Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal

Found in the Reception section:

There is also a bit of controversy behind the artwork of the game, if you look for each letter that has a star on it, it spells out "U R MR GAY". It is unknown whether this is on purpose or not.

It needs reliable sources, and because there isn't a notable website or magazine speaking about this, it cannot be include4d as of today. Godspeed.--200.71.160.1 (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have snuck it in, its long been decided as too trivial for the article, but is often added by IPs. DurinsBane87 (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

it's not snuck in, it's a fact. http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/18/u-r-mr-gay-message-discovered-in-super-mario-galaxy-box-art/ Markthemac (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a fact. Just a stupid coincidence. I still don't understand what the big deal is. Until Nintendo officialy say "Yes, we put that in on purpose", it should not be mentioned. It's trivial, unsourced by RELIABLE sources of information, and not encyclopedic. StarfoxRoy^(guestbook) 17:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Engine?

Anyone know what the engine is called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.42.125 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Beats me X]--Wariodude64 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Development

At least the following issues can be added or expanded and verified by this link ( http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol1_index.jsp ) to the development section - introducing the spin attack - camera positions - spheres Furthermore, how much should the development section be increased? I think a few lines can be added from that link, but it doesn't contain much data about when elements were added. Darth Viller (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all we should have more info on Shigeru Miyamoto's involvement for one thing. The current development section is pretty pathetic to tell you the truth. There's a lot of useless information there. I'm pretty sure people would be more interested in actual behind the scenes info on development rather than some useless crap about release dates. I'll create a sample, and you guys can decide if it's good or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.20.70 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was that other section completely deleted. Does somebody have a grudge against Miyamoto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of adding these lines to the current section?

One of the issues during the development of Super Mario Galaxy was adding spherical objects. Adding spherical fields made it harder to aim with jump attack. Therefore the team added the spin attack. Initially, a player could endlessly use the spin attack, but in order to increase the difficulty a delay after using the spin attack was implemented. A spherical playing field also stressed for a solution of the camera system. Instead of letting the player decide what point-of-view to use, as in the game's direct predecessor, preset camera perspectives were worked out. Another aspect of the game that was added to increase the difficulty was the life meter. In Super Mario Sunshine it consisted of eight units. To make the gameplay more intense, the maximum of the life meter was decreased to three units. This made additional lives and coins more valuable, because the supply of live units was cut down.

Some more information (for instance, Shigeru Miyamoto-san's influence, etc.) can be extracted from the article, but this is all I felt like typing for now :P Darth Viller (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

