Talk:New Super Luigi U/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 05:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I aim to have the review done within the next day or so. If you would like to return the favour, I have several nominations at WP:GAN right now. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

Well written

Lead:

The game was announced in February Nintendo Direct – Change this to The game was announced in a February 2023 Nintendo Direct Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 2023 would just be OR. Done

lolz Steelkamp (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay:

Should "Fire Flower", "Flying Squirrel Suit" and "Star Coins" really be capitalised? Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I swing either way, but it appears that the answer is yes. Other Super Mario articles, including Super Mario Galaxy, a FA, capitalizes such info.

and the final level in each world ends with a boss battle, represented by the Koopalings. – I'm not sure represented is the best word to use here. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done replaced with "against"

Replacing Mario is Nabbit, a non-player character who originally appeared in NSMBU as an antagonist. – replace this with Replacing Mario is Nabbit, originally a non-player character who appeared in NSMBU as an antagonist. Just because Nabbit is not a non player character in this game. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The story should be at least briefly expanded upon. Steelkamp (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development:

His new goal was to create a DLC larger than New Super Mario Bros. 2, and waited for its DLC to release to test how it would be received by its audience. – I recommend changing to His new goal was to create a DLC larger than New Super Mario Bros. 2, and waited for that game's DLC to release to see how it was received by its audience. Also, who is "he" referring to? Takemoto or Tezuka? Steelkamp (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and clarified speaker

They also tampered with the ability for him to... – I don't think "tampered" is the right word to use here. Steelkamp (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

...and would be replaced with Nabbit, a character from New Super Mario Bros. U. – Could just change to ...and would be replaced with Nabbit seeing as its just repeating what's said above. Steelkamp (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry about that, the Nabbit intro description moved around a lot and I didn't clean it up properly.

to which it returned to normal. – I would prefer after which it returned to normal. Steelkamp (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Normalized

Critical reception:

with Jan Wobbeking of 4Players comparing the game's difficulty to "the rambunctious Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2. – I'm don't think a direct quote from a German source is a good idea. First, because he didn't say those words, he said it in German, and second, we don't know how good that translation is. Could just change it to with Jan Wobbeking of 4Players comparing the game's difficulty to Super Mario Bros. 2.. Steelkamp (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and a good observation.

Chris Schilling increasingly found frustration in the downtime between attempts – I only realised what this meant after reading the reference. I suggest rewording to Chris Schilling increasingly found frustration in the time spent between dying and opening a level Steelkamp (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, elaborated, pondered existence and death a bit afterward

Kollar enjoyed the limited time but was ultimately frustrated that it left little allotment to play at their own pace or to view the game's graphics – Not sure that "allotment" is the correct word to use here. Steelkamp (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with "room"

suggested using the NSMBU's multiplayer instead. – Should this be suggested using NSMBU's multiplayer instead. Steelkamp (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes.

Sales:

and the game would be undershadowed. – This isn't grammatically correct. Steelkamp (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

although 2014 was a financial failure for Nintendo and the Wii due to the poor sales of the Wii U console; Nintendo had a net loss of $457 million dollars. – What makes this relevant? Steelkamp (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think I had a reason then, but I side with you now. Bad job, Past Panini. Panini! • 🥪 13:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Present Panini. I was trying to go do a "sales were pretty good but it didn't help Nintendo much", but I do agree it's outside of the article's scope now that I'm reading it aloud. Panini! • 🥪 10:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, thanks for clarifying. Panini! • 🥪 13:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

Earwig's Copyvio Detector search turned out clean. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, I was nervous.

and the final level in each world ends with a boss battle, represented by the Koopalings. – Source doesn't show that. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done The Eurogamer source does say "The final boss fight is still a cracker, but the relatively straightforward Koopaling encounters feel slightly out of step with the increase in difficulty elsewhere", so I've rewritten the sentence to better match the source, sadly losing info in the process. It's hard to write these sections because all reviewers wind up saying, "this is all the same stuff so you should know by now."

Once the game is completed the player has the option to turn these physics changes off. Replacing Mario is Nabbit, a non-player character who originally appeared in NSMBU as an antagonist. Nabbit is faster than Luigi and is invulnerable to enemy damage, – Where does the source say or show all that? Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easier said than Done. Replaced the source there and introduced two new ones.

Reference number 7, the Game Informer one titled ""New Super Luigi U Review: Luigi Succeeds In The Spotlight", appears to be permanently dead. Steelkamp (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To help make the DLC distinct from that of New Super Mario Bros. 2, various developers were brought in from the New Super Mario Bros. 2 team to design new gimmicks that didn't overlap. – That's not what I got from the source. The source says Naturally, using the same development team that created New Super Mario Bros. U may have led to the new DLC feeling very similar to Mario's adventure. To combat this Tezuka said he brought in New Super Mario Bros. 2 team members who were kicking their heels in order to freshen up ideas as the home console title was so different to the portable adaptation. This seems to show they brought in the New Super Mario Bros. 2 developers to make it distinct from New Super Mario Bros. U. Steelkamp (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The following November saw the release of a Wii U bundle that contained NSMBU and New Super Luigi U with other bonus features. – Source doesn't show these "bonus features". Steelkamp (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The documentary was made to explain why Luigi has floatier and higher jumps than Mario in New Super Luigi U. – Sources don't seem to show that. Steelkamp (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed

Third-Party Note, Headbomb's Reliability Script detected 2 questionable sources in this article. Citation 15 and Citation 26. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citations in question may be false-positives. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they are false positives. WP:GAMESOURCES says that GameSpot sources are reliable if written by staff members, which it appears they are. Steelkamp (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Neutral

Stable

No content disputes or edit wars as far as I can tell. Passed. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible

Fair use rationales are reasonable. Images are low resolution. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons images are appropriately licenced. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not required for GA, but I recommend adding alt text to the images for accessibility reasons. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

Many thanks for the comments. I will address them (and review one of your GANs) when I have some free time lying around, which may be unlikely for the next week or so. Panini! • 🥪 13:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to put this on hold now. Steelkamp (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Steelkamp I'd recommend increasing to a 14d hold as panini said they might not have free time this week. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll give Panini! 14 days, more if they ask. Steelkamp (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Alright, everything appears to be all fixed. I did the dead link myself. I am happy to pass this review now. Steelkamp (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]