Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Super Smash Bros. (video game)/1

Super Smash Bros. (video game)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited statements. The reception section is quite short, considering the amount of literature that has been written about it. I am also surprised there isn't a legacy section, considering that this is the first in a very successful video game franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon performing my own quick look at this article,

Release date is sourced in lead, but not in the actual article?
Reception is too short to conclude anything of how critics felt.
No legacy section, per above, which could easily be made even if it just goes over the sequels established by it. A start could be seeing if this games competitive scene has SIGCOV to warrant placement in this article, or even including some parts about the Smash Remix mod.
A lot of gameplay is unsourced.
Development seems to be okay?

If someone took the time to address the issues mentioned here and above I'm willing to change my stance but in my opinion this is a very clear Delist. λ NegativeMP1 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had boldly removed the legacy section because it merely lists all the sequels, which functionally makes it no different than the Super Smash Bros. series article and is thus redundant. It did not cover this particular game's legacy in the same way that Melee's Legacy section does with the its still active competitive scene. I had previously brought this up at WP:VG and the consensus seemed to agree. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While that seems fair and I agree that it's pointless if it only lists sequels, a substantial Legacy section should still at least mention them. I do think however that it should go more into detail about other things of the games legacy, and contain the sequels to a small bit. λ NegativeMP1 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A legacy section can probably include the sequels to the game, its impact on the fighting genre, its impact on sales for the N64, and its use in tournaments, among other topics. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a legacy section could be created with its use in tournaments and mods like Smash Remix. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that lot of reliable sources exist for Smash 64's esports coverage, and a pretty decently-sized reliable source exists for Smash Remix [1]. Both are definitely material that can be included in a Legacy section. λ NegativeMP1 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of legacy sections on a first work in a franchise seem to just turn into redundancy with the series article, so I agree with the axing. But aside from the listing of sequels the relevance on the fighting game community and such does seem reasonable to include. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel like the screenshot does not really do a good job at showcasing the gameplay of the series. I think a better screenshot showing 4 players actively fighting on a fairly complex stage like Hyrule Castle or Saffron City would be good. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. For the breadth criterion, Reception should be greatly expanded from contemporaneous and retrospective reviews. A Legacy section is currently unhandled, per above. And the Gameplay section should be easily sourced to reliable, secondary sources. czar 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. There are citations in the lead. Also stuff in the lead is NOT present in the body itself. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:27, 25 January 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.