Talk:Mario Party DS/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Comments
General


 * Thanks for your work on this article. Unfortunately, I think this document is not in a GA state. In short, whilst there is some good sourcing, the article lacks reliable citations, and several sections fall short of the content necessary to support information about the game, particularly in the development and legacy section. I understand this can be disappointing, but that doesn't mean the work you've done hasn't been substantial. Some of the comments below hopefully can point you in the direction of where I think this article falls short. Always happy to discuss if you have any questions.

Headline


 * ..like most... - this phrase is used repeatedly to start several paragraphs. You may want to cut it to avoid repetition. It is clear the game resembles other Mario Party titles.
 * though criticism - this is awkward wording, suggest replacing with 'and criticism'.

Gameplay


 * The section has sourcing issues. The 'Gameplay' section is reliant on the description under the GameSpot review, which does in fact provide an independent and accurate summary of the game. However, the source for the 'Game Modes', VGChartz, is not reliable (see WP:VG/S) and is clearly sourced from a promotional or press release about the game. With this in mind, all the information about the gameplay is coming from one person's review of the game. It's probably far more helpful to see if you can find a more accurate and direct primary source that describes the gameplay to support the section.
 * The section slightly relies on the assumption the reader is familiar with other Mario Party games when a more direct and informative tone could be used. I think the removal of some of the padding to the statements (i.e. there is also a minigame mode, in addition to a free play mode, there are other games) with larger, more focused paragraphs oriented by descriptions of the board game, game modes and minigames could be more helpful. You may want to look at how GA articles Mario Party 4 and Mario Party 5 have approached this.
 * ..as well as the last game in the series... - this is a confusing statement. If it means that the gameplay style in DS was not found in a handheld Mario Party game until the Switch title Super Mario Party, this is a pedantic observation. Wouldn't the succeeding Mario Party: Island Tour count?
 * It looks like most Mario Party articles do not go into the detail of referencing specific minigames. This may be as whilst they can offer examples of the gameplay, it may be more helpful to keep things high level, i.e. by mentioning what type of

Plot


 * ...includes a single-player story mode with the following storyline. - this statement is redundant and can be omitted. The Gameplay section makes it clear there is a story mode.

Development


 * The section contains no actual development information and could probably be removed. The source provides very limited information about the announcement of the game and its release date at E3. That Nintendo did not announce anything other than the release date is not very helpful content. You may want to look on the Internet Archive or news updates from websites like IGN and GameSpot to see if there's any information about it.

Reception


 * Good form in game reception sections is to organise reviews thematically and use signpost statements to connect reviews with similar observations (see WP:VG/REC). At a minimum, you've done this by combining some negative reviews, but it is still quite unstructured and you may wish to connect together the reviews more cohesively in terms of reflections on graphics, gameplay etc.
 * ...continuing the trend of Mario Party titles receiving generally mixed reviews. This statement is unsourced and reads as a subjective assessment of the reception of the franchise.
 * The 'Sales' section is well sourced and from reliable sources, which is really great to see.

Legacy


 * Comments about the 'Mario Party DS Anti-Piracy Screen' lacks sufficient relevance and sources to justify its length of detail in the article. The only source provided is Know Your Meme, which is not a reliable source (see WP:KNOWYOURMEME). Good practice is generally that articles are not an indiscriminate collection of information about a topic (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I think where we talk about interesting cultural asides, there should be some independent and reliable coverage that establishes that this is something worth associating with primary information about the game.