| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that we can get it to GA status. Thank you, KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
editComments after a quick skim:
- World of Light section needs a citation at the end of the paragraph.
- I am very surprised at how short the critical reception section is, considering how popular this game is and how many sources have reviewed this. I would expand upon this paragraph and add more information about various aspects of the game.
- Similar to the above, the Reception section falls into the "X says Y" pattern. I suggest dividing this section into aspects of the game (plot, gameplay, characters, technical abilities, etc.) and describe what critics said about these aspects.
- Notes d and e needs citations.
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Added citations to both the World of Light section and the last two notes. Will work on the Reception section soon. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Made several sentences per aspect you mentioned. It is going to be a little difficult to expand it when there are very few sources which are specific are the game's details, but I will eventually try to expand it. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments from DecafPotato
editHere are a few things I noticed when looking through the article:
- The Reception section could use significant expansion. In particular, the template documentation for {{Video game reviews}} says that all reviews used in the table should be included in prose. Of the fourteen reviews in the table, only two (IGN and Juexvideo) are included in the prose.
- Personally, I think post-launch updates are more fitting for the Release section than the Gameplay section. The characters themselves could probably be mentioned in the "Playable characters" section, but their release dates should probably be moved.
- It isn't an issue at GAN, but sources from Valnet, Inc. (TheGamer, Game Rant, etc.) won't pass high-scrutiny source reviews like those at FAC and should be replaced with higher-quality sources if possible.
- The Gameplay section mentions Classic Mode, Home-Run Contest, and other modes, but doesn't explain them. They should be explained as if the reader has not played Ultimate or any other Smash game, and should not expect them to have read articles on other Smash games either.