GameSpot, you know...) would be preferred...
  • The Vault section is not that major a part of the game that it deserves that much discussion is it?
  • "such as the Metal Gear Solid-inspired Shadow Moses Island" - isn't there an article for MGS (the game)? If yes, why link to the series' article?
  • "Sakurai stated that these people had spent excessive amounts of time playing Super Smash Bros. Melee" - quote needs source
  • "we would like to launch this game on January 24th, 2008" - wlink the date
  • "aside from Snake.[67] The inclusion of Konami-created character Solid Snake" - probably use his full name and wlink him the first time you name him....
  • "Suggestions were no longer being taken..." - probably merge this with the previous paragraph
  • "who awarded it with a perfect score[83]," - put ref after comma
  • Check italics for ref publishers in reception section (especially).
  • "In Japan, Brawl sold over 500,000 units on launch day,[90]" - any reason why you use a French source for this? In any case, can you get one in English?
  • Is the Development section image necessary?
  • Same in the Inclusion of characters section.

Personally, I thought it was way too similar to SSBM. Agree with some of the reviewers noted, I guess. The multiplayer was good, as is always the case with a Smash Bros. game...but nothing to get massively excited over, IMO. Well, you could get excited over my comments here, I suppose. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the multiple comments! Due to me being very busy today, I'll probably check these out tomorrow. A quick glance, however, shows me that I can do some really interesting fixing up with your suggestions. (P.S. love the username water) --haha169 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Things by haha169 in response to Dihydrogen Monoxide:
    • I fixed the Smash Bros. DOJO references, added Sakurai, Masahiro as the author of each ref tag that was lacking. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead consistency-changed "Super Smash Bros. Brawl" in lead to "Brawl".--haha169 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added year for pre-E3 thing. --haha169 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed up the lead per the newsletter. --haha169 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the unnecessary second comma in, "At E3 2007, Nintendo of America's president, Reggie Fils-Aime, stated..."--haha169 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image caption no longer implies that there are teams. --haha169 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who awarded it with a perfect score[83]," - I moved the ref after the comma. --haha169 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel those images are necessary to address Snake as a Third party (in inclusion of characters), but the Sonic/Mario one is confusing. Its been there for a while, but I have never questioned its location before. I suggest you ask one of the older editors such as Satoryu or Jéské. --haha169 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We used the French ref because it is a little difficult to find Japanese launch day sales data. Apparently, Gamespot, IGN, and 1up didn't care about it. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masahiro Sakurai has been changed to "Sakurai" all except two important instances and un-wikilinked. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Vault section is, aside from multi-player and solo modes, the only place where you can actually play Brawl. Therefore, I find it important to mention objects such as stickers that affect solo gamelay.--haha169 (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Transporting...Subspace" That quote is now fixed. I didn't really use your suggestion, but it is fixed nonetheless. --haha169 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As in the previous game" is only mentioned once, and I think it being as a reference to Melee is quite useful. --haha169 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything wrong with the italics in the ref section. Edge and Nintendo Power are italicized due to them being published magazines. The rest are not because they are just websites. We do this according the the VG Reviews infobox. --haha169 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ref templates continuity issue; (publisher/work) issue has been fixed. --haha169 (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reliable cite says exactly that, so there is no valid argument against the non-invincible/invincible thing. However, I could give an example: Stafy is not invincible in any way.--haha169 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands from that of its predecessor, while also being the first in the series to feature third-party characters" was fixed after that massive intro revision. --haha169 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. My issues are addressed; I will continue to copyedit. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks a lot! Your new copyedit seems to have fixed quite a few extremely stupid "word flow" issues. I'll see if I can catch more of those.--haha169 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to fit the bill. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. An FA nominator rarely gets much appreciation, and we take these rare supports as our reward of a job well done. However, same as I asked the above neutral, could you expand a bit than that one sentence? I would love to know what are the positives of the article we worked so hard on. --haha169 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a lot of work on prose needed. Dihydrogen Monoxide provides a great starting list above, but you really need to grab an unfamiliar and experienced copyeditor to work through the text. Issues easily spotted - these are just from the lead:
    • The long line of Japanese characters in the first line is extremely visually distracting. The game is sold in English-speaking countries with an official English name; the Japanese characters are not needed.
