Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars/1

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept There has been a considerable cleanup and there are no outstanding delist arguments. Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

I have placed this article up for GAR due to multiple problems that weren't addressed in the article's GAN review. Problems include:

• Number of non-free images.
• There are paragraphs that are only 1–2 sentences long (EX:Super Mario RPG Original Sound Version, Legacy).
• The "Virtual Console" section looks like it has undue weight and should be combined with legacy.
• Some sources don't look like they meet with WP:RS (I don't think saying Adam Sessler saying that the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series are spiritual sequals make it a reference.)
• The Reception section should be expanded and referenced a little more.

There;s maybe more problems I didn't address so if anyone find more please add it to the review. GamerPro64 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mucked with the audio section, which cleared up the Super Mario RPG Original Sound Version problem. --PresN 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my review:

Prose issues

All good, unless I see anything more. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:JARGON --> Normally, after spelling it out once at the first occurence and then providing the jargon/initialism afterwards (such as SNES or RPG), you can generally use the same initialism in the rest of the article. Much of Super Mario RPG's gameplay is outside of monster battles, where the game plays much like an isometric platformer in which both traditional Mario features, like punching floating question blocks from below, and new ones play a key role. --> That is not grammatically correct. while this is easily correctible by moving that third comma to after "ones", I'm not sure "and new ones" is the right phrase to use. Perhaps "and new features" would sound better? Also, when I read "where the game plays much like an isometric platformer", it sounds like that is referring to "monster battles". How about "...is outside of monster battles and much like an isometric platformer..." to get rid of the possible confusion? Please go over User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing in which quite a few sentences in this article apply. Stuff like this: The player starts the journey controlling only Mario. --> could be easily corrected to The player controls only Mario at the journey's beginning. Please remain consistent with terminology. For instance, "fight" should be "battle", as that is a common RPG term. Same with "game play" versus "gameplay". Names of seasons (i.e. "spring" or "winter") are not capitalized. The game's sound effects were produced by SNES own internal sound processor chip, the SPC700. --> Shouldn't it be "the SNES' own internal..."? The sound chip's built-in function was not something unique to this game, with a primitive simulation of a reverb effect through a short delay (or echo). --> I'm not understanding what this sentence is saying. Is it because the sound chip's function is not unique because it has reverb effects through short delays, or something else? Please clarify. ...making it the third best selling game in Japan in 1996 --> What makes something "best selling"? How about "highest selling"? Though various aspects of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars have received somewhat mixed opinions, ... --> "somewhat" makes it sound like you're editorializing. On a second read, "reviews" sounds better than "opinions"; the latter editorializes too much. –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) the settings of the game have been well received overall and have garnered praise for the quality of the graphics and visual style in particular. --> The "settings" have garnered praise for the quality of the graphics and visuals? Wouldn't that be the game overall? Nintendo Power's review claimed the excellent 3D graphics... --> "claimed" is not a very good word to use there (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Synonyms for said). Please substitute that for a more neutral-sounding verb. Please double-check quotation marks and make sure they comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside, as a few of them in the "Reception" section do not. Especially in the "Virtual Console re-release" section (as well as other sections, but not as bad as this section), you mention the title of the game way too much; in that section's first (albeit short) paragraph, you mention the title three times. Usually, in such cases, you should mention it once and then substitute common nouns or pronouns afterwards such as "the game" or "it", respectively. With guidance from Miyamoto, Square developed the game in Japan combining parts of its traditional RPGs, Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger, with Nintendo's platform games. → "Square developed the game in Japan" seems out of place, considering the general meaning of that sentence (i.e. that Square combined various RPG elements of other games with Nintendo's games). That clause should be removed from that sentence. Overall, this article needs a good copyedit, especially in the grammar/usage department, as well as other minor MoS issues.

MoS issues

Good. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
First paragraph in the Gameplay section (also please check the rest of the article, too), you have redundant citations there, i.e. citation #2. All you need is one citation at the end of what you're citing (or the end of the paragraph, whichever comes first). In this case, remove the citation after "a key role". The same applies to the second paragraph of the section.

Verifiability issues

Good. –MuZemike 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot section: You're citing some of the material to reliable sources or even the game itself (which is fine, as long as you're not making inferences from the source material while describing the plot), but the rest of it remains uncited, which is rather inconsistent. You can cite the game itself via the {{cite video game}} template (which is ideal for RPG game articles such as this) to make sure all this can be verified. Ref #7 should just be GameSpy, though I am also questioning the reliability of that source as well (see below). Refs 10-13 are incomplete citations. If they're from Nintendo Power, then you need to fill in those citations appropriately. Issue numbers are needed for those print sources. I know for Nintendo Power and EGM, you can easily find them somewhere on the Internet. Also, for future reference, video gaming magazines normally utilize the {{cite journal}} template, as they're basically a journal-type format. –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Lots of potentially unreliable sources have been used. What makes [1], [2], [3], [4],[5] (which looks more like a user-generated review), [6], [7], [8], and [9] reliable? The Armchair Empire is not considered a reliable source per this discussion a while back. Console Obsession → I, personally, am not convinced of its reliability, as I do not see any evidence of editorial oversight, fact-checking, reputation, etc. Many of the references have not been completely filled out, and a few (as I mentioned above) are likely unreliable to use.

