Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Mario (series)/archive1

Super Mario (series)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm trying to get the Mario series articles to GA, and would like this to be checked over, especially references. Thanks, Darrman1 (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I put this in the wrong section, sorry, by the way. On Mario 64's talk page, it said it was an everyday life article for V.1.0, so I put it here. Darrman1 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"would like this to be checked over, especially references" So are you looking for a technical check, like a copy edit? If so, you'll want to take this to request a copy edit at GOCE first. PR is usually for creative advice like what sections can be bolstered and with what kinds of information. Checking the verifiability of references is usually technical work that the editor can do without a copy edit or peer review (the former done for technical style, the latter done for creative). I noticed you haven't touched the article yet—you may want to start by doing the reference checks yourself (unless you want some specific ref advice). Once you're comfortable with its state, I'd be happy to talk more about how the article can be improved before taking it to GAN. Sound good? czar · · 21:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I checked the refs, and no. 8 looked funny. I checked about the 3-up moons, but there were no sources. That's just the tip of the iceberg, mind. Anyway, start the peer review please! Darrman1 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you hit it with a {{copy edit}} tag, I'll hit it when I free up later in the week and will double back for the peer review. czar · · 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added copyedit tag. (I changed my username, by the way.) Darrman (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Czar

General

I did these edits offline, so I wasn't able to check certain proprietary spellings. I've noted what I was unsure about below and inline where easier
Would be worth mentioning Mario's role in the development of the platformer genre, and a sentence in lede
Check all sources against WP:VG/RS. I'm offline while editing, so I can't check credibility on sites like "Super Mario Galaxy Central" or "Miyamoto Shrine" or "The Mushroom Kingdom"
Some refs are inconsistent. I suggest to standardize all of them to the same format, archive with webcitation.org, remove unreliable sources
Removed lots of OR, where possible
I don't understand the boundaries for what makes a game fit this article: both "Super Mario" in title and a platformer? Because there were lots of other Super Mario titles that come close. What RS treat this series differently from the rest of the Mario franchise, and is this just split because Mario by itself is too unwieldy and Mario Kart already required its own spin-off? This article is bound to get lost
Add brief level two, summary-style "Characters" section (see cmt in Games below), section could have one "Mario characters" illustration at its top
Many of these concepts could use illustrations
Many inline notices to resolve (see hidden categories)
No section really connects the Super Mario series to the larger Mario franchise, would be helpful to have more of that near the reception section if not in its own section
Also not enough on how the Super Mario series contributed to the video game industry, Nintendo's longevity, or how Nintendo releases landmark Super Mario titles alongside each console
Why doesn't Super Mario link here? (With the current Super Mario made into a disambig.) The series page is the obvious primary topic—all the disambig links refer to it
Consider further trimming the External Links section to conform to the guidelines (not sure if Mario wikis are considered of a substantially stable history)

The most glaring omissions are Development and Legacy sections. Development should cover the macro-level decision-making at the series level, or decisions that higher-ups made about where the series was going, and only cursorily dive into the development aspects of the character himself or the individual games (only if notable to the series, like the idea of adding a new signature "Mario" feature [e.g., three collectible coins in each level, Tanooki suit, why he wears suspenders, why Luigi is green). Legacy should cover the cultural impact of the series (remember this article is just about the video game series, not the franchise itself), things like the SMB sound effects used in blockbuster movies, the invincibility star music used in other games, Cory Arcangel's Super Mario Clouds, "It's-a me, Mario!" in other contexts, the whole reason why the Super Mario and Mario dab pages exist at the top of the page: the indelible mark the series and its popularity left on video game and global culture. Honestly, these two sections could easily be subpages (separate articles, summarized within this main article because there is so much content for the subpages). Side note: do keep in mind that the Mario (franchise) article covers the details of all non-video game Mario media (though it can be mentioned that the video game was the progenitor for the franchise and its multimedia goodies).
The article is hurting for references. It's going to need a whole lot of sources to verify the unverified stuff: every other sentence if not every sentence.
Development should be the first heading because it informs why the series was made (the need it fulfilled) and the history of its development, both of which are necessary for understanding the rest of the article. The "Origins" section can be merged here. The rest of the order is fine, I think, up to you.
The List of recurring Mario franchise enemies should be worked in as a little section with a "main article" link, same goes for other Mario nav box mentions that can be related back to the video game series (this article isn't everything Mario—that's the franchise article)
Is there a reason why Super Mario Kart isn't mentioned? (I ask based on the title—I know it's not a platformer.) Or did it cease to be in the Super Mario series after it got its own series? It also marks a time where the Mario franchise started splitting off in new, self-sustaining directions
Incorporate more (relevant) free media from commons:Category:Mario (video game series)
This article sees so many junk edits—consider requesting WP:WHITELOCK protection (similar to that of the Sonic series's article)
I found a reliable source for the 3-up moon: [1] I know it first showed in Super Mario World, which would be cool to include if you can find backing print sources.

