Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Mario Power Tennis

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

Mario Power Tennis[edit]

So... I'm looking to get this to FA, and am wanting any issues to be highlighted and ironed out in this peer review. Hopefully, it should be close to ready, but I need to be absolutely sure about the article's quality before I take it to FAC. Specifically, I'm unsure about the way the interview is presented as I've never written about them in an article before. Oh yeah, thanks to User: David Fuchs who provided me with some published sources to use. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a very well-written article overall to me. Good sentence variation, paragraph structure has a nice flow to it, and it doesn't sound overtly bias. Just some small things I noticed:
  • "Although standard tennis is available in the game, variants of the game can be played which adopt different rules and methods of victory." --Two 'game's isn't necessary.
  • "Also accounting for the delay of release was a willingness to not update the graphics only, which Hiroyuki stated would be "unacceptable for a Mario game"." --'only' is a wierd choice of words, were they planning on updating other things besides the graphics?

--Sebquantic

Okay, I think I've addressed you concerns adequately. Thanks for reviewing the article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Laser brain's comments
  • "Power Tennis is a tennis game ..." I don't know if this bears restating. It's pretty obviously a tennis game.
    • Fixed
  • "Power Tennis was developed simultaneously with Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, which shared similar technology and concepts with the tennis game during production." I'm assuming you expand on this later but it really needs more context in the lead. An example would help, as "technology and concepts" are pretty vague terms.
    • Elaborated on concepts; for technology, that's the only info that's given in the interview.
  • Consistency in terminology needs attention. A tennis match is not the same as a tennis game, but you use the terms interchangeably in the prose.
    • Should be fixed
  • Some copy-editing is needed to remedy such turns of phrase as "As well as adopting the style aesthetically, these feature thematic elements that influence how the match will be played on that surface ..."
    • I'm afraid I'll need some clarification on this as I don't see an issue/know what is meant.
      • It's just not a well-written sentence—beginning with "As well as..." is not good. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Avoid beginning sentences with "this" or "these" in reference to a previous concept. Better to restate the concept. Ex: "These must be finished successfully" and "These come in multiple forms..." should be "These sets of events must be finished successfully" and "These special games come in multiple forms". There are a lot of examples of these constructions throughout.
    • Should be fixed.
  • The Gameplay section is mostly at a good level of accessibility. You will lose non-gamers when you casually mention "multiplayer" without linking or context.
    • Linked in "Gameplay". Left it out for "Reception" as readers could check "Gameplay" for reference.
  • Check the MoS, but I believe you want to write out numbers over 10.
    • As I'm reading it, numbers over 10 should be numbers, and 1-9 written out in full. Maybe I'm missing something.
      • My bad—not sure what I was thinking when I typed that comment. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The lack of print sources could be a problem at FAC if that is your goal. The article is shorter and lightly-sourced, and you will have a difficult time convincing reviewers (myself included) that all possible research has been done. You'll need to access a library database and checking print gaming magazines for articles and reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • There are two printed sources (18 and 19) that David Fuchs accessed for me, which I thought would be sufficient. As I see it, what needs to be sourced is, although I'm unsure of what the standards require at FAC.
      • It's not that things are missing citations, it's that you may have a comprehensiveness issue. Since the article is shorter, it is hard to argue that more information would not be available in print sources. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure. This article is shorter than most because it doesn't have a plot. All the other sections are comprehensive and well developed. Given the nature of things, published sources could only really be useful to expand the "development" section, but I doubt they're going to offer anything beyond what's already there. Doing the research, I haven't had any particular indication that there's some exclusive info contained within a popular magazine. Taking a look for some may be a stab in the dark, except for the Japanese ones, which are inaccessible to most. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the review, Laser brain. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)