i think you can add this. i got this from the credits of super mario galaxy, Game design concept: shigeru miyamoto Director and game design: yoshiaki koisumi level design director: Kaichi Hayashida Level design: Futashi shirai, daisuke tsujimura, Haruko kakinuma,Ryutario Kanno, Tashihiro Kowabata. Script: Tokayak Ikkaku Program Director: Naoki Kogo Player charactor programming: Hideaki Shimizu Game Programming lead: takeshi HayaKaura Movie Scene Programmer: Tatsuro Ota Camera Programming: Katsuyasa Ando System Programmer: Atsushi Yomaguchi Boss Character Programmig: kiyoshi Taksuchi Event Programming: Hideyuki Sugowora Design Coordinator: Takeshi Hosono Character Design Leader: Kanta Motokuro Charater Design: Atsushi Mishimo, Daisuke Watanabe, nikuto yoshido, Masanari esaki, kasuhiro suito, takumi ishii, charator animation designer: hirako ihara, masyuk kawakito, tutsuro horimisu planet design lead: Kasumi yamaguchi planet design manager: hiromu tamuru planet design: Kenji ishii, kazumori hashimoto, takuro shimizu, sanue suzuki, kitsuko tanako, tetsu shaji, noriko urita UI Design & visual concept: yasuhiko matsuzaki UI design: mei Ide effect design: yumiko matsumiya movie scene dirrector: masaki yokobe movie scene Animators: katsuki hisanaga, konichi terasawa, nuoyaki yoshida, Hisashi Tohyama. movie scene object design: shinsuke yamiaski. Movie scene effect design: Haruyasu Ito, Motoaki fukuda sound director: masafumi kauramura music: mahita yokota, Kaji Kando sound Programming & effect: Yuya Takezawa, Shigetoshi Qohara voice: charles martinel, Kanneth W James, Samantha Kelly, Mercedes Rose, Catey Sagerian Performance: mario galaxy orchestra Program support: hirohito yoshimoto , keizo Ohto. Progress management: Keizo Kato Technical support: Keisuke Matsui, hiroshi arai, masato kimura, yoshito yasuda, Hironobu Kakui Artwork: nanko Kinoshita, Kazuma norisada Illustration: Shigehisa Nakaue, Ryasuke Yoshida, Yuri Adachi Illustration Supervisor: Yusuke Nakana Debug: Atsushi tada, Takesh Nishizawa, Akihito Fujiki, Maki Yoshitake, Mitsuhiro Senoo, Hideski Nakojima Debug support: Nebora Sunada, Akikero Sakatani North American Localization: Genna Almo Guera, Julian Chumovle, Ann Lin, Reiko Ninomiya, Tim O'Leary, Erik Paterson, Scot Ritchey, Kevin Sullivan, Jonathon Yackley NOrthAmerican Localization Management: Nate Bihldorff, Jeff Miller, Leslie Swan, Bill Trinen Testing: NOA Product Testing. Producer: Shigora MiyaMoto, Takao Shimizu Exective Producer: Sataru Iwata. I would normally do this my self but i lack the time or the knolage of how to use the code to put it on there nice and tight. i took out special thanks because it isnt to important to the development. the names in the special thanks are already in there. Godofwar15 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're trolling this page GodofWar. We have no use for these 'facts'.

Please assume good faith, and don't make generalised statements on behalf of editors. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But his list credits Shigeru Miyamoto as the game concept designer. Yet it doesn't say that anywhere in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

wasnt sure where to put this but super mario galaxy should have someone say on using its design to very similiar to the cancelled sonic xtreme since it used the same game element —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.111.245 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Character/Bosses

I think we should include the bosses and characters of the game, for information on the characters or stratgies on how to defeat the bosses/mini-bosses.(But what do I know? I'm the new guy...)

Kota328 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Kota328

Wikipeida isn't a game guide. -Sukecchi (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

These are on the Super Mario Wiki.

Dispute Regarding Shigeru Miyamoto

Okay, look I don't seem to understand what the issue is regarding giving him credit for his game. But to whoever keeps changing it, can we please, just for once, actually discuss why this shouldn't be so? Or have possible mediation somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the staff credits: [1] Miyamoto is listed as a Producer. In other words, he took on a managerial role with little hands-on development work, and thus he doesn't qualify under "Designer(s)." If you want to include him, you should include Satoru Iwata as well, because as the CEO of Nintendo, he is credited as the Executive Producer for every Nintendo game. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto was also credited with "Game Design Concept" at the beginning as well, while Yoshiaki Koizumi is credited with Game Design and Director. Level Design and other "designs" are superfluous though. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Game Design Concept doesn't mean much. So he thought of using planets and approved ideas via email. That's such a huge contribution to the game's development. Level designs are actually important because the entire game is built off of its levels. Wikipedian06 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with Iwata is silly. Reason being is that Miyamoto was actually involved in the DESIGN.

Iwata: For this last interview, I would like to ask Miyamoto-san, the creator of Mario, and [b]the person in charge of game design[/b] for Super Mario Galaxy.

