Talk:Mario Kart Wii/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario Kart Wii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Thanks for nominating this article for GA. I can see that a lot of work has gone into it, providing a lot of detail. There are, however, some problems dotted throughout the article that would need fixing. I haven't failed the review, but instead put it on hold to allow time to fix problems. If you have any questions, or if you disagree with anything I've said, please feel free to bring it up. I'm happy to discuss my findings with you on order to improve the article further. So, going through each of the criteria points in turn:
 * It is well written.
 * Layout:
 * Place all references under one list, called References instead of Notes.
 * Fixed.
 * Consider compressing Karts and motorbikes, Tracks and Playable Characters into one section, removing content that goes into too much detail (strategy guide level)
 * Compressed Karts and motorbikes and Tracks section into Gameplay section, and kept the Playable Characters section as it is. This is also the case in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article, which I find very well written.
 * Consider compressing Game Modes and Intendo Wi-Fi Connection into Gameplay without headers. In particular, Game Modes should be condensed as it contains many small paragraphs.
 * Game Modes has been condensed, but I want the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection section to have its own header. Again, this is also the case in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article.
 * Consider removing the Sales subheader from Reception - it's not suitable to have a title before a single paragraph.
 * Fixed.
 * Language:
 * There's large amounts of industry or gaming jargon in the article. This needs to be removed to make it more accesible to readers unfamiliar with the terms. Things like unlockable etc are terms to avoid.
 * Replaced the term "unlockable".
 * In Lead, four main regions needs defining.
 * Fixed.
 * Mario Kart Wii is the successor to Mario Kart DS for the Nintendo DS, and changes from the predecessor include... consider revising
 * Fixed.
 * and featured is also the option of installing the Mario Kart Channel to the Wii Menu with online competitions and results consider revisong
 * Fixed.
 * In Gameplay
 * The player(s) chooses a unique character.. unique in what way?
 * Fixed.
 * There are four modes of play: Grand Prix, Time Trial, Versus, and Battle. surplus sentence. Mention four modes of play in the first paragraph then go through each one in turn.
 * Fixed.
 * In 'Versus' mode is similar to Grand Prix and entails one to four local players racing consider revising
 * Fixed.
 * both of which are capable of up to twelve simultaneous competitors this is unclear
 * Fixed.
 * In Characters
 * Mario Kart Wii features 24 (25 counting the Mii - Whoa, how do you get to play your Mii? Does it become available after finishing certain elements of the game? Also, you may need to define the concept of the Mii.
 * Fixed.
 * In reception, it's important to group common praise and criticism together, instead of listing which reviewer or publisher made which comment. Your citations will tell the reader who said what, but the reception's purpose is to identify popular or unpopular concepts or aspecs, explaining why if possible. Also, no need to list all other Mario Games in the sales section.
 * Fixed.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable
 * Some of the sections in Game Modes about Grand Prix or Time Trial need to be sourced.
 * There's a large amount of reliance on primary sources. Where possible, reliabe third-party sources should be used for things like release dates etc.
 * Many of the cite tags need fixing to include publisher, author, date and accessdate.
 * What makes gonintendo.com a reliable source?
 * The Gamefaqs guide seems to be user submitted. Is there an alternative available?
 * Replaced.
 * What makes vgchartz.com a reliable source?
 * Replaced.
 * What makes gametrailers.com a reliable source?
 * See comment by haha169.
 * What makes blastmagazine.com a reliable source?
 * It's a reference to a comment from their review, that should be ok.
 * What makes qj.net a reliable source?
 * Removed.
 * if citing the videogame as a source, cite it in the main artiicle text as an inline reference and include it in the reflist.
 * Fixed.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * There's a tendancy in places to go into too much detail, particluarly in the Karts and Tracks sections. Have a look at the content and see if it's really needed to give an understanding of the game.
 * Karts and Tracks sections has been trimmed.
 * There's no mention of music or artwork development, or the hype and expectations of critics during development. There may be previews, firsts looks and so on that could be used to beef this up.
 * Added subsection Audio, and also expanded the Development section a bit.


 * It is neutral
 * The use of peacock terms has crept into the article at points:
 * In the lead ... very successful launch
 * Fixed.
 * Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection ranked very well...almost no lag
 * Fixed.
 * Tracks ...right from the start...
 * Fixed.
 * Development ...even called Mario Kart X...
 * Fixed.
 * Sales ...very successful launch...only three days later...
 * Fixed.
 * There may be other occasions where this happens - these were the only ones I spotted. These would need to be reworded to sound less review-like and more factual in tone.


 * It is stable
 * Checking the article history, there's still a lot of editing and reverting happening. It's not clear from the edit history if this is vandalism or not. If there are issues surrounding sections of the article, it's better to thrash them out on the article's talk page.
 * I wouldn't say it's vandalism, but rather well-intentioned edits that doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for a good article :)


 * It is illustrated, if possible, by images
 * Both images require a full url to the webite they were taken from as the source section of the template.
 * Consider adding an image of the Wii Wheel (there's a free use one available), as each copy of the game comes bundled with one.
 * Fixed.

I would strongly encourage for you to submit the article to Peer Review, asking for a full copyedit from an uninvolved editor to help with language and formatting issues, as this will help to bring the article forward dramatically. Other than that, I've put the article on hold, and look forward to seeing your improvements. Great work so far!Gazimoff Write Read 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of "References", it's entirely acceptable to have a "Notes" and a "References" section, per Layout. It's a common layout when using short-form references.  Pagra shtak  20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but the division seemed rather surplus - the majority of references were inline citations, with very few shortform references and none containing any note surrounding the reference, which is what a notes section is intended for. I'd argue that in this case a single references section would make more sense. Hope this helps, Gazimoff Write Read 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if this has already been said, but there are some references that are simply URLs or URLs and titles. They need publisher information at the very least; see WP:FOOTNOTE for details (and cite web is useful). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an editor at this article, but I encountered the same issue with Brawl's FAC, so I thought I'd point out that the Gametrailer's ref is legit because it is citing the company, Gametrailer's, review of the game. --haha169 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)