Conclusions

delist per significant prose and verifiability issues. If this was a regular GAN, I would fail this nomination, as putting it on hold would not do much good. My suggestions, as noted above, are to improve the prose quality, make sure the basic MoS guidelines are being followed, and use reliable sources with more complete citations. –MuZemike 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't delist it; I'll address these issues through the next couple of days-SCB '92 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Images: With the removal of the soundtrack cover, the number of non-free images looks fine now. And I expanded the FUR of the gameplay image, so I think the images are of no concern now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

Conditional Delist If after the customary one-week time frame to fix the issues it doesn't meet standards. The Good Article Nom review was a joke to be honest. I would suggest someone of more experience than I coach the reviewer as this is the second time I've seen this problem with them. I take issue that someone with less than 150 edits is reviewing GANs. --Teancum (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the reassessment nominator's issues have been addressed, all the prose and MoS issues have been addressed, and some of the verifiability issues have been addressed; should I renominate the article for GA for a more detailed review?-SCB '92 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editors here believe there are no longer any issues, then the article retains its GA rating. So another review would be unnecessary in that case. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

First off, I don't see any of the possibly unreliable sources addressed. Moreover, this was added just now, which is not even accompanied by any source, and it's a quote on top of that. I can take a look at the prose later, but the verifiability issues remain. –MuZemike 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This was also just added, which is not sourced anywhere and smacks of original research. –MuZemike 19:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Got rid of all unreliable sources, but I think GameSpy is reliable as it is part of IGN Entertainment; if IGN is reliable, then GameSpy is reliable; so I guess everything has been addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Once the remaining content is sourced with reliable sources, we'll take another look at the article, which by the way, is making good progress.

In regard to the GameSpy link, yes GameSpy is part of IGN's network, and we consider both to be reliable. However, the sub-sub domains of Classic Gaming were essentially fan pages hosted by GameSpy. Those we can not accept as reliable because there is typically no editorial oversight and community-wide acceptance as an authoritative source. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, got rid of it; replaced most of them with reliable sources, got rid of a sentence altogether (for being an easter egg), while other sentences already had enough relable sources, that didn't need to have replacements; everything's addressed, it's up to the reassessment nominator to decide whether to (hopefully) keep or (hopefully not) delist the article-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't decide if the article will keep its GA status or be demoted. Since this is a community reassessment, it will stay up for weeks at the WP:GAR until someone eles decides on the article's status. GamerPro64 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I still owe a response, anyways, with regards to the improvements, so I would ask that it would not be closed until I have had a chance to go through it again. –MuZemike 20:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have crossed out issues that I saw were resolved in my review above; some issues still remain before I can consider it comfortable for endorsing for GA. Now, there are two sources in the "verifiability issues" which I did not cross out, Square Enix Music Online and the-magicbox.net, which have come up in a recent FAC and that are still being sorted out. I'd be willing to let those two go for now, until it becomes more explicit that they are not reliable to use (i.e. it's not fair to penalize on an sourcing issue in which said sources have been disputed). –MuZemike 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

took care of the prose issues: the names of the seasons were already capitalized after you re-reviewed it, so I don't know why you didn't cross it out, unless seeing the sentence "a giant knife/spring-like creature", where "spring" is nothing to do with the seasons; I went to Google cache and saw that there are only one use of each "Spring" and "Winter" (in the development section); you changed "opinions" to "reviews yourself"; I rewrote the "settings" part; I already changed "claimed" to "commented" before you rereviewed it; I'm pretty sure the quotation marks comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside in the Reception section; and i deleted "in Japan"

