Talk:Super Mario Bros. 35/GA1

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

Reviewer: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I will review this in the coming week. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


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


 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Infobox
 * The caption below the image is self-evident and can, as per the guidelines, just be removed.
 * ✅. Agreed.
 * Unity is only mentioned here and nowhere else in the article, meaning that it is not sourced. Make sure to add a mention with a source to the Development section. Otherwise, remove the claim here.
 * ✅. I was thinking the exact same thing a couple days ago, like, "hey, where'd you guys get this from?" When you look up the engine used for the game, Wikipedia hows up, so I think that's a sign this was somehow made up.
 * Per the documentation of the template, "WW" should be omitted from release dates if it is the only region used. You can do so by just unwrapping the release date from the Video game release template.
 * ✅. It's been bugging me for a while, I just didn't know how to fix it.
 * "Platform, Battle Royale" should be "Platform, battle royale" to adhere to sentence-case ("battle royale" is not a proper noun).
 * ✅. Huh, makes sense.
 * "35-Player Battle" and "Special Battle" are not valid arguments for the modes field. Use  instead (or   if the practice mode can be considered single-player gameplay).
 * ✅. I saw another game that used a multiplayer parameter and it made me re-think whether or not this was made right.
 * Lead
 * In the first sentence, do the following:
 * Add a release year descriptor.
 * Use "multiplayer" (alternatively, "online multiplayer") in place of "online" to underline that the game centers around multiple players.
 * Use "platform game" instead of "2D platformer" for unambiguity.
 * Remove "competetetive" from the first sentence. It should instead be used as part of the general gameplay description.
 * ✅. Makes for a helpful descriptor of the game.
 * I would suggest the following phrasing:
 * ✅. I actually made this sentence change before seeing the sentence suggestion, so I guess I'm doing it right!


 * The lead needs to quickly summarise the gameplay in a sentence or two. This fits best just after mentioning the developer and publisher (here, it would be the third sentence and onward).
 * "It was released exclusively on Nintendo Switch ..." - "exclusively" is redundant here.
 * A trailing comma should come after "October 1, 2020".
 * "... will remain playabale ..." should be "... is set to remain playable ..." since plans could change along the way (just like with Jump Rope Challenge).
 * The sources after the defunct date are unnecessary per WP:CITELEAD, as the same claims appear sourced in the body. If you think these sources are better than the one used below, move these down.
 * "The game was created to celebrate ..." - This should be mentioned before the release, not after.
 * "Critics gave it mostly average reviews, ..." - This might need to be updated, see below.
 * "... unique concept, combining ..." - The comma here is misleading as it is not clear who the second part is attributed to. Consider using "of" instead, as in "... unique concept of combining ...".
 * "Super Mario Bros." here should be italicized and unlinked (it is linked before).
 * "... but critiqued ..." should be "... and critiqued ..." since criticism is not a contradiction.
 * ✅. Whoops, bias.
 * Gameplay
 * This section (especially the first paragraph and therein the first sentence) is kind of a mess. You should restucture this so the gameplay elements become clear to someone who has never played the game (or Super Mario Bros. itself), e.g.:
 * First, name the genres this game belongs to.
 * Briefly revisit the gameplay of the original Super Mario Bros.: Say what the players do on a very basic level (35 players traverse two-dimensional levels [with emphasis on same levels, simultaneously but not on the same screen, and a loop at the end], screen scrolls only to the right, players avoid obstacles and fight/avoid enemies). Imagine that the one reading this has never played Super Mario Bros. before.
 * Also, mention that Mario is the player character if you intend to use the name in later parts.
 * ✅. This never crossed my mind when writing writing.  But seriously; if a person hasn't played the original Mario Bros. they have to be purposely avoiding it.
 * Then transition to the types of enemies and the aspect of sending them to other players. This flows into the attack selection, as is already done well in the second paragraph.
 * After this, the timer mechanic can be mentioned
 * Only then should you talk about collectibles in general, both regarding coins and power-ups. This then flows into the bounty and item roulette mechanics. In particular, "super mushrooms", "POW blocks" and "knockouts", if mentioned, should be properly explained to the reader.
 * At the very end, explain out-of-match activities and the "Special Battle" mode. I don't think the stats review and leaderboards are necessary.
 * Restructure the section further as you see fit, until you are happy with it and think a reader with no knowledge of either game could easily understand it. I will re-review the section afterward. Needless to say, all of this should be sourced. Currently, the entire third paragraph isn't.
