Talk:Mario's Cement Factory

Mario's Cement Factory was nominated as a Video games good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 17, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Video games: Nintendo Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (6 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario's Cement Factory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 13:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to clean out some of these older nominations. Namcokid47 (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say this, but I’m gonna have to fail this. The page is nowhere near good enough for GAN and is at the very least a C class article. There are a large number of issues with it:

Almost none of the gameplay is properly sourced, which for a GA is absolutely required.
I fail to see the point of having three different images for the different variants when they are basically the same game, as they add almost nothing to the article itself.
The lead does not accurately sum up the article and makes almost no note on how it was played or its development cycle or even the multiple rereleases.
Plenty of awkwardly-written sentences, mainly in the lead and reception sections. A good example is the first line in the lead as it drags on for too long.
Lots of publishers and names lack italics.
Lots of the references feature inconsistent date structures.
The list for the multiple rereleases doesn’t look good and would be better off as a paragraph or two.

Namcokid47 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't really agree with quick failing the article, none of these things come off as insurmountable issues, and I question whether some are issues at all.

From my experience, the game itself serves as the source of information. Otherwise, the manual can be the citation.
Easily addressed, though the images are all free use (down there anyway).
Lead could be easily filled, and the details can be added in minutes.
Awkward sentences can be fixed fairly quickly, especially for such a short article.
Fixed in minutes.
Fixed in minutes.
Can be easily adjusted.

I feel that a quick fail isn't justified by how small and easily addressed the issues are. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've since definitely addressed all issues except for two, though subjectively, I think that awkward sentences have been addressed. Gameplay I just need to cite and then all issues will have been addressed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]