Lede

Restructured, solved content issues
If possible, move citations into body text. Lede should be repeat/summarize the body, which should be referenced. (E.g., "critically acclaimed" is already ref'd in the text, so there's no need to source it in the lede.)
Worth mentioning how SMB influenced gameplay (outside just the series)?
The Super Mario games focus on Mario's adventures in the fictional Mushroom Kingdom: is this true? What about SML?

Gameplay

Consider using a little video or animated GIF instead of the gameplay image, which would demonstrate the idea better
Link "screen scrolled" in caption—I can't look up the link
Link first use of 2D and 3D
I would have changed much of the phrasing in the gameplay section, but the wording is going to follow the sourcing
Gameplay's first paragraph needs to be a better overview of the section
All jargon ideas (that aren't self-explanatory to an initiate need to be spelled out on their first use
Expand section to explain what happens during gameplay, e.g., move to the right and jump, moving platforms are introduced, difficulty ramps, then add what successive games added (not by name, but by concepts that carry through the rest of the series), then the next sections discusses those major concepts in some sort of order (doesn't necessarily need all the subheadings, though)
Need sections on warp zones
Link "overworld" on first use
Link "extra lives" in 1-Up section
Add citations and sentences on how the overworld differs within the series
This section has more on the overworld than the actual physical gameplay (moving mechanics, friction of running)
Keep language consistent. I know that levels/courses/stages are the same thing, but the reader won't unless they're introduced as synonyms
All of the individually discussed gameplay items need illustrations
re: jumping—include Jumpman history
I'm on the fence as to whether the subheadings are useful. If they're used as anchor points and expanded summary-style, maybe. They're also completely unsourced right now. Much of it is currently dismissible as OR.
Dropped the "Recurring" heading and pushed all subheadings up a level (note to self: check for broken links from Power-up)
While in Super form,—is this the correct phrasing?
Mini Mario—what about this? or Fire Mario or Ice Mario
Choose Super Star or Starman and stick with it
Link the first instance of collectible
"Course tokens"—is this phrase in wide use? Jargon needs to be synchronized
re: flying—how did flying evolve over time? It isn't worth listing the item names, but talk about how the ability changed over time
The flying section needs TNT. I was going to transplant it here, but it's not fair to the rest of the watchers. Needs complete restructuring to be less of a list and more informative about how the gameplay of flying works and how it affects the series.
Might want to mention plumping with the warp pipes, if there's a connection
Likewise, there's little about the history of the development of these power-ups. Would be interesting and important.

