Jump to content

Talk:Super Mario World/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take over this one. Looks good at first glance but hopefully everything goes smoothly. Slightlymad 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well written
  • Broad in coverage
  • All major aspects: Green tickY
  • No unnecessary detail: Green tickY
  • Stable: Green tickY No edit wars as indicated in the article's edit history
  • Images
  • Pass/Fail: To be determined...
  • Comment: Since the criteria have been met as checked above, I'm happy to say that this is a pass given that there are no other problems with the article. It is already well-written and it would easily pass a FAN with little work. You may be interested in nominating it for WP:DYK as it's a newly-promoted GA. Props also to Indrian for chipping in this review. Slightlymad 08:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Second opinion from Indrian

[edit]
Resolved

As the reviewer has apparently decided the sourcing of this article is sufficient, I feel compelled to point out one serious and one potential minor sourcing issue. First the serious issue: the information on the development of Yoshi is sourced to an IGN article quoting a Kotaku article quoting an interview on the official SNES Classic website. A source quoting another source should never be used unless the original source is truly lost to the world, as there is an inherent risk of introducing a transcription error each time the information is recreated. The IGN source should be replaced with the original interview. As for the potential minor sourcing issue, the article cites a Japanese-language article several times. Jaguar, did you go to the original Japanese for this information, or did you use the English translation done by Shmuplations? If you used the English translation, you need to indicate this in the citation, as the very nature of the translation process means it differs from the original source.

While I am here, I also feel compelled to point out that the review section really needs to be reorganized, as right now it mixes together opinions of the original game at its release with retrospective reviews of the original game, the Virtual Console re-release, and the SNES Classic re-release while often failing to identify the distinction between these different time periods and platforms and even using transitional language that implies the reviewers in different time periods are pointing out similar issues contemporaneous to each other. Retrospective reviews should appear together after initial reviews and be clearly identified as such because the initial reviews are judging the game based on the state of the video game industry in 1990-91 when SMW first appeared, while the retrospective reviews are judging the game in hindsight with full knowledge of how the industry developed in the years and decades to come. While both POVs are valid, they are inherently different, thus the need for separation.

One final small point and then I will return you to your regularly scheduled review already in progress: the article contains a statement that because Sonic was seen as cool, Nintendo executives worried about Mario's deficiencies as a character. The statement is unsourced, but is apparently taken from the IGN History of Mario article. Our article mischaracterizes that source, however, which states that Nintendo execs thought Mario might run into difficulty because he was not a "badass," but that in the end it did not matter because SMW outsold the first two Sonic games by a wide margin. At the very least, the article needs to accurately reflect the source, but really, this should probably be removed altogether, as the IGN article does not seem to have received any input from these mysterious nameless Nintendo execs, and I am not aware of any source with such insider knowledge making this claim, throwing the whole premise into serious doubt.

Other than that, the article seems to be in pretty good shape. Indrian (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through this, Indrian. I've changed the IGN source to the original interview on the SNES Classic website. I wasn't aware of it piggybacking of two different sources. As for the Japanese booklet, I've indicated that I've used an English translation (the Shmuplations one—I didn't want to risk using a temperamental Google translate on the actual Japanese source) in the citation. I'm not sure if I've noted it correctly as I've got nothing to compare it to. As for the reception section's organisation; I've put the original reviews first but since there are only two of them I couldn't split them into separate paragraphs unfortunately. As I was looking for reviews I couldn't get access to any magazine scans from the era. The only ones I managed to find were CVG and EGM, but there are retrospective reviews aplenty. I own every issue of ONM but even they didn't give this game a proper review. It would be amazing if someone had access to a 1991 issue of Nintendo Power! Sadly though the lack of original reviews does give the reception section a bit of an imbalance.
I've removed the part about Mario's lack of "coolness" in comparison to Sonic. You're right, we can't take IGN's word on that. Despite this I do think that we should make a small mention of the console wars since this game was released at the peak of Nintendo and Sega's rivalry (and effectively between the two mascots). Are there any other sources that can reflect on this? Thanks again for your input. JAGUAR  21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source quoting another source should never be used unless the original source is truly lost to the world, as there is an inherent risk of introducing a transcription error each time the information is recreated. The IGN source should be replaced with the original interview.

The premise of secondary sourcing is to lean on editorial chain for fact-checking and accuracy (reputation) whereas an interview—as a primary source—offers none of those correctives. Now, qualitatively, it's reasonable to worry when a source appears to uncritically repost the interview as fact (which would indicate the secondary source's low quality) and one can even argue that one secondary source is more authoritative than another secondary source in stating a specific fact, but unless all available secondary sources are hopelessly low-quality, we always recommend using a secondary source's reputation and editorial chain before relying directly on a primary source interview.

