Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass/archive1

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass


I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting this article to GA/FA quality by the time the DLC finishes releasing, and I want to know what to work on or how to improve the article in general.

Thanks, DecafPotato (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Bdhamilton

I think this article is in excellent shape. My only quibble is that as an outsider, I don't quite understand the comment in the third paragraph of the 'Marketing and reception' section that about "hidden prefixes showing which title in the series they originated from." Could that comment be expanded slightly? I'm gathering from the rest of the article that some of the courses, or maybe all of them, are throwbacks to earlier versions of the game. Is that right? If so, that might be worth saying earlier in the article, even in the lead.

I'm too new to Wikipedia to say confidently that this piece is ready to pass a GA review, but I would think that it is.

—Brian (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bdhamilton. I clarified that a bit, new text reads "Shortly after the release of Wave 1, dataminers discovered that the unreleased tracks had hidden data detailing which entry in the Mario Kart series they originated from." I think that's more clear? Essentially the booster course pass tracks are remastered (or remade, the ambiguity is why I was hesitant to include it), as all of them (except one) are from previous entries in the series. Hope that clears it up. I will also work to make the fact that they are remastered more clear.
 * I think that the GA will likely fail just because the DLC isn't fully released yet; that may mean it isn't 'comprehensive'? I also don't really know, it would be my first GA nomination. Thanks for your feedback! DecafPotato (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that all tracks but one are based on/remade from/remastered versions of earlier tracks in the series is interesting! That still might be worth making more explicit. But I do think you've made that line more clear, yes.
 * Again, huge grain of salt since I've never worked with GA nominations before, but I'd be surprised if this would fail for lack of comprehensiveness, since it's as comprehensive as it can be at this point in time. It's impossible to be comprehensive about the future, obviously! (Surely an article about a president wouldn't fail because the president's term hasn't ended yet?) But maybe there's a different standard for serial releases like this, I'm not sure.
 * Good work, in any case! —Brian (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work, in any case! —Brian (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work, in any case! —Brian (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)