for the verifiability issues, you said how the citations are inconsistent (I didn't put these citations in the plot section, in the first place); could I just get rid of the citations completely in the plot section? quoting User:David_Fuchs: "It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; I generally only do it if there's something potentially contentious." so I guess it's optional, and I don't have the game itself, so it'd be quite hard to find quotes from the game; also, the Issue numbers have been taken care of-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find that citing everything is a good practice, regardless if it is contentious. A handful of citations in that section would probably be a good idea. I'm sure some of the reviews can be used for simple parts of the story. I remember for Kingdom Hearts, I checked the game scripts at GameFAQs for quotes to include. This game has a script there as well. I have the strategy guide at home. I can check to see if it can provide additional citations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, I used quotes from the game, by using that link, and put as many citations as possible in the story subsection; after all this work, it feels like it could be a candidate for a Featured Article, let alone a Good Article; please tell me that this is it to just meet the good article criteria, because I don't think I can improve it anymore; right now, I'm working on getting Fallout 3 to GA status, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to FA status-SCB '92 (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in the review as I have been rather busy as of late, and I have been trying to work on other projects. All prose and MoS issues look like they have been addressed, but I have listed two more verifiability issues above, which should be addressed. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Will it be okay to just delete the paragraphs of Armchair Empire and Console Obsession review? so I don't need to replace it with reliable source? also, is AllRPG, Netjak and Gamervision reliable? if not, then can't really expand the Reception section for criticisms of the game-SCB '92 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The VG project has a list of sources we've vetted as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Those three don't look like they have been checked yet. I'd err on the side of caution and remove them, especially since they are not used in the prose section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay, I removed the unrelible sources and replaced the paragraphs with RPGamer, Allgame and 1UP.com's criticisms of the game (though their quotes were used for the praise of the game in the same section)-SCB '92 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to tentatively support GA status per the improvements made to the article. I would still prefer to see the plot information cited, but I can leave that to the others' opinions if that is necessary. –MuZemike 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Err, I did cite most of the story subsection in the plot section with quotes from the game, but thanks for the support of the GA status-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

After going through most of the article, there are some issues (namely in the "Development" section) that I think need to be addressed to keep its GA status. I'll try to post a list as soon as I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 08:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

I think it was the changing tense that were the issues in that section, so I edited it and made sure it was all in past tense-SCB '92 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the remaining issues I noticed.

• Development
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph seems out of place. Such analysis of the gameplay seems more suited for reception rather than development.
  • The third sentence of the second paragraph doesn't seem clear to me: "In December, further development delayed the game for the translation as well as improvements to the gameplay." Does it mean that further development and improvements to the gameplay delayed the translation of the game?
  • SA-1 Demonstration Program at SNES Central looks like a fan site. What makes it reliable?
  • The content in the last paragraph of the section is not it the source cited. Such level of detail needs a source.
  • The same content needs to be reworded for the layman. For example, we understand what "faster RAM" means, but other probably won't unless we say "faster access to the Random Access Memory". Also, the order of the sentence is confusing,. I assume that "greater" applies to "memory mapping capabilities, data storage and compression", but the current structure does not portray that.
  • In regard to your recent edit, some development content should be past tense while other should be present. Anything that the developers did, occurred in the past and should be in past tense. But anything that the game does, occurs when it happens, which can be the present and should be in present tense. It can get a little fuzzy sometimes. Let me know if you'd like further clarification.
• Reception
  • If an author is listed in the source, you should attribute it to them in the prose. For example, "Allgame stated that..." → Skyler Miller from Allgame stated that..."

Once these are addressed, I believe that the GAR can be closed as "keep".(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

I've addressed everything you said-SCB '92 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Things are much better now. Here are the remaining issues:

• The last sentence of the first paragraph still seems out of place. After re-reading, I think it's describing what the gameplay was like at 70% completion. However, this is not completely clear. I suggest some copy edits to the first paragraph to better convey this.
• The new source for the technical info doesn't completely match up with what's in this article.
  • Article says "one of seven games" while the source says "one of three".
  • The source makes no mention of the sound processor and reverb effect.

Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

Done, apart from finding a reliable source for the sound processor and reverb effect; all I see are unreliable sources about it; is MobyGames a reliable source?-SCB '92 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Something that specific should have a source. We've been shying away from MobyGames more and more over the years. They use to be fine for some basic info, but I don't know if that's true anymore. If there isn't a reliable one available, then the content should be removed. Have you tried a search at Google Books? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

I searched Google books, but it's just a strategy guide, that's unlikely to have anything about the soun processor and reverb effect, and I don't have the guide; okay, I guess I had to delete it, let's finally close the article as a keep then-SCB '92 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep: My main concerns have been addressed. I believe that the article meets the GA criteria and should retain its rating.

SCB 92- I suggest you apply some of the changes made here to Super Mario Galaxy 2. I noticed similar issues there and it would be best to update the article to preempt a GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

Specifically what are the similar issues?-SCB '92 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Using reliable sources (unreliable ones: LittleBoBeep, The Tanooki, GoNintendo, and the Wikipedia link to Nintendo Power#Nintendo Power Awards), strengthen the FUR of the gameplay image, probably should remove the album image, and some light copy editing. The issues aren't prevalent as they were in this article, but the sourcing is something that could warrant a GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

• Keep - Compared to what it looked liked before the review, I can agree on this article keeping it GA status. GamerPro64 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)