Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Mario 64/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Super Mario 64
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2022 [1].

Super Mario 64 edit

Nominator(s): Coolperson177

This article is about the platformer that changed 3D gaming forever (according to every video game journalist, anyway). I originally came to this article to fix a cite error, but then I saw the talk page and all the opportunities for improvement. Since then, I and many others have been working on the article to fix its prose, complete citations, and expand this article's coverage. Now, I think it's ready. Let's work to get back its star. Again. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:N64_Super_Mario_64_whomp_fortress.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Ditto File:Super_Mario_64_DS-Graphics_comparison.jpg and File:Super-mario-64-camera-system-ai.jpg - there would need to be stronger justification to include this number of non-free files. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I improved the first image's FUR and have removed the other two for now as they are already in other articles. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think the purpose of use in particular could be elaborated on. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (drive-by comment) I think the camera system image really shouldn't be removed. The camera movement is an important aspect of the game and its depiction would benefit the article and readers. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini! edit

It was disappointing to see this delisted, so it's great to see you step up and return it to its former glory! I will review this sometime in the future. See, instead of reviewing this, a commercially and critically groundbreaking video game that reshaped both platforming and paved the future of 3D gaming and established the genre as we know it, I'm working on Color Splash. No need to thank me. Panini! • 🥪 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's people like you that inspired me to do this. Great job on all the article improvement you've already done! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; review time!

Infobox
  • Is there a difference between the North American box art in comparison to others? This doesn't count a language distinguishment, rather what's pictured. If there isn't, "North American cover art" would be redundant.
  • Yōichi Kotabe is sourced, but nobody else it. Could you cite the others? Use sources like the Kotabe one if possible, but if you can't find any, you can use the game's credits and the game itself is a primary source. See Paper Mario: The Origami King as an example.
    • The others are now cited (with the instruction booklet's credits). — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I completely forgot that games used to come with instruction booklets. I guess the Switch has just been around for so long that it slipped from my mind. Panini! • 🥪 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find a source for the iQue Player release?
    Never mind. Now the release date is gone, per discussion below. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaaand now it's back. For now. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "feature 3D gameplay, it features" - "feature" is used twice in quick succession.
  • "it features traditional Mario gameplay" - Are you still referring to the Super Mario series or the franchise here? If the former, some better clarification could be used, if the latter, I'd link it.
  • "—designed to include more details than previous games—" - This is a general statement made by every developer one way or another, which boils down to "we wanted to make this game better than the last one". It doesn't necessarily need to be there.
  • Overall, this lead section seems a bit on the short side, and I'd suggest expanding it into four paragraphs instead of three. Paragraph one can be kept intact, although the last sentence could expand on the plot a bit more. I'd move the Power Stars detail to the second paragraph, which could be used to describe gameplay. The third could be used for development and release info, as it currently only really lists names and could benefit from more detail, and the fourth for reception and legacy.
Gameplay

Seeing "Mario can do so many, like crawl, climb, and kick!" is a weird sight, but considering the gap between this and its 2D counterpart, there isn't too much that can be done about it.

