Talk:Paper Mario: Sticker Star/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get to this before Christmas Eve. ♦ jaguar 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS console" - including 'console' here seems superfluous, I'd remove it
Done.
"which is heavily incorporated into its gameplay mechanics" - link game mechanics for those unfamiliar
Done.
"The game received generally favorable reviews." - this needs to be expanded upon. The lead must summarise the article—a short summary of what critics liked and disliked about the game would be apt. I usually style something like: The game received generally favourable reviews; critics enjoyed x, though some noted/disliked x...
Done. I remember I was gonna wait until I made the reception section to write this, and never did, I guess.

Gameplay

"The player has limited inventory space, and larger stickers take up more room" - I think this might read better as The player has limited inventory space, with larger stickers taking up more room
Done.

Development

"Additionally, the developers were asked by Miyamoto" - this is the first time Miyamoto has been mentioned in the article's body, a casual reader might have glanced over his introduction in the lead or not know who he is generally. I would link Shigeru Miyamoto
Done.
"...asked by Miyamoto to, "As much as possible, complete [the game] with only characters from the Super Mario world."" - this could be paraphrased to improve flow: asked by Miyamoto to complete the game only using characters from the Super Mario world "as much as possible". or something similar
Done.
"Producer Kensuke Tanabe furthered on how only one percent of players" - 'furthered' isn't a good choice of word here. 'Further explained' or 'elaborated' would be better
Done.

Reception

I'm noting the slight lack of coverage in the reception section. The table includes many good reviews like IGN and ONM, though most reviewers' opinions aren't included in the text. While its level of depth is acceptable for GA, I would still recommend fleshing it out somewhat and making use of the good sources you have. A comprehensive reception section is a must for FA.
I'll get to this soon, as I'm gonna be busy for a while. Hopefully in the next two days.

Overall this is a well-written and solid article. I couldn't find many issues with it prose-wise and the sources all check out. My only concern is the barebones reception, though for GA it is acceptable. Still it would of course benefit from a slight expansion. I know you're busy with a FAC and another GAN at the moment, so no rush getting to this one. I'll leave this On hold. Good work! ♦ jaguar 11:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, I don't have any intentions to go on with a FAC for this article, but I did flesh out the reception a bit more. I also addressed your other concerns. Happy holidays! Le Panini ^[🥪] 06:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Le Panini. This is a very solid GA now, definitely meeting the criteria. Good work, happy holidays to you too!

♦ jaguar 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]