Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Mario Bros.

Mario Bros.

I just decided to pick this up after seeing the sorry state of the articles. Besides sourcing issues, can anyone give me a review of the article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing the development section is woefully inadequate. Maybe Game Over might have some information on it, I have the book so I can check. Andre (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I only just started working on the article, so I just grabbed what I could find really. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by someone another

I've rated the article C-class, it is fleshed-out beyond Start, and gaps in information and other problems do not prevent articles from attaining C-ratings. Here's some suggestions:

• Full cite-web templates for web citations would be extremely desirable, at some point.
• I don't have a problem with the merge of Mario Clash and the home computer versions personally, but if significant sources are located for either then they should be allowed to return to being separate articles, it's the lack of information and availability of the sources which made them merge candidates in the first place.
  • I'm thinking of splitting Mario Clash if this article grows enough.
• Unless there is more to add, a separate section for music seems like overkill, the data could be moved elsewhere.
  • Yeah, I don't think there's much I could add - the usage of its music is all I can think of, and it's only used a couple of times. I can't for the life of me decide where to put it, though.
• Because of the game's importance you're really going to have to push the boat out for the development section, hunting down as many sources as possible.
  • Yeah, Andrevan said he'd check out Game Over to see if Mario Bros. is mentioned at all.
    • Word for word: "Although not typical of the Mario series, Mario Bros. does however share certain similarities with the classic Jetpac (released the same year), and with Joust (1982), which Miyamoto admits inspired him to make Mario Bros. a twin-player experience." source (pages 261-262). It's little nuggets like that which are floating around out there and which will drag it back to the original game rather than it being a footnote in some gameboy games. It might help to visit a library with extensive online databases and check for book and magazine hits. Someoneanother 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• In gameplay, the game mechanics of flipping enemies first before kicking them away would ideally be in the first paragraph, instead of referring to using the POW block and making them vulnerable without explaining how they are made vulnerable.
  • I kept them in the second paragraph, but I removed the mechanics of the POW block, is it fine now? I just think that having the first paragraph about the mechanics of the game and the set-up of the stages, and the second about enemies.
• "The standard means of defeating enemies involves hitting them from below to flip them onto their back, and then to them and kick them, ultimately defeating them." For a start I'd suggest clarifying that the platform they are standing on needs hitting, not the enemy itself. Starting the statement with "Enemies are defeated by..." and explaining it in more detail would help, the wording could be tighter as well.
  • Done.
• What are sidesteppers and shellcreepers?
  • Done, though I'll have to improve the wording.
• Reception's fine but an initial paragraph dealing with how it was received at the time of the initial release would be useful, books should contain some details. Someoneanother 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's tricky with these older games. I'm surprised that I got so much for reception w/o the original game's reception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review by MuZemike

The biggest thing I will emphasize here are citations, citations, citations! That cannot be stressed enough. A good lead can also go a long way in making a great article as that hooks readers in.

Lead

• I would add to the end of the first paragraph a mention of the other ports and remakes of the game and move the description of the game (starting with In this game, Mario is portrayed as a plumber…) to the second paragraph. Consider making the game's description as its own paragraph and then cover the reception in a separate third paragraph.

It was created by Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of the Mario series

• "Mario series," even though it is the name of the article, sounds vague. I would consider changing "series" to "franchise" in the piping to make it more clear.

It is the sequel to Donkey Kong…

• Is it? It certainly has followed Donkey Kong, but saying it's a sequel makes Mario Bros. seems like it's part of the Donkey Kong series. Maybe replace "sequel" with "follow-up" or similar.

Gameplay

• Consider finding an online copy of the game's instruction manual and then include it at the bottom of the References section so the facts can be checked.
• You should mention the enemies in which they appear in the game in order, which I believe are Shellcreepers, Sidesteppers, Fighter Flies, and then Freezies. Also work on the wording and make it more concise.

The objective of the game is to defeat all of the enemies in each stage.

• Change "stage" to "level" and wikilink using Level (computer and video games)

Mario and Luigi cannot jump on enemies while they are invulnerable to attack…

• Change "Mario and Luigi" to "players."

making it more difficult to control Mario,

• …more difficult for the player to control Mario.

Shellcreeper, a type of turtle, can be made vulnerable…, …Sidesteppers must be hit twice from below in that fashion to become vulnerable.

• Replace "to become vulnerable" with "flipped onto their backs" to maintain consistency as well as to avoid confusion among lay readers.

Development

• It's a good start, so far, everything looks like where it should be, as well as referenced. It just needs to be expanded. Expansion should focus on the development of the original arcade version, but it should not be hard to also find development info on the Game Boy Advance versions.

Reception

• The biggest thing by far is to include complete citations for all the sources. For these online sources that require {{cite web}}, include the author's name, title, publisher, date published, date retrieved, and of course the URL.
• Take all numerical ratings out and place them in a {{VG Reviews}} box, complete with references.
• GameSpot seems to be mentioned twice in the first paragraph with IGN in-between. Combine those two sentences regarding GameSpot's review, which shouldn't be hard if you have already removed the rating.
• Move the reception of the arcade game to the top of the section, and try to expand it; that might be a trifle difficult, I understand.

GameSpot criticized the NES version for being a poor translation of the arcade version.

• Translation? It sounds like we're talking about languages, which is obviously not the case. Change to "port" and provide a wikilink.

Ports and remakes

• Again, complete citations. Also, some of the statements need references. I have tried to note them in the section.

I would definitely agree on C-Class for now. Improve the current citations and try to find more references, and work on the lead and gameplay sections. Cheers, MuZemike (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)