Talk:Hotel Mario/GA2

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article was promoted almost ten years ago, when out GA standards were far more lax than they are today. As most GAs from this period don't really age well, I am concerned this no longer meets the criteria. Here are some of the issues:

• The sourcing is a primary concern of mine. First, almost all of the gameplay section is sourced to the manual rather than reliable sources. Second, there are several unreliable sources: #20 is N-Sider (a site known for speculation and falsifying information); #23 is a Zelda fansite; #25 and #30 are someone's Blogspot; and #41 is ScrewAttack. There's also some link rot, like with #26.
• The reception section is subpar; it has very few contemporary reviews and most of it follows the "A of B said C" formula (WP:RECEPTION). Also, some of it is just random: "When Electronic Gaming Monthly named Mario the greatest video game character in 2005, they considered Hotel Mario his most embarrassing moment." This has absolutely no meaning unless it is explained why this is "embarrassing".
• Prose is also iffy in places. The lead, for example, has two single-sentence paragraphs (the second of which is an awkward run-on).

JOEBRO64 23:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Joebro, this isn't an article I've ever worked on, but I'd like to take a crack at fixing this. I'll have a look over the sources and prose, and maybe I can call one of our professional copyeditor friends to give it a look afterward. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I have so far:

• I had to strip out a lot of references. On top of that, unless I can find the GameTrailers videos, I'll have to strip that out too. There was a lot in here we would consider unreliable.
• I also trimmed back all the separate pages of the manual being cited. That's just excessive, clutter, and deceptive when seeing all the reference numbers it left behind.
• That being said, I've looked at the remaining sources and added one or two more I found that I know are reliable. I think we can stitch together a competent, GA-quality article out of them in a matter of a few days. Right now I don't have much going except to finish a section for Sonic Team and a pending GA review for Tectoy, so I should be able to commit to this. I never actually had heard of Hotel Mario until this GAR, but I'd heard of the CD-i Nintendo games and I'll find this quite an interesting topic to write on.

Red Phoenix ^talk 04:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Have another look at this. I'm not sure if it's now too short to meet the broadness criterion, but it looks a heck of a lot better. Let me know what you think. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: Gosh, it looks so much better now. I'll make a few tweaks in a little while. It looks like the article may need a bit of copyediting but overall delisting might not be necessary. Nice work. JOEBRO64 20:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I hate to bother you, but maybe you could do a quick copyedit on this article? Copyediting isn't my strength, but you're one of the best copyeditors I know and this isn't a very big article. I'll throw in a barnstar if it's any incentive ;) . Red Phoenix ^talk 21:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No barnstar required - flattery is better. I'll take a look at this when I get time later in the week (on vacation atm). Popcornduff (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: It looks like Popcornduff has completed his copyedit. Are we good to close the GAR and update the talk page of the article? Red Phoenix ^talk 02:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks much more like a GA now. Closing. JOEBRO64 12:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.