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol4_index.jsp

Don't take him out again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly reliable, it's just a passing mention in an interview. Game producers are a form of designer too, and the formal credits listing is far more reliable than an ambiguous quotation in an interview. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Matt Casamassina's Rosalina criticism

This is what is written down in Wikipedia's article: " and criticized the plot, revealed through readings from a storybook, for being "an unnecessary side-tale [that] contrasts with a traditional story." But it neglects the fact that it's entirely optional. His entire quote on the matter:

Thankfully, though, the storyline is not forced upon you. If you want to know about Rosalina, you're free to visit the library room in the hub world, at which point you can sit through a series of Elebits-like reveals, all of them seeming to clash with the otherwise cheerful and colorful nature of the platformer. If you just want to play, hey, that's fine, too - just stay out of the library. That Nintendo has at least given you the choice is very much appreciated, as the snippets of exposition would have otherwise truly broken the momentum of the platforming.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/833/833298p2.html

24.7.141.45 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because He seems to be the only one that dislikes the Rosalina story part, and becasue he is not complaining about a bug or such, he simply dislikes this optional feature, I believe that part should be entirely removed, and i will do so, unless convinced otherwise. Knapper1176 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal in the Rosalina storybook. I mean, surely, you have all read an interesting story that you just felt like reading right? Well, there are people in this world who may enjoy the beauty of reading a fairytale or fable, simply because it is a pass time. The addition of this storybook is there for a reason: to learn how it all started (the galaxy, the star bits, rosalina's upbringing). Isn't this to clarify those questions you all have? Isn't it to fill in the gaps? I thought people should know this, because I think that something along the lines of "this storybook allows players to seek some understanding about how rosalina was mothering star bits", should defend against the claims of its "unneccessity". Please, someone mention something along these lines. These storybook writers deserve a bit of credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keetoman (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The point was that the article does not contain the quote in its entirity, making it seem completely negative. If the storybook is a good feature or not isn't in question here, it is that the opinion of the one who is quoted isn't seen in the proper light due to the omission of the second part of the statement. Epass (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

Has anyone thought of nominating this article as a GA? Epass (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ratings in the music section

In the Music section of the article, there are several scores by Allmusic, Pitchfork Media, etc., but the links are entirely wrong; in fact, I don't think any of these publications reviewed the soundtrack at all. For example, Allmusic's link links to their review of the Beach Boys' album "Pet Sounds," and the Rolling Stone link links to their review of Coldplay's "X&Y" album. I have no idea who put these scores on there, but I'm removing them. -ACDCGAMER 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• "Wii.com - Iwata Asks: Super Mario Galaxy." Nintendo.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

GAN quick-failed

Comparing at the version of the article from the last GA nomination with that of the current version. There is very little difference between the two, which means that very little has been done to address the concerns from the previous two failed GA nominations. As such, I am quick-failing this present GA nomination and removing it from the current list of nominations. I strongly suggest expanding the article and attempting to fix the concerns from Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA1 before nominating again. As always, copyedit requests and peer reviews are recommended after expansions have been done and previous problems remedied. –MuZemike 04:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the nominator had only ever made one single minor edit to this article previously, I'm not surprised the nomination failed. Яehevkor ✉ 12:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Universe re-direct

I think we need a discussion on what to do with Super Mario Universe as a re-direct here. In my opinion:

• Super Mario Galaxy 3 will be released this upcoming fall 2013.
• A few years later, Nintendo will reveal a sequel whose working title is Super Mario Galaxy 4, but later it turns out that they'll actually title it Super Mario Universe. (This parallels the story in which Super Mario Bros. 4 was re-titled Super Mario World.

