Talk:Mario Party: Island Tour/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Nub098765 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: The Green Star Collector (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. I'll review this. Nub098765 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Only a few nitpicky comments about conciseness and clarity. Mario Party: Island Tour is a party video game with gameplay similar to that of previous installments in the Mario Party series, involving two to four players competing in a virtual board game. — I feel like this could be simplified a bit, especially with the "to that of". For example: Mario Party: Island Tour is a party video game similar to previous installments in the Mario Party series, where two to four players compete in a virtual board game. By rolling dice or using cards, players advance on a game board, with the space each player lands on potentially triggering an event or minigame. — Starting with "players" feels more natural to me, but this isn't exactly pressing. Every board is rated on the categories of skill, luck, and number of minigames. — "On the categories of" could be revised; say, "based on"? "Each" also fits better in place of "Every". ...involves players climbing a mountain and hiding in caves to avoid a Banzai Bill, which is launched whenever its icon is rolled, reducing the progress of any players in its path. — "where" seems better here than "involves", and, to avoid overuse of "players", "any players" could be shortened to simply "anyone". ...with Letcavage acclaiming it as 'one of the tightest collections of mini-games to be featured in the Mario Party series, optimized perfectly for pick-up-and-play sessions'. — "acclaiming it as" is clunky. Maybe "calling it" could work better?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is generally formatted well, but I have three comments. The lead section could be a bit longer given the size of this article. At present, three short paragraphs seems overly small given the article's almost 2,000-word prose size. The "gameplay" section has an awkward layout. Two short paragraphs, a long paragraph, a mid-size paragraph, and two more short paragraphs. I feel like some of these could be combined or laid out differently to flow more consistently. Several passages are overcited. Not only does it look aesthetically displeasing, but five citations for one claim is unnecessary unless it is extremely controversial. I suggest both cracking down on these refs and bundling some of them.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All good here. Citations are formatted well. However, refs 15 and 33 are the exact same sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are zero uncited passages (sans the Plot, which does not have to be cited), and most sources are indeed reliable. However, CGMagazine is considered situational per WP:VG/S, which says "Reliable as of March 2024 discussion, but earlier issues with user-submitted content and editorial policies circa 2014 were noted. Use caution with older content." This review was posted in 2013, so I'm not sure if this is exactly reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research, from what I've found with my spotchecks below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Hmm... Earwig detects a 59% similarity, and says that a copyright violation is "possible", but the top result, GamesRadar, is only mentioned through quotes, which isn't a copyvio. Perhaps try paraphrasing some of your quotes? There are, as of now, many quotes, so this could be a good idea.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A quick Google search reveals no more major talking points about this topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article is concise in that no extra points are told simply for the sake of being there. Yes, this article is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	All but the "reception" section (which tells of others' opinions, so it is okay) stays factual.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No ongoing edit wars. Ignoring the latest edit, in fact, not been edited by anyone but The Green Star Collector in over a month. Impressive, I must say.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Illustrated as much as I imagine is possible with the subject. Both images are fair use, and are licensed as such.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images illustrate what's in the article: the infobox image shows the game as a whole, and the minigame one illustrates an example of a minigame in the game. LGTM here.
	7. Overall assessment.	See my comments above.

Spotcheck

Since this article has 46 refs as of diff 1250927202, I will check approximately 1/4 of that: 12 refs.

Spotcheck

Ref 3:

a. Source says "Mario Party: Island Tour will...be released for the 3DS on November 22", prose says "November 22, 2013."
b. Source says "The game includes seven boards...", prose says "Mario Party: Island Tour offers seven game boards..."
c. Source says "...previously known as simply Mario Party...", prose says "...simply known by the tentative title Mario Party."
d. Source title says "Zelda: A Link Between Worlds and Mario Party: Island Tour hit 3DS Nov. 22", prose says "The game was released in the region alongside The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds for the 3DS..."