    • "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers." Grammar.
    • "The soundtrack ultimately consists of various themes present in previously released video games." What purpose is the word "ultimately" serving?
    • "Later that night, Masahiro Sakurai, the director of the previous two games in the Smash Bros. series, accepted the role of director for the third installment." Accepted from whom?
    • "... Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers to work exclusively for Brawl..." They didn't work for "Brawl", they worked for Nintendo, yes?
    • "However, the game would later be delayed to February 10, 2008..." Grammar.
    • I have to echo Dihydrogen Monoxide's comment that the frequent "As with its predecessors..." comments are not necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser, I appreciate your concerns, and they are quite similar to dihydorgen's views. However, your first concern will not be addressed unless you are able to change the Wikipedia policy. A small note on a Wikiproject which isn't even supported just simply will not do. I'll work on the others once I am done addressing Maralia's and dihydrogen's. --haha169 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt attention. As I said, these are just examples - you need someone who has not worked on this article to give it a fresh copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Do you have any good copy-editors in mind, though? --haha169 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Things by haha169 in response to Laser brain:
    • "Ultimately" is no longer in that sentence.--haha169 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what is wrong with the grammar here: "The game's musical score was composed through the collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers." --haha169 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentences: "Later that night, Masahiro Sakurai, the director of the previous two games in the Smash Bros. series, accepted the role of director for the third installment." and "... Nintendo had enlisted the help of various outside developers to work exclusively for Brawl..." are no longer remotely the same in the current revision, and your concerns have been fixed in the revision.--haha169 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, the game would later be delayed to February 10, 2008..." - Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to copyedit this one (as I did SSBM) if you like (since Laser brain asked for one). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much! Any copy-editing, especially in the lead and trimming down the gameplay section, would be extremely helpful. I trust that you are at least somewhat familiar with the game so you know what things to trim out and what to keep? Anyways, thanks again! --haha169 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and could you cross out all the things that you think are fixed? I provided a list of what I think I've fixed down below. I would like to know what concerns I have fixed. --haha169 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Criterion 3 concerns:
    • Image:Brawlmenu.jpg, Image:SSB Sonic Mario.PNG, Image:SolidSnakeandMarioinBrawl.jpg - all of them don't really fit criteria 3 for WP:FA?, under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, p. 8 (note, the wording is under reconsideration, so I'm applying both to this FAC.) According to the current version, "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", the proposal reads "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article." How are the above shots defensible as contributing significantly to the article's content? The 'playable characters' tells us everyone who is in the game, so how do mugshots significantly help the reader? For the sonic-solid snake shots; how do vanity shots really help the text? You can just click a link to see what Snake and Sonic look like, so there has to be some commentary for them to stand on their own (also, the choice of images overall is somewhat bad. Why oh why is Mario in every screenshot???) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snake and Sonic are in the images with Mario to show their presence in the game as the first third-party characters within the game. The character roster is there to show who is in the game without over-fluffing the text as well as showing the reader what Brawl's select screen looks like (this style is the same in all of Brawl's select screens). Furthermore, each of the Wii games have a significantly different select screen style (Search Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Galaxy's select screens on Google), so this image is also relaying that information. As for your question regarding Mario, he is in every image because Nintendo decided to release only images that had Mario in them. The ones that didn’t have Mario in them were images that we deemed not necessary to include. I’ve just noticed that, but Mario is a very important Nintendo mascot…--haha169 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • References and prose tell readers that Sonic and Snake are in the game; how does an image significantly aid that? What makes Brawl's select screen very important to readers who have never played the game? None of these images have any sort of commentary attached to them; if they serve as window dressing, they should not be in the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand by the character roster. Melee has an image of the character screen, but they have a luxury that we don't: an image released by Nintendo that includes all the characters. Therefore, we use a select screen. It is important to the reader to know exactly what kind of characters are making an appearance and how the game's selection is styled. You could be right about the Mario and Sonic one, since that image has no relevancy to the text, but the Snake and Mario must stay as well. For one point, none of the images in the Solid Snake article