Settings, Music

How do "most games take place in the Kingdom" if they're listed as other places in the list?
So much OR. If I were to delete it, there'd be nothing left.
All of these sections need serious expansion. They should be telling how the topic connects back to the series as a whole. Music does a better job, but there's so much to say about the popularity of the music and why Nintendo internal chose to reuse the tunes.
Last sentence in Music looks like blatant OR. Salvage what you can and burn the rest.
Origins/Development sect needs expansion

Games

I believe sidescrolling is "side-scrolling" but I can't check
The first paragraph should summarize all core aspects of the original game. It's vague as it is
This section could use a prefacing "Characters" section to introduce Mario, Luigi, Toadstool, Bowser, Koopas, etc. before mentioning them in the games section
What is the purpose of this section? If it's to introduce every game in the series, it should go into summary-style depth including the main characters, key gameplay concepts (described for a layman), story, any notable impact on the rest of the series, critical response, noteworthy additions in the context of the series, etc. As it stands, the section is essentially a list of games with some information on levels but little on how it contributes to the series as a brick in a wall
I only copy-edited this section for style, not content (based on the above)
Japanese SMB2 (Lost Levels): console isn't mentioned. Make sure every paragraph is consistent.
Lost Levels: The original NES version was...: what's the difference between the original NES version and the All-Stars version? If it's worth differentiating, it's worth explaining
SMB2: note whether Doki Doki Panic was actually released as its own title before it was converted to a Mario game, and describe DDP's difference if it's worth mentioning (otherwise it's just a name-drop)
Add illustrations and many citations
SMB3: "Raccoon Mario"? This is the official term?
I'm not sure the number of worlds matters for each game. More important are the concepts that matter to the overall "Super Mario" series (the subject of the article)
Remember that new terms should only be wikilinked once in a section (if not in an article altogether, at its first use) unless their continued linkage is especially helpful
Use "{{as of}} X 2013" instead of "to date", which could cause later confusion
Consider adding sections to organize the games, such as one for SML/SMB/3D, if appropriate—could make it easier to read, but not if the divisions make no sense
Was M64 also the first to use any voice acting in a M game? Voice acting needs more coverage in the article
How is spinning while jumping different from the previously mentioned Spin Jump? Make more connections between entries in the SM series
Is 2.5D also associated with other entries in the Mario series like Yoshi's Story?
Compare M64's Power Stars to SMS's Sprites and SMG's Stars upon mentioning their similarity
May be worth making a section on objectives below the Games section, which can go into detail on the stars and whatnot (moved from section above)
3D Land doesn't cover connection to series? Continuation of SML or something else?
3D Land 3D is different from M64 3D (needs clarification)
Did any Mario games not release to critical acclaim? Worth noting.
NSMB2: use better sources (not pre-release information when release information is available)—aspects can change in the dev process
Remake/rerelease section needs work—can be more encyclopedic by explaining why the titles were rereleased as they were instead of just listing the titles.
Are there no sources that even as the series' popularity exploded, the games saw strikingly few rereleases? Like, haven't Sonic and other series seen more? Try to find sources on this?

Reception

Table: why is WIIU spelled that way? (Wii isn't capitalized)
{{VG Series Reviews}} could use years (or just added to the article, if not the template)
Is Gamecubicle reliable?
Why is Sunshine getting so much weight? Some games aren't mentioned at all but its ¶ is as long as M64's, which simply glows for the same length, in comparison
Worth mentioning that most of the series is critically acclaimed instead of saying it individually about each title
Sales table needs to be updated
Text has to be careful when ranking games ever or of all time because who is making the definitive list, and has Angry Birds pushed Mario down in the rankings? Every ranking mention needs a citation from a reliable source
Again, much attention goes to showing that the series is ranked the best and that it sells consoles, but not enough time is spent reflecting on the series' global impact (see General comments above)
Added "See also" section, but it may not be necessary (though Portal links would have to go elsewhere)

Response

Okay, that's a wrap. Took much longer than I had expected. I did the review offline (with a copy edit as I went), so I reconciled any differences once I came back online, but didn't have a chance to do as much wikilinking as I would have liked. It's at least a very good start, since I've put in many hours. The above are more general comments for where the article can go rather than a Good Article review with issues that need to be resolved right away. There are lots of tiny things to address, bigger projects like sourcing most of the article with truly reliable sources, and structural issues like entire missing sections. If you'd like my input on the article in the future, try the article's talk page and ping me so the discussion is in a central place. Please comment below instead of inline, if you'd like (otherwise it gets messy). czar · · 03:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]