A bunch of older reviews cited here, but NP's Oct issue appears to only have a review score and no actual review. The Sept issue has a feature on gameplay but no review. I can try to help if you need a specific issue (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 00:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that is entirely incorrect in this case. The articles in question by Kotaku and IGN exist solely to summarize the interview, largely through block quotes taken directly from the original source. They are not adding additional insight, and they are not the originators of the interview materials. Therefore, they are inferior sources to the original interview because they are merely transcribing portions of it. They do not in any way impart extra quality through transcription: at best they convey exactly the same information as the original, while at worst, they misquote or missummarize and thus introduce inaccuracy. No reputable author would use as a summary of a source rather than the source itself unless that original source were no longer available. If the original interview is not reliable (and really, it is) then the IGN and Kotaku parrotings are not either. Or do you think they had a reporter call up Nintendo and ask if the interview the company posted on its website was actually real? Is that the kind of fact-checking you are looking for? Indrian (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: what do you think? I'm leaning more on using the original Nintendo interview, but I was unsure if I should have used that as a primary source whereas Kotaku and IGN provided summaries as a secondary source. I went with Indrian's suggestion and replaced the IGN source with the original interview on the SNES Classic website, but I'm happy either way. JAGUAR  21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing the case—I didn't compare the sourcing and I didn't challenge anyone's read of the secondary sources, so resolve as you please. I'm challenging the general advice and/or precedent that a quote is always best sourced from the primary source. Secondary sources tacitly corroborate by virtue of publishing alone, whether or not they have investigated the veracity of the primary source. So the NYT could pick up the claim in question—ideally, they'd go further and check the claim's veracity, but they also lend their outlet's credibility to the claim even when they don't fact-check (and the reader knows nary which claims were checked). As for what "reputable authors" do, they certainly prefer corroboration of a claim over a solitary interview source, but they also engage in original research above our quasi-anonymous pay grade. As a tertiary source (encyclopedia), we simply summarize the secondary sources and give readers the most reliable verification of claims. Now there's nothing against also providing the breadcrumbs to the original quote, but it's bad WP practice to recommend in generalities that secondary sources be reduced to their original primary source citations. czar 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think because you did not read the sources you may have misunderstood my point. There is a difference between a secondary source that includes interviews as part of a larger point and an article that is nothing but a summary of a published interview. The former is using an interview in aid of making a larger point, while the latter is just parroting. When one source merely parrots another, whether primary or secondary, there is no good reason to use the parroting source. The only reason would be if the original is unpublished or lost. Indrian (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer comments

[edit]
Resolved
  • Gameplay
*Is the 'st' in 'whomst' really necessary? While your mileage may vary, I think 'whom' is still what readers are familiar with the most. I also don't think it's a UK equivalent of whom.
  • Development and release
*That quote box could probably just be a blockquote. Don't link from within quotes per MOS:LWQ
*For what it's worth, a photo of the game's director and producer would be a fine addition here. Place this where the quote box had once been, and supply it with better caption: File:Takashi Tezuka, Shigeru Miyamoto and Kōji Kondō.jpg
*To maintain text-source integrity, supply that Yoshi sketch with a citation.
  • I've added a citation after where it describes Miyamoto having sketches around his desk. It turns out the sketch comes from Mario Mania, a promotional book from 1991. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Don't really need the "on the other hand" statement (see WP:HOWEVER). Just leaving it as is gets the message across I think.
*Super Mario World was released during the console wars—fuelled by the rivalry between Nintendo's SNES and Sega's two-year old Mega Drive - Can you come up with an alternative for the verb "fuelled"? It just strikes me a bit unencyclopedic.
  • Reception: I believe you have an outstanding concern raised by Indrian with regard to this section. Mine's relatively minor, however:
*Each paragraph is signposted with unsourced topic sentences.
*There's an instance of 'on the other hand' here somewhere
  • Legacy: "In similar vein" → In similar way?
Thanks for the review, Slightlymad! I should have hopefully clarified all of the above. I was thinking of taking this to FAC in the future, but before I do so I suppose this could do with a bit of polishing before then. Hopefully I've addressed Indrian's points too. JAGUAR  22:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that my concerns have been addressed I should be able to pass the article to GA once the second opinion comments have also been sorted out. You did a fine job drastically improving it after having been delisted from GA several months ago. Slightlymad 04:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am just waiting for a resolution on switching the Yoshi development info from the IGN article to the interview on Nintendo's website, then I will be satisfied. Another user has raised an objection to this change, but I do not consider it particularly valid myself. Of course, this is your review, not mine, so if you want to promote with that issue still outstanding, I certainly won't be hurt. Thanks for letting me add a bit of feedback! Indrian (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to the original interview on Nintendo's website on the basis that it contains straight up information, but I'm fine either way. You and czar make valid points—hopefully it's nothing too major as the interview does a good job of backing up what's being said in the article. JAGUAR  15:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slightlymad That takes care of everything on my end, so if you were waiting for me, I am completely satisfied. Indrian (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Is there anything else you like to add in this GAN? Think Indrian and I are satisfied with the article. Slightlymad 04:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slightlymad, nope, just a passing comment—thanks czar 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_World/GA3&oldid=1137211379"