 * Briefly revisit the gameplay of the original Super Mario Bros.: Say what the players do on a very basic level (35 players traverse two-dimensional levels [with emphasis on same levels, simultaneously but not on the same screen, and a loop at the end], screen scrolls only to the right, players avoid obstacles and fight/avoid enemies). Imagine that the one reading this has never played Super Mario Bros. before.
 * Also, mention that Mario is the player character if you intend to use the name in later parts.
 * ✅. This never crossed my mind when writing writing.  But seriously; if a person hasn't played the original Mario Bros. they have to be purposely avoiding it.
 * Then transition to the types of enemies and the aspect of sending them to other players. This flows into the attack selection, as is already done well in the second paragraph.
 * After this, the timer mechanic can be mentioned
 * Only then should you talk about collectibles in general, both regarding coins and power-ups. This then flows into the bounty and item roulette mechanics. In particular, "super mushrooms", "POW blocks" and "knockouts", if mentioned, should be properly explained to the reader.
 * At the very end, explain out-of-match activities and the "Special Battle" mode. I don't think the stats review and leaderboards are necessary.
 * Restructure the section further as you see fit, until you are happy with it and think a reader with no knowledge of either game could easily understand it. I will re-review the section afterward. Needless to say, all of this should be sourced. Currently, the entire third paragraph isn't.
 * Restructure the section further as you see fit, until you are happy with it and think a reader with no knowledge of either game could easily understand it. I will re-review the section afterward. Needless to say, all of this should be sourced. Currently, the entire third paragraph isn't.
 * Restructure the section further as you see fit, until you are happy with it and think a reader with no knowledge of either game could easily understand it. I will re-review the section afterward. Needless to say, all of this should be sourced. Currently, the entire third paragraph isn't.


 * Also, improve the image caption: "A classic level" means little to readers who haven't seen the original game. Something important to take from it is the player's own perspective featured the middle with small representations of all other players' views on the side.
 * ✅. Reverted to a version by Rhain.
 * Development
 * This section is rather short. While this is not inherently a problem, you should try to look for additional info, such as Arika's relationship with Nintendo (and why they could/would develop a Mario game), which people were involved, why the game will be discontinued, etc.
 * ✅. It's actually very hard to find history and info about this game (don't know if its because the game in new, or some other reason).  I will probably find more as time goes on.
 * The first sentence duplicates "Arika" and "developed"/"development". Try to rephrase it a bit. Suggestion:
 * ✅. The game started before Tetris 99, however.
 * In "Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary", "Super Mario Bros." should be italicized (as per that article's title).
 * "... an online fan project ..." - "online" is redundant here.
 * "... which Nintendo demanded to be removed 1 year prior, as it was infringing Nintendo's copyright" - enhance this to "... that Nintendo had ordered to be removed one year prior due to copyright infringement".
 * ✅. I've been waiting for a better rewording of this sentence for a while now. (curprev 13:28, 12 October 2020‎ Le Panini talk contribs‎  10,823 bytes +70‎  Wrote in why the game was taken down, due to copyright infringement, which I believe is important to explain. If you can find a better way to word it, I'd appreciate it.)
 * "Arika disputed the claim, stating that it was in development before ..." - Clarify "the claim" and "it", for example: "Arika disputed cloning the project, stating that Super Mario Bros. 35 had been in development before ..."
 * "... released to the public" - "to the public" is redundant here.
 * Both of these sentences should also appear before the release sentence, as the former happened before release and the second directly relates to it. The release and impending discontinuation should appear last.
 * ✅. Makes sense.
 * In the release sentence, "The game released ..." should be "The game was released ...". Games don't release themselves ;).
 * ✅. But it'd be cool if they did :D.
 * Reception
 * The Metacritic score is not up-to-date. It currently stands at 75/100 ("Generally favorable reviews"). The lead (noted above), reviews table, and section introduction should be changed appropriately.
 * ✅. Forgot about updating this for a while.
 * Furthermore, putting the number of reviews used to calculate the score is uncommon (although not strictly wrong). Common practice and is to work the score and number of reviews into the section prose as the second sentence (after Metacritic's textual assessment). The note could then be removed.
 * The review table features reviews from Jeuxvideo.com and Hardcore Gamer, but neither is used in the prose. Since this is a requirement in the review table template, either use the reviews or remove them (the former would be preferred).
 * ✅. Added comments from the writers in respective paragraphs.
 * All news outlets (GameSpot, Nintendo Life, IGN, etc.) should be in italics. This also applies to later paragraphs.
 * In the first paragraph, two sentences are conjoined by "and" in two cases, producing run-on sentences in both. Make individual sentences of them instead.
 * ✅. Kept on of these connections intentionally.
