Talk:Super Mario Bros. 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian Paul 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here it is:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some comments:

1. Reference #8 requires a proper citation - right now it's just a description and a retrieval date.
2. I'm not sure that external links #1, 2, and 6 satisfy the criteria for Wikipedia:External links
3. It would be nice (although not required) to see a alt text per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images and a fair use rationale template for File:Smb2 comparison.png.
4. There's a "verification needed" tag on the source information for File:Super-mario-bros-2-usa-characters.jpg. Please remedy this.
5. Under "Gameplay", second paragraph - "Unlike most Mario games, no enemies can be defeated by jumping on them" - I feel that it would be much safer here to say something to the effect of "Unlike the previous and following Mario games", maybe even adding "on the NES", because what constitutes "most" can be debated.
6. Under "Development", first paragraph, "In the original japanese version of the game is known in America as Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels" - This sentence needs to be fixed for coherency and capitalization.
7. Overall, the text of the development section is far too close to the original source material, and is exactly the same in some places, almost to the point of being a copyright violation. It also fails discuss how Doki Doki became SMB2, what (significant) changes were made, etc. etc. which I feel would be essential information. This entire section requires a rewrite, and I can't help but feel that on a game this popular that there must be more information out there to discuss development.
8. Under "Re-releases", I don't feel that the second paragraph gives enough information for the reader to understand what this version is about. I think a little more (but not too much) information from BS Super Mario USA Power Challenge could be incorporated here, because right now all anyone can tell from that paragraph is that there was a graphical update and something was different because it was a gaiden version.
9. I was worried about this when passing Super Mario World for GA, but it's definitely a problem here - in the last review, there was very little on its contemporary reception, but here it's entirely absent. I would find it difficult to believe that an article on a video game would be considered comprehensive if it didn't include any contemporary reviews, particularly on a Mario game that was as successful as this one.

There are other, smaller concerns, but overall this article feels incomplete and the comments that I have made about the "Development" and "Reception" sections disqualify it from reaching Good Article status at this time. Also, I believe that a second review and a second pair of eyes would be very beneficial to this article, and with the GA Backlog Elimination drive in effect, I suspect that this article would get a quick review if it were to be renominated. Therefore, I will be failing the article at this time. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Thank you for your work thus far. I may also have another pair of eyes take a look at Super Mario World, just to be certain that they agree with my passing of the article. Canadian Paul 03:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)