So I'm against this re-direct. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're against this redirect based on complete speculation? Okay. No. Яehevkor ✉ 00:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Do plenty of Mario fans speculate incorrectly that this game's title is Super Mario Universe?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for speculation or making predictions. I already discussed this with you a few weeks ago. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But now I'm discussing whether Super Mario Universe is a sensible re-direct; and I'm explaining why I'm against it. Georgia guy (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is based on complete speculation. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good speculation; some people make not-so-good speculation on the future of Mario IMO. But remember that the actual subject here is whether Super Mario Universe is a sensible re-direct here. An answer of "yes" requires the story of the future of the Mario franchise to be that there never will be a Mario game that this is the actual title of. Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Good" speculation or not, it's not allowed. It's not worthwhile to accommodate games that don't even exist. No. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But the re-direct to this article suggests that the game exists; merely as an alternate title of this game. Georgia guy (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you assuming a game exists based solely on a redirect on Wikipedia? That is without a doubt one of the worst arguments for a game's existence. If I make a redirect called "Super Mario Starstorm" does that means that game exists too? No. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But what does the re-direct actually mean about that title. If it means nothing, we can't have it. Georgia guy (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Speculation is speculation. It has no place here. Acting based on what Nintendo might do in several years time? Okay. Still no. Яehevkor ✉ 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But how does this re-direct make sense?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have any suggestions that aren't based on speculation? Perhaps the redirect should be deleted entirely. Яehevkor ✉ 01:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That was my proposal, to delete the re-direct and not re-create it until there's official info on an actual Mario game with that title. Georgia guy (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal was nonsense. If your proposal was the deletion of the redirect I'd have listened. The venue you are looking for is WP:RFD. Яehevkor ✉ 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If your proposal was simply "I suggest deleting 'Super Mario Universe' because there are no reliable sources that support any correlation with the two titles," then it would have made sense. An argument for "We should accommodate games that don't exist yet" doesn't fly. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, please note that this discussion has been made obsolete because contrary to my prediction at that time, the Mario game for this fall is Super Mario 3D World, not Super Mario Galaxy 3. Georgia guy (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It was pretty moot to begin with. Also, you nominated Super Mario Universe for deletion but it doesn't seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion? Яehevkor ✉ 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is why you don't make proposals based on pure speculation. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External link to walkthrough

I would like some consensus as to whether the article should have a link to the game's walkthrough on GameFAQs. The link was undone without explanation so I think it's better to discuss why or why not this link should be on the article. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the link in question. It is a detailed walkthrough on how to play and make it through the game. I linked to this page, but I don't know if it's any better. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GameFAQs is not a reliable source, as it relies on user-submitted content. Any links to GameFAQs are not appropriate. In any case, game guides in general are inappropriate on Wikipedia. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise walkthroughs. Also Wikipedia in general is not a walkthrough. IF you want to post walkthroughs you should go to a wikia instead. NathanWubs (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah.. Gamefaqs guides are self published and opening the flood gates there would be a disaster. Game guide information simply isn't something Wikipedia caters for. Яehevkor ✉ 10:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wired src

Wow—this article's reception is tiny. Anyway, came upon http://www.wired.com/2008/01/god-of-war-dire/ and thought it might interesting to include in a sentence.  czar ♔ 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

the (third) highest reviewed game of all time.

There is a problem with the source for this, hence the flip-flop edits of the last day or so. In this list SMG is listed as the highest rated game, but the game's article lists it the third highest. The GameRankings list hasn't got games for positions 1, 2 and 5 so I think we'll have to tread carefully with it as a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the discrepancy as well. Perhaps we should bring the issue to the attention of others at WT:VG, as it seems to be relevant to the other games on GameRankings' All-Time Best list: Ocarina of Time, for instance, is ranked second on the All-Time Best list, but fourth on its individual page. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is also ranked inconsistently. Thanks, zziccardi (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's back to 3rd in both sources now. Яehevkor ✉ 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not for me. It's still 1 and 3 when I check it. - X201 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Same here. —zziccardi (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Weird, tried it in every browser, shows as 3/3. It did show 1/3 last time I checked previously near the start of this mess. Яehevkor ✉ 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked out the links. Turns out this one uses the minimum 20 reviews, while the one sourced in the article uses >5 reviews (per the search box) which GameRankings uses in their overall rank. Rockysmile11^(talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I originally thought that as well but then I noticed that it's not universally true; SMG2 shows up as 5th when you select >5 reviews in the list, but its page has it at 6th. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Guess there is an issue with the rankings then. Rockysmile11^(talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unless GameRankings says which list is their definitive list, I don't think we should use any list as their definitive list. There is too much variance between them. It should be generalized to say "among GameRankings's top-ranked games", or removed. Alternatively, someone could cite someone who has made a declaration about GameRankings's ranking of the game. – czar 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Works for me, although there should be a hyphen between top and ranked if everyone is fine with that option. —zziccardi (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been more than a month and GameRankings' numbers are still inconsistent, so I went ahead and made the (hopefully non-controversial) change. —zziccardi (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Super Mario Galaxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311132804/http://kotaku.com:80/gaming/gdc07/gdc07-super-mario-galaxy-confirmed-for-07-242742.php to http://kotaku.com/gaming/gdc07/gdc07-super-mario-galaxy-confirmed-for-07-242742.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091202193156/http://wii.ign.com:80/articles/104/1048874p25.html to http://wii.ign.com/articles/104/1048874p25.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I will review this. MWright96 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Premise and setting