 * Also, try to avoid repeating "... wrote that ...".
 * ✅. Didn't notice how much is was repeated until now.
 * Since all paraphrased quotes are in indirect speech, use past-tense. E.g. "... that it takes the classic game ..." --> "... that it took the classic game ...". This also applies to later paragraphs.
 * The sentence about the update feels out-of-place here. Move it to the very end of the Development section instead, possibly as the start of a second paragraph. Within the sentence, move the mid-sentence source to the end of the sentence. You should also consider renaming "Development" to "Development and release" so post-launch stuff can be covered here, too.
 * The Fortnite comparison adds little value here, as it appears that there are just parallels in both being battle royale games. Consider removing the sentence altogether.
 * ✅. Yeah, Fortnite man, like, who cares?
 * "Players only start of with level 1-1 unlocked, and ..." - enhance this to "Players start with only one level available to play and ..." (removes unclarity of "level 1-1", the grammar issue with "start of", and an erroneous Oxford comma in a two-item enumeration).
 * "... causing many players to be forced to play through the beginning levels while beginners unlock more" - Please clarify this. Why do beginners unlock more levels than others?
 * ✅. It was bad wording.  What was implied was, "experienced players have to go through starting levels while beginners are still trying to unlock more".  Did some re-wording.
 * "... which leads to unbalanced repetition" - Please clarify. What is "unbalanced" repetition (as opposed to balanced repetition)?
 * After that sentence, swap the two refs to get them in the correct order (11, 24).
 * ✅. I honestly couldn't tell you where I got this from.  Neither unbalanced or repetition show up in the Destructoid article.  I'm so confused.
 * In the third paragraph, Gach and Scullion are re-introduced. Since both were mentioned in the first paragraph, shorten their mentions (including the website) here to just their last names.
 * ✅. Did some re-wording.
 * "Other minor complaints come the final moments of rounds, ..." - There seems to be a word missing here.
 * ✅. *Sigh* for.  Its embarrassing when typos like these slip through review. It normally comes from re-writes, and just isn't double checked good enough before publishing.
 * "... under a test of endurance, rather than skill" - Doesn't endurance also require some form of skill? This is either original research or just misleading, so try rephrasing this part.
 * ✅. Did some re-wording.
 * The discovery and unlocking of Luigi is trivial and has little to do with the game's reception. It should just be removed.
 * The part about hackers should be moved to the "Development and release" section, as it is disjoint from the reception, and should appear just before the update (as noted above), per chronological order.
 * Overall, I feel like the Reception section has much more potential. I highly encourage expanding it with more points raised by the reviewers. There are plenty of those, as well as more reviews that could be used, like Ars Technica.
 * ✅. Added an additional section about the use of power-ups, with 3 additional reviews and references.
 * Notes
 * After in-lining the note from the reviews table, this section will be empty, so you can just remove it.
 * References
 * Make sure all references include the website they are on (CNET, Eurogamer, etc.; wikilink where possible; publishers [e.g. Vox Media] are generally not needed) and date published. The date format should be the same on all of them (just as the rest of the article).
 * Ref #21 (NY Times) is also missing its author.
 * ✅. Just straight up doesn't exist anymore.
 * External links
 * All good here.
 * Other
 * I fixed the licensing tags on both images. This was very straight-forward, so I just applied the same template I always use.
 * Overall, I feel like the Reception section has much more potential. I highly encourage expanding it with more points raised by the reviewers. There are plenty of those, as well as more reviews that could be used, like Ars Technica.
 * ✅. Added an additional section about the use of power-ups, with 3 additional reviews and references.
 * Notes
 * After in-lining the note from the reviews table, this section will be empty, so you can just remove it.
 * References
 * Make sure all references include the website they are on (CNET, Eurogamer, etc.; wikilink where possible; publishers [e.g. Vox Media] are generally not needed) and date published. The date format should be the same on all of them (just as the rest of the article).
 * Ref #21 (NY Times) is also missing its author.
 * ✅. Just straight up doesn't exist anymore.
 * External links
 * All good here.
 * Other
 * I fixed the licensing tags on both images. This was very straight-forward, so I just applied the same template I always use.
 * External links
 * All good here.
 * Other
 * I fixed the licensing tags on both images. This was very straight-forward, so I just applied the same template I always use.


