Talk:Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello there! I'll review this nomination. My initial comments should be up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Now kicking things off with the infobox and lead:

Infobox

• File:Mariosonic2012.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• Every release date except for the original Wii distribution is missing sources (I can't see references attributed to them within article prose)

• I could only find a reliable source for the European release dates. The rest are corroborated through other sites which I can't use per WP:VG/S. Thankfully sourcing release dates aren't really a requisite for VG GAs or FAs, otherwise the impossibility would force us to omit them. ♦ jaguar 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, you should reference them somewhere per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, whether in the infobox or article prose. Anything that can't be credibly sourced at all should simply be omitted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've never done this across the 70 or so video game GAs I've written, nor have I seen exact release dates being sourced elsewhere. I understand your point regarding verifiability but if all articles had to abide by this edict then the vast majority of articles wouldn't be able to include release dates. I can't find any sources covering the non-European release dates and I can't be willing to remove them. If you prefer I can seek input from WPVG. ♦ jaguar 21:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• No citations for the directors, producers, programmers, artists, or composers either? I'm worried about that.

• I've cited the game's manual, though I don't think this is a concern for GA. ♦ jaguar 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Starting three consecutive sentences with "the game" feels repetitive

• I've replaced a couple of instances with "Mario & Sonic". I think I just wanted to avoid using the full title! ♦ jaguar 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Although it sold well, the game received mostly mixed from critics"..... contrary to what the use of "although" implies, how many copies a game sold has nothing to do with whether critics liked it

• Good point. Rephrased. ♦ jaguar 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• "citing its gameplay as underwhelming ." has a stray space after "underwhelming", and "citing" doesn't read very well in this instance. I'd go with "feeling" or perhaps "criticising".

• Reworded. ♦ jaguar 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Snuggums. It's been a long time since I've done this, so it's good to get back into it! ♦ jaguar 10:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay

• No concerns with File:Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games gameplay.jpg
• For counts with multiple digits, you can use numbers, meaning "eighteen" from "eighteen more from both franchises" can be 18 (which is consistent with the subsequent uses of 30 and 57)

• Done. If I recall the magic number for prose is thirteen. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• "the game's most notable addition" is a blatant personal opinion and thus inappropriate; your own POV doesn't belong here.

• Removed. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything on a tourist book here, but found some details on (without any quotation marks) in a previously used ref

• Inserted the GamesRadar ref. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• For "Unlike its predecessor", let's specify how this refers to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games as opposed to the original Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

• Good catch, fixed. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry to nitpick, but this doesn't specify 57; just gives "over 50" events

• Good catch again, changed to "over 50". ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Link Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog

• Done. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Don't assume all readers are familiar with Mario/Sonic characters; "their respective antagonists" should be mentioned by name (Bowser and Doctor Eggman)

• Added. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to "Development and release" next (which looks like the best place within prose to cite release dates in order to avoid cluttering the infobox). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Snuggums and sorry for my slow pace - RL whisks me away. Eager for your next round. ♦ jaguar 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Development and release

• I did a minor linking fix for this and the previous section with Sonic the character vs. the franchise
• Good news: I found two links you can use for a Japan release dates for both consoles (and yes Amazon is fine for non-contentious claims like formats and when something was distributed). While it might not be the same dates you listed, these are better than having nothing. There's also an IGN piece for Valentine's Day 2012 on the 3DS which is corroborated these links (and the latter gives 10 Feb for Europe, not the 9th). As for Australia, I unfortunately could only find any details for that country in fansites and Wikipedia mirrors, and they seem to have been pulled out of nowhere. Just scratch those while keeping in Europe, Japan, and North America.

• Thank you. I considered using Amazon but I thought Wikipedia shunned it. It's better than nothing. I've sourced the rest and removed Australia's release dates - couldn't find anything on them beyond fansites either... ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• This section would be a good place to list people who worked on the music, programming, artwork, etc., especially for citing them outside of infobox

• Done. There are a lot of people in the infobox! ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Are any details known on when production started/ended?