• Celestial Object, Gravitional force and Wii Message Board are dab links
• Fixed. JAGUAR  18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• "that provide access to the forty-two galaxies available in the game" - forty-two should be in number form for consistency

• Good catch. JAGUAR  18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Controls

• Ice skating is a dab link

• Fixed. JAGUAR  18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Power-ups and lives

• Health meter and checkpoint are dab links

• Fixed. JAGUAR  18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• Mushroom Kingdom is linked twice

• Removed. JAGUAR  18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the outer space wikilink since its already in the gameplay section

• Removed. JAGUAR  18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Development

• Remove both links to outer space

• Done. JAGUAR  18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• " life meter to 3 from 8" - spell out 3 and 8

• Done. JAGUAR  18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Miyamoto thought that it was too easy and lacked insensitivity, asserting that a game loses its excitement when it is made too easy." - reptition of too easy

• Rephrased. JAGUAR  18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Shimizu also had a negative reaction to the idea. Shimizu" - usage of "Shimizu" in close proximity

• Fixed. JAGUAR  18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Iwata noted that Mario's Bee Suit was popular with women, and also stated that Mario's other suits were designed to add variations to the gameplay." - the character would be better to avoid reptition

• Done, thanks. JAGUAR  18:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Music

• "Yokota almost quit his job," - quit is American style spelling

• Yeah, perhaps. I've used "resigned" instead. JAGUAR  18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "in contrast to the tropical sounds of Super Mario Bros.. " - remove the second full stop

• Super Mario Bros. has a full stop in its title, so the full stop after the game is correct. You should have seen the fun I had with Nights into Dreams...! JAGUAR  18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• " stating that the control schemes more subtle and persuasive as opposed to the "vigorous literalism" of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess." - missing "were"

• Good catch! JAGUAR  18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

References

• Reference 29 is dead

• Wayback Machine couldn't find it, so I had to remove it. JAGUAR  18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• References 59 and 60 are lacking access dates

• Added. JAGUAR  18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall very-well written. Possibly one of your best works. On hold for now. MWright96 (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@MWright96: thanks for the review, and the compliment! I've addressed all of the issues. I might even consider taking this to FA, which I strangely wasn't aiming for. JAGUAR  18:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Best of luck if you choose the FA route. Promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Official Nintendo Magazine - Issue 23

Does anyone got issue 23 of the Official Nintendo Magazine ? I would need the review cited for the French version of the SMG article and would be very grateful to the person who is able to let me access to it. Thanks. Skull33 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Skull33: I have every magazine from June 2006 to November 2011. I'll see if I can get it out of storage and send you the review! Speaking of which, this article on the verge of passing the FAC here and I'll be happy to help out with your nomination as well. JAGUAR  15:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Wow, thank you so much. This is very helpful. I'll be happy to help you as well, for example if you need some help with French sources I used on :fr, or anything else. Skull33 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Skull33: Thanks! That would be useful as I'm still learning French and am not that efficient with translating sources etc. I've just scanned the review, if you could email me I'll send you the pdf files. JAGUAR  16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)