 * I waited some days for the high influx of edits to trickle down so I could review a stable version. So far, the article is very crisp and is definitely heading in the right direction, but there are minor problems that need to be amended, along with a Gameplay section that needs some re-ordering, before the article can reach GA. I'm putting the review so the necessary changes can be performed. Feel free to strike through or reply to the points you have completed or feel like should be discussed, and ping me once I should revisit the article and review. Regards,  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! It's good how you gave a list on what to change, rather then just an "overall" thing.  I should have it done by Halloween.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  02:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! I've taken all notes into account and substantially changed the article to GA status. You can come and review it. Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  20:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm continuing my review based on the recent changes:
 * Infobox & Lead
 * In the infobox, you added . The triple-curly-bracket format is for parameters, so it has no use here. Just put the plain date instead.
 * ✅. Didn't know I could do this.
 * In the lead, the gameplay description is still rather short. Expand it to 2–3 sentences that briefly explain the central gameplay elements (as in a very concise summary of the Gameplay section).
 * Gameplay
 * I still find the screenshot caption a bit lacking because it doesn't really describe what is going on in the image. How about this:
 * The sourcing situation in the first two paragraphs is also still imperfect. There are some parts not covered by any source, and using a store description for such info is not ideal. Please try to improve this as much as possible. Use the reliable sources already available or search for further. I recommend WP:VG/SE, a custom Google search engine that only lists reliable sources. If you need help with this, please let me know.
 * "... combines standard run-and-jump platforming ..." - "Standard" might be redundant here (unless there is non-standard run-and-jump platforming). A link for run-and-jump platforming would also be helpful.
 * Remove the comma after "Mario".
 * "... to complete each level and move one to ..." - Typo; should be "move on to".
 * "There are 32 different levels, labelled 1-1 through 8-4 respectively, and each world has 4 levels." - This is a bit wordy, try: "The 32 levels are distributed across eight worlds and labeled 1-1 through 8-4."
 * "... can be defeated simply by jumping on top of them ..." - "simply" and "top of" are redundant here. Maybe use "onto" instead of "on" for clarity.
 * After "... the most common enemy", swap the bracket and the full stop. The bracket is part of the sentence that is being stopped.
 * ✅. Found a proper source here, too.
 * "... in every fourth stage of each world" - Since each world only has four stages, just use "the" instead of "every".
 * The appendix ", who can shoot flames" feel out-of-place due to the foregone phrasing. I think the existing description is sufficient.
 * Instead of "other competing opponents" use "other competing players" for clarity.
 * "... additional hindrance to the player" - "to the player" is redundant here.
 * The sentence about the time is a bit wordy and the timer's use is not entirely clear. I propose the following:  This can be sourced to the Nintendo Life review.
 * In the sentence about the Item Roulette, the individual items are partially sourced to explain their functions, but the Item Roulette itself is not sourced. This source would be a good fit here (naming the Item Roulette and all items therein).
 * Instead of legendsoflocalization, use Nintendo's version of the manual. It is both cleaner and from a trusted source.
 * Instead of POW Blocks maybe write "POW" blocks (including the quotes), since the name is merely quoting the text on the block, and "block" is not a proper noun.
 * "... that clears any enemies on screen" --> "... that clears all enemies on the screen".
 * Development and release
 * In "Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary", only the game name is italicized (as per that article's title). Do this:.
 * "... stating that the game has been in ..." - Should be "had been" - It started in the past before the release of Super Mario Royale, which was also in the past. (I'm not sure what you call this in English.)
 * ✅. Its Past tense (was), present tense (is), and future tense (will).
 * "One week after release, ..." - Add a space before this and move the source after it to the end of the sentence.
 * "October 20th, 2020, to November 2nd, 2020" - Wikipedia uses natural date formats, so these should be "October 20" and "November 2".
 * Reception
 * "Metacritic" should not be italicized (since it is a service rather than a news site, and per its own article).
 * The wording "Super Mario Bros. 35 received ... based on 25 reviews" sounds odd. Split the sentence in two instead and have the second also include the score. E.g.: "The website calculated a normalized rating of 75/100 based on 25 reviews."
 * In the third Reception paragraph, Scullion and Gach should only be referenced by their last names since they have already been introduced earlier in the section.
 * The proper name for Jeuxvideo is Jeuxvideo.com and you can link it, too.
 * "... could last up to 5 minutes" - For small numerals, it is generally recommended to write out the number in words, so here "... could last up to five minutes".
 * For Ars Technica, the possessive should not be part of the link or italics. Do this instead:.
 * Sources
 * Regarding the recently added sources: Attack of the Fanboy and DualShockers are listed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS and Switch Player fits same fold. TV Tropes is user-edited and thus runs afoul of WP:USERG (it is also separately classified at WP:RSP). You'd be better off without them.
 * I also noticed that you are sometimes linking to a Google Cache version of sources. This should be avoided.
