Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee/archive1


 * 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Super Smash Bros. Melee
I've been working on this article for a while now, and have done my utmost to write a balanced, verifiable and well-written article. Personally, I feel that the article meets the FA criteria, but I'm hoping for constructive criticism that I can respond to and thus improve the article. Thanks   Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm getting to it now&mdash;a user nominated about a week ago without contributing or acknowledging that I was preparing for FAC. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the peer review has been archived&mdash;it should never have been placed for peer review in the first place, really. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review was a good place for it, because it would get other editors to look at the article; that having been said, this article isn't even GA-Class, so that's why I went that route. --Son (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Maybe a passable GA, but an FA is too much for the article, methinks. The lack of hierarchical sections is particularly bothersome to me. The trophies section is given too much weight, and should be placed in the "Gameplay" section with a level 3 heading. Too much focus is placed on the gameplay and not on the critical reception. The lead also seems to lengthy and detailed.  bibliomaniac 1  5  18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's much better. In regards to the reception section, you mention praise for the multiplayer mode, the game's "hyper-responsiveness," and lack of originality. Could you elaborate on those with quotes from the reviewers? Also, be careful of punctuation and quotation marks. Be consistent with either the American way (punctuation within the quotes) or the British way (punctuation outside).  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "too lengthy and detailed"? I've cut down on the lead drastically&mdash;I honestly feel that a lead of that length is necessary to give an adequate and comprehensive summary of the article, but I must concede defeat as two admins feel that it's excessive. I've now fixed the heirarchical headings and "trophies", by the way. As for reception, I felt that five paragraphs should suffice&mdash;is there any topic relating to reception in particular you feel that needs expanding? As for gameplay, I'll work on cutting it down. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's late, so I'm not doing anything now in fear loads of typos resulting from lack of concentration. I've now realised that the reception section seems short compared to the VG FAs, so I'll add a large paragraph to that and elaborate upon the things that you've mentioned tomorrow. Cheers. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Lead cut down; reception greatly expanded; heirarchical headings added; "trophies" cut down and integrated into gameplay; quotations all conform to AmE; soundtrack hidden table added. Anything else? Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  11:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose all references should be formatted the same way (wikilink the dates, too). Source this statement: "Smash Brothers Melee also made it into the Evolution Tournament of Fighting in 2007, a fighting game tournament held in Las Vegas, considered to be one of the largest fighting game tournaments in the world." I'll look for more soon. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to conditional support; full support when/if Clyde's objections are addressed. Good work.  David Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've sourced that statement, although I've removed the "considered to be one of the largest fighting game tournaments in the world" as it's simply not verifiable. All refs have now been formatted the same except the refs for magazines, which are different from website references. As for wikilinks, I already thought they were linked&mdash;could you be more specific? Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean the dates in the references, for example ref number 40. If they were all unwikilinked I'd be fine, but consistency is best. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aargh; found the problem. I've inputted "7" as opposed to "07" for the dates, which annuls the link. Thanks for the spot; I'll fix it later. Ashnard  Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reference dates fixed. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  10:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. The Music section is too short and don't use a table like that because some browsers will not show it properly. Also, references 1 and 59 have formatting problems. You forgot to put a space after the reference. The article needs a copy-edit. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you can have a "per above" oppose when I've basically fixed everything mentioned above. I've omitted the table and fixed the reference problem. No spaces after a reference&mdash;what an unsalvageable disaster. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  06:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: A quick review of User:Kaypoh contribution page may shed some light on this oppose and the so many many others they have done this last few weeks. It can be frustrating when the turn-over time between reviews of someone "voting" is only minutes. In the last week the number of critiques they have completed has been astronomical. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Melee's gameplay system offers an unorthodox approach to the 'fighter' genre as each character doesn't have an individual health bar, by which the player will die if it reaches zero.[2] Instead, the game is based on a 'percentage system' by which increased hits on a player raises their percentage; the higher the percentage, the more likely it is for the character to be knocked off the stage."
 * Comment Support Has potential. Some things, mostly reference related:
 * This should be in gameplay, not the lead, or maybe keep only part of it.
 * ✅ Shortened
 * "inflicting damage does not always mean victory" probably should be "inflicting damage does not guarantee victory."
 * ✅ Reworded
 * "The higher the percentage value, the weaker the player is, and the easier they are to knock off the stage." OR. Perhaps a place the manual can reference?
 * ✅ Done an IGN ref
 * "As well as this..." Weak transition; perhaps additionally or something equally focused.
 * ✅ Used additionally
 * "During battles, items related to Nintendo games or merchandise fall onto the game field." This could use a ref. How do we know its items related to Nintendo and not just any item they designed?