depicts him from outside the Metal Gear world. This particular one includes him and his trademark Cardboard box (Brawl style), as well as Mario on Delfino Plaza. There is absolutely no alternative to this at all. Even the graphics on the images in the Solid Snake article are different. --haha169 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've asked Elco to give a second opinion on the images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • All right. I take it that Elco is an editor, not a bot or program? I'll wait for his comments, then. --haha169 (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh sorry, Elco is User:Elcobbola, he's pretty much the go-to guy for Ffair use/image concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay. I couldn't find an "elco" anywhere. Thanks for clarifying that. He seems trustworthy and experienced so I'll take his suggestions. However, I think the Snake image should still stay. If the other two must be removed, then so be it. --haha169 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A short comment:
    • Almost immediately into the lead there is abundance of VG jargon that could be simplified or emphasized less until there is more space to do the explanation. For someone who almost never plays video games (except for a penchant for Soulcalibur II), the jargonish aspects make navigating the article much more difficult, especially so soon into the text. --Kakofonous (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What type of "jargon" are you talking about? In the first paragraph, all I see is a nice description about the game's development. The second is a short summary on the game's gameplay and the third is the game's reception. The lead seems fine to me. As for the gameplay section, it might be a little too long, but it is hardly making the article difficult to navigate. --haha169 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Laser Brain and Kakofonous, i.e. for problems with prose and over-abundance with jargon. I went in and did some copy-editing before having a look at the FAC discussion here, only to note that many of the things I'd changed had been raised as concerns here already, e.g. the frequent "As with its predecessors" (and variants thereof). In combination, it looks too much as though this article is only comprehensible by, and is indeed aimed at, those who are already familiar with the previous game in the "Super Smash Bros" series. This is an unacceptably small potential public. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is, obviously, why I'm requesting for copy-editors. So far, all of the editors on the article, with the possible exception of our GA assessor (who became a minor editor after the assessment) is familiar with the game. Therefore, it is rather difficult to phrase it in a way which makes it easier to understand. However, I believe that the article is still well written enough that people who are not familiar with the article will still be able to understand, except for some parts of the Gameplay. You don't have to be familiar with the subject to understand the Development and Reception sections. However, I agree that a thorough copy-edit in the Gameplay section may be needed.--haha169 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The article is very good but I'm sure that there is some things that we can do to improve the article. If I had any ideas on how to improve it, I'd say so. If anyone can suggest on how to improve the article, suggest ideas.Looneyman (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three concerns:
    • Image:Brawlmenu.jpg - NFCC#3A requires minimal use. Image:SSBB Cover.jpg already contains numerous character images in amount and detail that seem perfectly adequate to provide illustration/understanding/etc. of the characters, their style, their types, etc. I'm not convinced of the necessity of seeing every last character; a sampling is sufficient to provide the desired understanding.
    • Image:SSB Sonic Mario.PNG appears to be purely decorative. That the two characters appear together is a concept conveyed easily by prose (NFCC#1). Seeing Sonic (Mario appears on the cover) does not seem to be necessary (NFCC#3A) to understand the game, the rivalry, etc. If you're desperate to have them together, why not replace Image:SSBB Emissary Gameplay.jpg (which is Mario vs. Pit) with an equivalent in which Mario is against Sonic?
      • Yes, I totally agree. I've removed this from the article. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image:SolidSnakeandMarioinBrawl.jpg does not have a license (NFCC#10B) and also appears to be replaceable by text and/or depiction of Snake seems capable of being consolidated into a gameplay shot. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I'll consider removing the Brawl Menu after a talk page excursion, but I still believe Snake's image should stay. My reasons are listed above with my discussion with David Fuchs. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As an actionable item relevant to this FAC, I'm not sure an excursion is necessary, but I'm happy to continue the discussion in a different venue, if so desired. On the issue of snake, try not to focus too much on the character. Remember, the article is about SSBB, so the primary consideration for fair use images is whether they help us to understand that topic. Why is seeing Snake from "outside the Metal Gear world" necessary to understand SSBB itself or his inclusion therein? The importance of Snake, as discussed in the article, seems to be that he is a third-party character; how does an image convey this concept above and beyond prose (NFCC#1)? Why not replace one of the gameplay screenshots with one in which Snake is a participant (NFCC#3A), essentially killing two birds with one stone? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:53, 13 May 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/Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl/archive1&oldid=1136457947"