 * Yeah, some cites are blocked on my school Chromebook. I can just crop the cache out of the URL when copy and pasting, but some times I forget to.
 * In "Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary", only the game name is italicized (as per that article's title). Do this:.
 * "... stating that the game has been in ..." - Should be "had been" - It started in the past before the release of Super Mario Royale, which was also in the past. (I'm not sure what you call this in English.)
 * ✅. Its Past tense (was), present tense (is), and future tense (will).
 * "One week after release, ..." - Add a space before this and move the source after it to the end of the sentence.
 * "October 20th, 2020, to November 2nd, 2020" - Wikipedia uses natural date formats, so these should be "October 20" and "November 2".
 * Reception
 * "Metacritic" should not be italicized (since it is a service rather than a news site, and per its own article).
 * The wording "Super Mario Bros. 35 received ... based on 25 reviews" sounds odd. Split the sentence in two instead and have the second also include the score. E.g.: "The website calculated a normalized rating of 75/100 based on 25 reviews."
 * In the third Reception paragraph, Scullion and Gach should only be referenced by their last names since they have already been introduced earlier in the section.
 * The proper name for Jeuxvideo is Jeuxvideo.com and you can link it, too.
 * "... could last up to 5 minutes" - For small numerals, it is generally recommended to write out the number in words, so here "... could last up to five minutes".
 * For Ars Technica, the possessive should not be part of the link or italics. Do this instead:.
 * Sources
 * Regarding the recently added sources: Attack of the Fanboy and DualShockers are listed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS and Switch Player fits same fold. TV Tropes is user-edited and thus runs afoul of WP:USERG (it is also separately classified at WP:RSP). You'd be better off without them.
 * I also noticed that you are sometimes linking to a Google Cache version of sources. This should be avoided.
 * Yeah, some cites are blocked on my school Chromebook. I can just crop the cache out of the URL when copy and pasting, but some times I forget to.
 * "... could last up to 5 minutes" - For small numerals, it is generally recommended to write out the number in words, so here "... could last up to five minutes".
 * For Ars Technica, the possessive should not be part of the link or italics. Do this instead:.
 * Sources
 * Regarding the recently added sources: Attack of the Fanboy and DualShockers are listed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS and Switch Player fits same fold. TV Tropes is user-edited and thus runs afoul of WP:USERG (it is also separately classified at WP:RSP). You'd be better off without them.
 * I also noticed that you are sometimes linking to a Google Cache version of sources. This should be avoided.
 * Yeah, some cites are blocked on my school Chromebook. I can just crop the cache out of the URL when copy and pasting, but some times I forget to.
 * Regarding the recently added sources: Attack of the Fanboy and DualShockers are listed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS and Switch Player fits same fold. TV Tropes is user-edited and thus runs afoul of WP:USERG (it is also separately classified at WP:RSP). You'd be better off without them.
 * I also noticed that you are sometimes linking to a Google Cache version of sources. This should be avoided.
 * Yeah, some cites are blocked on my school Chromebook. I can just crop the cache out of the URL when copy and pasting, but some times I forget to.
 * Yeah, some cites are blocked on my school Chromebook. I can just crop the cache out of the URL when copy and pasting, but some times I forget to.

Sorry I wasn't around much lately. The article is well on track for GA but there are still some issues to be resolved. Particularly alarming is the sourcing situation in the first half of the Gameplay section. As I noted above, use existing reliable sources or ones you might find through WP:VG/SE. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , New edits have been put in place, mostly from reliable sources. I went down the list, and the article is now ready for a re-review.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  15:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , nice work. I think we're about done here. If you'll allow, I would like to perform a few quick copyedits that are faster done than explained. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't mind at all. Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  15:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , one last thing:
 * None of this is found in the adjacent source. If you cannot find a source for any of this, it should be removed instead (where possible; the last-man-standing mechanic is obviously integral to the game). This would be the last hurdle to GA. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wouldn't the game itself be the reliable source for this quote, however? It's just how the game works.  Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  16:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I removed it instead.  Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  17:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored parts of the old claims using sources that supported them. I think we've done enough work on the article now that I can mark it as . Congrats! Next thing you should consider is a Did you know? nomination. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 17:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I tried to figure out how to do it before, but I can't seem to figure it out, however.  Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean a DYK nom? You can follow the steps at WP:DYKNOM. If you need help with that, contact my talk page, as this transcends the GA review. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 17:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean a DYK nom? You can follow the steps at WP:DYKNOM. If you need help with that, contact my talk page, as this transcends the GA review. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 17:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)