Ref 4:

a. Source says "Mario Party: Island Tour will launch for 3DS in Europe on January 17...", prose says "January 17, 2014."
b. Source says "The tropical-themed party game offers...StreetPass mini-game competitions", prose says "A few minigames require the use of...StreetPass..." Close enough.
c. Same as a.

Ref 12:

a. Source says "81 new mini-games." Prose says "all of which are new to the series."
b. Source title says "Mario Party Coming to 3DS This Winter." Prose says "...simply known by the tentative title Mario Party." Connecting these two together, they make sense.

Ref 15:

a. Source says "...including some that use AR cards." Prose says "A few minigames require the use of augmented reality cards..."
b. Source says "Today during a Nintendo Direct video presentation, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced a new Mario Party game for 3DS." Prose says "The game was announced by Satoru Iwata during a Nintendo Direct in April 2013..." (The article was posted in April).

Ref 21:

a. Source says "Our demo started out in a multiplayer quick play mode called Hot-Air Hijinks. Matches could be set to end after three, five or seven wins." Prose says: "...while another mode, Hot-Air Hijinks, features players competing to win three, five, or seven minigames before their rivals." sidenote: nice job shortening what the source said!
b. Source says "...it releases on November 22 – the same date as...Super Mario 3D World...", prose says "The game was released in the region alongside...Super Mario 3D World..."

Ref 30: Source lists character names. So does prose (I'm not gonna list them all out).

Ref 34: Source says "Revealed at today's Nintendo Direct..." Prose says "The game was announced by Satoru Iwata during a Nintendo Direct in April 2013..." (Again, the article was posted in April).

Ref 36: Source says "Mario Party: Island Tour, formerly known simply as Mario Party, and The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds are both set to release on the Nintendo 3DS on November 22." Prose says "The game was released in the region alongside The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds for the 3DS..."

Ref 38: Source provides a list of games that came out the following week; both Super Mario 3D World and Mario Party: Island Tour were on the list, prose says "The game was released in the region alongside...Super Mario 3D World..." Seems a bit OR-y, but not enough to raise a red flag.

Ref 39: Metacritic scores reflect what is said in the article.

Ref 42: Source says "There were eight new entries in the top ten of the Japanese software chart this week, but Mario Party: Island Tour was the one that stole the top spot with almost 133,000 sales." Prose says "Mario Party: Island Tour sold more than 132,000 units within the first week of its release in Japan, making it the best-selling 3DS title that week."

Ref 45: Source refers to a "new batch of Nintendo Selects titles being on the way to North America," (specifically on "11th March") which Mario Party: Island Tour is on. Prose says, "became a Nintendo Selects title...in North America on March 11, 2016." Checks out.

AGF on other refs. All good here.

Verdict

Nicely written article. Just a few comments, but this is very close to being a proper GA. Well done! I'll leave this for a week to leave you time to resolve the issues (or reject them, with justification). Thanks, Nub098765 (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! This is the first GA review I've seen in table format, which I found quite helpful.

I implemented all of your prose suggestions, albeit with my own slight adjustment to the Bullet Bill line.
I also removed both the duplicate ref 33 and the CGMagazine source, which helped reduce citation congestion, as did removing most of the preview references from the "Gameplay" section.
I cut the last paragraph in the "Critical response" section, as part of GamesRadar+'s verdict is mentioned in the first paragraph of that section anyway. I also added a perspective from Shacknews.
I added some info to the lead about the game's announcement, game modes, and main difference from previous installments (boards having different objectives).

If there's anything else I could add or do to improve the article, don't hesitate to let me know. And good luck with the rest of the GA backlog drive. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still heavily cited in some areas, but I feel they’re manageable now and don’t detract from readability as much. You’ve done a great job incorporating my suggestions while adding your own flair; it really shows your attention to detail. After a final quick skim, I’m happy to say that I think this article is good to go for GA status. Excellent work, and thank you for the well wishes. Best of luck with future articles! Nub098765 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.