Talk:Mario Kart Wii/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will be working on this over the weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Fuchs Hello! Do you still plan on performing this review? PerryPerryD 04:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs Hello, It has been 7 days. Any updates on this review? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is a solid start for GA, but it needs a lot of work to get it over the finish line. Thoughts as follows.

Prose:
- The lead doesn't do a great job summarizing the entire article. Why is the first sentence treated as its own paragraph?
- The prose is pretty rough throughout; a lot of clunky phrasing, and using a lot more words than necessary to say the same thing, e.g. The speaker on the Wii Remote is frequently used during gameplay, with sound effects being emitted from it. could be rewritten as The speaker on the Wii Remote plays sound effects during gameplay. It also sometimes feels like it's veering into editorializing or giving a voice, such as Mario Kart Wii had sold over a million copies in Japan ~~alone~~
- The reception section spends almost as much time detailing rankings and lists as it does spending time on detailing aspects of the game; a lot of this could be trimmed or summarized better.
- Likewise the sales section is just a clunky repetition of dates and figures instead of summarizing it to the relevant parts.
- What makes a fan mod worthy of its own subsection, let alone calling it a "Legacy"?

User:David Fuchs What are you suggesting here? *with the mod part i mean PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References:
- A lot of references are missing information in the fields (authors, publication) and are inconsistent in formatting (some use website, others use publisher or work.)
- Did spot-checks to [ current refs] 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 26, 35, 48, 52, and 59, spotted some issues throughout:
  - For example, current ref 2 is used to cite the high-level overview of the gameplay, and it basically doesn't cover any of it.
  - ref 4 is used to cite Mario Kart Wii features twenty-four playable characters from the Mario series, which was the largest roster of any Mario Kart game until the release of Mario Kart 8 in 2014. The ref is from 2011, so it can't cite that last part of that statement talking about Mario Kart 8, but the reference also mentions 25 playable characters, not 24.
  - There's no source for the discontinuation of the Mario Kart Channel.

User:David Fuchs The article does not mention a discontinuation of the Mario Kart Channel?

- - Ref 19 doesn't fully support the entire statements before it (the liveblog doesn't mention details from the trailer, or the E3 details.)
  - but was rejected due to the seemingly bizarre image of Mario riding a bike—this really goes beyond what the source states.
  - Other parts of the gameplay section are just not referenced at all, e.g. which include both karts and bikes, are available in Mario Kart Wii, each of which has different properties that affect how the vehicle handles while driving. Half the characters and vehicles are initially unavailable to the player; certain objectives must be completed to unlock each one., While driving, the player collects power-ups from item boxes placed in various points on the track. These power-ups allow the player to attack opponents, causing them to slow down or spin out of control; defend against such attacks, or gain boosts in speed. These include the series staple items, such as the Mushroom, Koopa Shell projectiles, the Super Star, banana peels and lightning bolts., etc.
- The life-to-date numbers last-published date was updated and that's not reflected in the article.
Media:
- File:Mario Kart Wii screenshot.jpg does not have an adequate fair-use rationale. This should get beefed up.

David Fuchs I disagree with this one. The file is in a low resolution and is used for demonstration purposes only once in the article, following the fair use policy.

@David Fuchs: I think I've fixed it. Let me know if there is still anything else that needs adjusting in the non-free use rationale. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there were many referencing slip-ups and the gameplay section needs a fairly substantial overhaul and to be properly cited that I don't think are a good fit for the timeframe of a GA review, I'm closing the article at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David FuchsThank you for your review. this will be used to improve this article greatly in the coming days. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]