• Nothing on that sadly. It's one of those games where very little exists on its development process, mostly because it was a money-generating sequel. ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Link Sega and Nintendo

• Done. ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Mere speculation on sales isn't very helpful; I'd scratch that when you've already included some actual results

• Removed the first citation. ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the same citation more than once in a row per paragraph, which means the second paragraph can just have this at the end of "licensed by the International Olympic Committee through exclusive licensee International Sports Multimedia".

• I've added another sentence in between these two (the list of key people who worked on the game), so this shouldn't be an issue now. ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Almost at the end! My next batch of comments will most likely be the last. One thing I will say in advance is that I recommend moving "sales" up to here from "reception". Not only is it a super-short subsection with literally just one sentence (nowhere near enough to warrant a subheading), but copies sold are (as I've mentioned before) a separate matter from whether critics liked it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Snuggums for your thorough review and patience. I've been on holiday for the past four days and have just got back so now I'm ready to tackle the rest in a prompt fashion. Good point regarding the sales subsection, I've merged it into development and release. One thing I must mention is that I don't know why the reception table isn't displaying scores from the last three publications. It seems that it won't register non-entries found in the video game reviews template. I will keep looking into it. ♦ jaguar 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• Both Metacritic links say "mixed or average" reviews, not "mixed to positive".

• Amended. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "ONM" should be spelled out in full

• I can't change it as it's hardcoded into the video game reviews template. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since "surmised" is another way of saying "guessed", it doesn't feel like the best verb when this instead is a reviewer's opinion, and let's specify that the "underwhelming" comment pertains to playing the game by oneself as opposed to with other people.

• Addressed both. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Add italics for Eurogamer and GamesRadar+

• Done. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Guardian writes "may not do either universe justice"; don't alter the quote like you did with "do justice"

• Rephrased. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• You're missing a "+" for one instance of GamesRadar+

• Added. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "the game's overall similarity" should note that this is similarity to the prior two Mario & Sonic games (it otherwise looks like an incomplete thought)

• Removed entirely. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure "meaningful" from "lack of meaningful difficulty" is the best tone. Furthermore, difficulty (or lack thereof) isn't even something I can find in the attributed ref.

• Removed and replaced with "lamented on the game's overall lack of new content and predictability". I must have mixed it with another review. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "regretted" feels off when that pertains to something one wishes they did/didn't do. A better term would be "complained" in order to avoid repetition of things like "lamented".

• Replaced. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Your use of quotation marks for "charm" is deceptive when that was was nowhere to be found in Digital Spy, and IGN only uses "elevating" in present tense, not past tense as used in this page's prose. Additionally, the use of "noted" for "noted that part of its 'charm' was" can come off as treating someone's opinion like a fact.

• Removed the quotation marks from 'elevated' and replaced 'charm' with 'appeal', which is reflected in the review. Well spotted and I also replaced 'noted' with 'felt'. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, "fare better" is used, not "fared better". There's also no mention of 3DS visuals in that URL.

• Removed mention of visuals and merged the two sentences to improve flow. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• See my previous comment on moving the "sales" (which you still haven't done yet despite your above comment; I'm guessing you forgot to publish that change).

• Oops, yes done. ♦ jaguar 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• No need for the "www.amazon.com" bit when "Amazon" is already mentioned

• Removed. ♦ jaguar 13:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• GamePro, The Guardian, Computer and Video Games, and one instance of Nintendo Life are missing italics
• Remove italics from VentureBeat (its ref is also duplicated), Digital Spy, and Metacritic

• The citation template won't allow you to insert italics when the names of the websites and publishers are in work/publisher fields. They are all in the correct fields anyway. ♦ jaguar 13:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Overall

• Prose: Some work needs to be done
• Referencing: Not all content is properly attributed, and some citation formatting should be corrected
• Coverage: Are any 3DS sale figures known?
• Neutrality: I'm skeptical of the "meaningful difficulty" part and a use of "noted"
• Stability: Looks good
• Media: Both images have good FUR's
• Verdict: Starting now, I'm putting the nomination on hold for seven days. That should be enough time to address my remaining comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: thank you, all should be done now. ♦ jaguar 13:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Jaguar. Just one last thing: you'll need to add a ref for when the sequel Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games came out, whether in the lead or article body. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Done, added it in the development and release section. ♦ jaguar 15:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I can now happily pass; well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:42, 31 July 2021 (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.