 * ✅ Referenced IGN guide again
 * "Although the stages are rendered in the third-dimension, players cannot move along the Z-axis in any of them. Not all stages are available immediately, so some stages have to be obtained by the player by meeting particular requirements." Can these two be referenced?
 * ✅ Half-way anyway. I cited the second statement, but I simply couldn't find a ref for the first
 * Nothing in multiplayer is referenced with the exception of coins. Does ref 19 and 4 cover all of that material?
 * ✅ Added two refs
 * "Each of the trophies includes a description of the particular subject and details the year and the game in which the subject first appeared." This can be OR. Someone could turn on the game, see that, and add it.
 * ✅ Added reference
 * "All of the characters—except Mr. Game and Watch—are characterized in three dimensions even though their game of origin may have been drastically different to the graphical style of Super Smash Bros Melee." Who said this?
 * ✅ Deleted this statement&mdash;it just seemed a flimsy observation
 * "For the Ice Climbers," Another weak transition; see what you can do with it.
 * ✅ Replaced with additionally
 * Make sure you have removed all passive voice from the article (I.E. No "was first shown" "was developed" "was released")
 * ✅ Half-way anyway. I've changed it when I saw it, but I may have missed some
 * Legacy and sequel section is a bit...misnamed. Tournaments might deserve a subheading here as its not normally what you find in a legacy, and Legacy has a little to much info on Brawl. We want to mention that the game had a sequel, but what does stuff like "Brawl is the first game of the series to incorporate characters outside of Nintendo franchises, relating to the inclusion of Sonic the Hedgehog and Solid Snake from Sega and Konami respectively." have to do with the article on SSBM?
 * ✅ The Tournament section seems too short for its own section, so I've placed a level-three subheading under legacy and removed that statement. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look again after this stuff is addressed.--CM (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you and I have a different perception of what constitutes OR. As for the lead, I'll say this again: its supposed to be built as a summary, meaning that the reader can have a very good idea of the article by the lead only. I can't just omit any reference to gameplay. Too many VG articles seem to have a lead that mention nothing of gameplay, only the genre. Thnaks for the comments though, I'll get working on it soon. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When I read it, it felt like you were introducing and fully explaining an aspect of gameplay, not summarizing it. From the look of it, the gameplay paragraph is still about the size of the other two paragraphs combined. Considering you have one sentence on playable characters, one on tournaments, two on reception, two on development, and four on gameplay, it caught my attention. I was looking for a constructive way to resize it.--CM (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a more succinct way to word it, so I've deleted the explanation and reworded the sentence. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is still more passive voice. There's some in the last paragraphs of development, then some more going all the way to the end of the article. If you have a "find in this page" or "find" button, its not too hard to do. I see eight in dev., one in music, two in reception and five in L&S. Also "almost every single move" probably should be reworded or consider cutting out single.--CM (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reworded that sentence. As for the passive voice, I've just fixed quite alot now, but there's probably some lurking about. I'm not sure what you mean by a "find in this page" button, though. Thanks. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's still some more. If you have firefox (don't know about Internet Explorer) go to edit, then find. A tiny window pops up, and you can input words to find them in the page.--CM (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have that, but at the severe risk of sounding stupid, how do you use it to find the passive voice when you're just inputting words yourself? Ashnard <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Was will do it. If you find a was then a verb (was made, was announced) you got yourself a passive voice. Any form of be (was, were) with a verb means you have a passive voice as well. The prose isn't as compelling or as tight, at least that's been my experience. If you try to remove all passive voice, redundancies are eliminated, and sentences are more to the point. --CM (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ As compelling as what? Anywho, I've gave it the runover with the "find" button. Anyhting else? Thanks. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Active voice (is more compelling). There's a "was supposed" still, and I question the mdash in this quote "have questioned its status as a fighting game—[59] GamePro summed Melee as..." Why not just a semicolon? However, these are minor, and I will change to support. Good work. As a final note, you may want to keep on eye on Brawl to keep this article relevant and correct. I doubt it will affect this article to any worrisome degree, however.--CM (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed them now. It's been a pleasure, Clyde. I'll now use that "find" technique to rid any future articles that I may work on of the passive voice. Cheers. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose as not up to FA standard. Too many unnecessary details - do we really need an instruction manual style description of single and multiplayer? In fact, the gameplay and character section should be reduced and more basic context needs to be provided. Also, and this is I admit a stylistic point and not necessarily actionable, but the article is quite boring to read as it is written. Eusebeus (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "quite boring to read as it is written."&mdash;I don't follow. Can you explain this please? Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. To those not familiar with the game, the lede provides little reason for wanting to learn more about it; the remaining article is likewise a dull slog through uninteresting details. We don't restrict FAs for being of limited interest or scope, so it is not an actionable issue, unlike the prose & presentation. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interest is, at its core, based on the reader. Leads can be compelling, but I don't think even the best lead could interest me in something like say, High School Musical or Thermal conductivity. It appears you don't find this topic very interesting. What you may consider "a dull slog through uninteresting details" someone else may see as facts about the highest selling video game for Gamecube (best chance within the lead to grab the reader). The article needs to be comprehensive, and to remove large chunks of gameplay and characters wouldn't give the reader a good grasp of how the game is played. Most importantly, I don't understand why you mention you think the article is boring; you yourself say it is not actionable, and it does nothing more than bring down the nominator. Instead, where do you think the article lacked sufficient basic context for the reader's understanding, and what are some spots in gameplay and characters where it could use the chopping board?--CM (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The writing usually has something to do with it. This is simply not written to FA quality. Eusebeus (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean&mdash;it's not engaging or it gives undue weight to particular aspects? You're comments just aren't helping me to improve the article right now. Please specify. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Query "During this time, IVGF gave out a record" - what was the specific record broken? "most money paid out in videogame contest"? was it in Guiness Book of World Records? I see no source for it being held for three years, - reference (Chris Lenzi GotFrag.com) does not say it broke a record at all... --Kiyarr lls ton 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Eusebeus on writing style needing improvement


 * I didn't write this or source this statement, by the way. I've just looked for a source there, but couldn't find one, so I've removed any mention of "record". As for the writing, could you be more specific? You know, give me something to work on? Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - But with the suggestion that another image is added to the Development section. User:Krator (t c) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers Krator. For images, you may have to consult User:Hbdragon88, as he removed some images from the article, saying that there were too many, although none from development. Images really are a weak point for me. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor Support since the article was vastly improved (it used to be crufty and to lack references). If the FAC ends up failing, it will certainly pass as a GA. igordebraga ≠ 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There were too many images at the time, such as one in each section for the gameplay and one for the trophies. In fact, I'm not sure how necessary the image from Brawl is (fourth total).  I suppose if someone happens to have an image of the demo as presented at E3 or Spaceworld...that would be the perfect image. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that. The Brawl image does demonstrate a returning stage and graphical enhancements in the game, which is helpful, but a development image would be preferable. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As a matter of knowing what to improve, what makes it minor and not a full support, just so I know what to improve upon. Thanks. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly nearly there - having played this alot I had to read it. I have given the text a little massage but was overall pleased with the prose. I was wondering if anything of the following could be found:

it may be that none of this can be found or sourced but any extra would push it further into the 'credit' side of FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To make less US-centric. Any figures on sales in Europe or Australia, or other countries for that matter would be a good idea to place into that section, if possible
 * Sorry, but I can't find anything on any other sales
 * Any more on the music - i.e. fans' favourites - issues with development etc.
 * ✅I've inputted two comments about this relating to the game's official website
 * Any elaboration on characters chosen in development (and glitches)
 * ✅ I couldn't really find anything on glitches, but maybe it's because of the dodgy Japanese translation. I have added a sourced statement about the references to clones the official website, and how the media refers to them as clone.
 * Any other creative issues or background would be great.
 * Sorry, but I don't really know where to look because the statement's quite broad. There's not much of this info out there.
 * Any discussion on impact or role it had on boosting Gamecube sales over the other 2 consoles.
 * ✅I couldn't find anything about comparisons between the other two, but I have added a comment about software to hardware ratioes and it being a system seller (all sourced).


 * Cheers. I'll get back to you with a full rsponse to your comments tomorrow, probably. I'd do it now but test revision beckons. Thanks. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More replies. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose Sorry, but I can't support until the Tournament discussion is resolved. When a compromise is reached, it has my full support. Otherwise, it fails stability IMO.--CM (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers Clyde. You do realise that we are having a discussion as opposed to edit warring. Neither of us have implemented the changes. Nevermind. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  09:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah but the desired end result of a discussion is some sort of content change within the article. Since some change is inevitable, I can't support knowing that content is being added that may not be well-written or properly referenced. Until it's resolved, I wait.--CM (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I could argue with you further, but I figure that the best thing to do is to resolve the senseless debate. Best regards. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's more, the debate isn't about the content any more, just the principles involved in evaluating sources. So the debate is no longer pertinent to the actual article content itself . What may be added won't even amount to one sentence, but a phrase saying to the effect of "attributed to Smashboards(source)" if anyone wants to add it. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review the unresolved external links; there are problems with smashbros.com Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.