  • The majority of the sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The player"; see if you can find ways to switch it up!
    • Removed about ten instances of "the player". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mario's abilities in Super Mario 64" - Considering how the game's title was mentioned in full prior to this, I don't see it necessary to do so a second time.
  • "—operated by a friendly Lakitu—" - "friendly" is unnecessary. How about instead you mention here that the Lakitu is acting as a cameraman that's broadcasting Mario, which could serve more purpose to what the Lakitu is doing?
  • "Underwater, Mario's health represents how" - Add an "instead" after health to help distinguish that it's still the same health bar.
  • When linking Princess Peach's Castle, I'd instead link to Mushroom Kingdom#Locations rather than the series page.
  • I'd mention and link overworld somewhere in the second paragraph, where you mention that the levels are open-ended.
    Fair enough; I wasn't aware "hub" was a redirect. Panini! • 🥪 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also link Bowser where it first appears here.
  • I've always been curious about it (and never looked it up), so I can offer a good reader perspective. What's the context behind the 'endless staircase'? What is it blocking? As in, does it block the player from entering until they've collected 70 power stars, to which it then opens up? If so, some clarification is needed.
    • Is it clear now? The text now says: "With seventy Power Stars, the player can access the final level of the game, blocked by "endless stairs", as described in the game". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "as described in the game" is oddly placed, but this may be because I didn't describe what I meant properly. Here's a suggested phrase: "The final level of the game is hindered by an 'endless staircase', and Mario can only bypass them by collecting seventy power stars." Am I interpreting these stairs correctly? Panini! • 🥪 17:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I changed it to "The final level of the game is blocked by "endless stairs", but Mario can bypass them by collecting seventy Power Stars". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Plot section is a fun read. Good Job! However, this does explain my query about the endless staircase, so my above statement applies. It's also considered a proper noun here; is it some fancy thing Bowser set up that should be capitalized, or just an endless staircase?
Development
  • I would also mention that Shigeru Miyamoto is Mario's creator to better help signify his importance.
    • Also, you can link his name in the image caption.
  • "Nintendo's booth demonstrated a 3D polygon animation of Mario's head." Is this the same head as the one in the beginning menu of 64?
    • Both heads are quite similar, so I added a sentence saying that the head also appeared in the game. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the time" and "approximately" are synonyms. It was also confusing to read, so one of them can be cut for clarity.
  • Side note; I used this source when I rewrote the Appearances section for the Mario article, which documents Mario's animation and Yoshiaki Koizumi's thought process while designing. See if you can find a use for it!
  • There's a source needed for the ending sentence of the third paragraph. The info came from somewhere!
    • Provided source after a search that took much longer than it should have. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Information about Super Mario 64 was leaked in November 1995" - How?
    • I don't know, no source in the article talks about a leak. I don't know how that sentence got there. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the sixth paragraph deals with the game's release and the struggle that came with it. Some of this info is repeated in the actual Release section below, so I would move this info down there. The first sentence about puzzles should be moved elsewhere, too.
  • Do we know just exactly how many sound effects there were for the game? That could be a good detail to know, especially if it's compared to the Zelda games in some way.
    • I'm going to try to find that out. Give me a minute. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, so it's been a day, and there are many websites that have a database of this game's sound effects. Most have around 100, but I couldn't find one that seems to not miss at least one sound effect, nor any sources that make a mention of it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That's alright, just checking to make sure. You don't need to include it if there's no good source explicitly talking about it. Panini! • 🥪 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sales section should be moved down as a subheader for Reception; it's common practice for video game articles.
Reception
  • Your call: I feel this second paragraph applies more towards the demo and the game's anticipation, so one possibility is to move it under Release. Alternatively, since the next paragraph jumps immediately into post-release, some emphasis is needed to explain that.
  • If "The Whizz" is a pseudonym, you don't necessarily need to mention it; you can just cite the magazine (GamePro)
  • The organization of these paragraphs seems a bit robotic at some points. While I have no problem with the way the information is presented, some readers might get bored if every sentence is similar to one another. Here's what I mean:
    • Paul Davies of Computer and Video Games
    • Doug Perry of IGN
    • Jonti Davies of AllGame
  • There are others not listed here. Note how these all follow an "A of B" format. You can shake things up a bit by using "B's A", "A, writing for B", "Writing for B, A", and "B reviewer A".
Awards
  • You're about to become a professional programmer: there are too many awards and reviewer recognition, in my opinion, to adequately be displayed in the reviewer table. Do you know what that means? Table time! It can be put under the paragraph that's already under Awards. If you know how to put a table together, great! If not, Pssh, good luck let me know and I'll help you out.
    • It took about two hours, but I finally got a table in there. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "Some fans believed that the Wario head remained in some copies of the game, which was part of another theory that "every copy of Super Mario 64 is personalized" - I'd say these two theories are too distinct from each other, and if you separate them into two different sentences you can describe more details of what they are.
  • "including a coin that had not been collected until eighteen years after release" - Could you specify that the coin wasn't supposed to be collected?
  • Beyond that, I don't see any other issues with this entire section. Again, Good Job!

Overall, that's all from me. Any questions you have I will follow up with, and if you oppose any of my comments, as long as there's a reason to justify doing so I won't fight you on it. If you have the time, I also have a video game FAC that I would appreciate comments for. It's only a quarter the size of this article. Panini! • 🥪 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Pinging, I've addressed all your comments. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything appears to be addressed, and although I had one more comment, I'm not going to let it impede a Support. Excellent work! This amazing project will look great under your belt, and I look forward to seeing more content improvement from you in the future. It's been almost two decades now since this article appeared on the front page, and since this article received the overhaul treatment, I highly recommend you nominate this for WP:TFA. Panini! • 🥪 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ajpolino edit

Alright, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on video games, but I did own this game back in the day, so perhaps I can serve a "layperson"'s view of the article. I'm mostly reviewing on prose quality, since that's about all I'm qualified for here. Comments/suggestions below:

Lead
  • "it features freedom of movement within a large open world..." seems redundant? Open world suggests freedom of movement is a given. How about "The first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay, it features traditional Mario gameplay, visual style, and characters in a large open world."?
  • "based on polygons," can be cut. I don't think it's critical for this point in the lead (also I'm not sure it's discussed later).
  • Depending on what you do with the above, this may be moot. But I'm not sure the wikilink Degrees of freedom (mechanics) actually helps a reader understand "freedom of movement" as you mean it.
  • Second paragraph - It seems like the first sentence could go a bit later in the paragraph to improve chronological flow.
    • Flipped the first and second sentences. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was originally conceptualized... as an open-world game." - not sure this needs to be in the lead
  • Last paragraph - Wikilink analog (I assume Analog stick is what's being referred to?)
  • Consider wikilinking "ported"
  • Rephrase "The game has attracted a cult following, a large speedrunning presence, and many fangames and rumors surrounding the game have appeared." I don't have a great idea, but maybe even something like "The game has attracted a cult following, spawning many fangames, a large speedrunning presence, and enduring rumors surrounding game features." would read clearer?
Gameplay
  • "diverse than those of previous" > "diverse than in previous"
  • "wall jumping" > "wall jump" (to fit with the rest of the list)
  • "The player can replenish... a value of five." Not to be dense, but does the blue coin replenish five health, or none? If it's five, maybe you could shorten the sentence to "The player can replenish Mario's health by collecting three types of coins: yellow, with a value of one; red, with a value of two; and blue, with a value of five."?
    • Sorry about that lengthy sentence, I thought it was necessary to explain another part of the gameplay section but now I don't think it does. Fixed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player can also heal by walking through a spinning heart" - are spinning hearts found throughout the levels? Only in Peach's castle? At the beginning of each level? The current source doesn't specify, but maybe you have another source that does?
    • I'm sorry, but I couldn't find a source for that. I don't really see why it's necessary to specify where they are found, though. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depleted or if he falls" > "depleted or he falls"
  • "comes back up to the surface" > "surfaces"
  • Second paragraph - maybe you could mention earlier in this paragraph that the stars unlock parts of the castle? Currently the stars are introduced several sentences before their purpose.
    • Moved the relevant sentence closer to the start of the paragraph. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the player gets at least seventy Power Stars, they can access..." > "With seventy Power Stars, the player can access..."
Plot
  • Maybe there's a well-established order you're following, but I feel the Gameplay section would have been more clear if I'd read the Plot section first. Consider flipping the order?
    • Actually, I believe it is an established practice to put the plot after the gameplay. I merged the two sections together, is that fine? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging the sections doesn't make a big difference to me. Just registering my opinion. Do as you prefer. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the castle for these portals to enter the worlds and..." > "... the castle to enter these worlds and..."
Development
  • "According to engineer Dylan ... but the codename of the Super FX chip." Could this go as a note after the sentence two above (" Miyamoto considered... miniature trains'".)? It reads like a "sources disagree" type of statement. If that's not the intention, maybe you could clarify? If that is the intention, it's odd to have it separated from its partner point.
  • "Development of Super Mario 64 began on September 7, 1994, and concluded on May 20, 1996,[27] with one year spent on the design concept and approximately two on production" Confusing to read since the period between those dates is less than 2 years. Is Sept '94 - May '96 the "two on production"?
    • Changed "development of" to "production of" and removed "with one year spent on the design concept and approximately two on production". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the time there were approximately fifteen to twenty people working on the game" > "... most of the time approximately fifteen to twenty people worked on the game".
  • Third paragraph - The order of sentences here is a bit jarring. Maybe "Super Mario 64 is one of the first games... of by outsourcing." could go earlier (maybe even first?) and "The game was first run... not the hardware" could go later where you're discussing test runs and game physics?
  • I'm not against quote boxes generally, but I don't think this quote ("When we were stuck... I'm serious") adds much to the article.
  • "Super Mario 64... who wrote the English text." makes it sound like Princess Peach wrote the English text. Rephrase for clarity?
Release
  • "... and only about two percent of mapping was finished." I'm not sure what this means. Is there a Wikilink or rephrase that could clarify?
  • "...Nintendo 64s set up for more people to play..." > "...Nintendo 64s set up for people to play..." (more than what?)
  • "...the handheld Nintendo DS..." > "...the Nintendo DS"
Reception
  • "Mario 64 has received" > "Mario 64 received"
Legacy
  • "wide variety of launch games were necessary for" > "wide variety of launch games was necessary for"
  • The sentence "Though not the first... called the medium's true evolutionary leap." kind of drags. I'd suggest trimming it to just the part about camera control being a huge leap, and possibly moving it down into the influence subsection below.
  • "...now a staple of the 3D platform genre" - should this be "platformer"?
  • "... the 3D platform genre.[107] As the 3D platformer genre..." jarring to read "3D platformer genre" twice in a row. Maybe the second one could be shortened to "As the genre evolved..."?
  • Medical literature - This is the topic I normally edit in, so I'm probably stingier on this than most, but I'll go ahead and say that I think this subsection is unhelpful trivia and WP:UNDUE coverage of these studies (unless other sources on Super Mario 64 discuss the studies?). I'd suggest removing the whole subsection. If it must stay, at least change the last bullet point. The study was published in NeuroImage (it was conducted by an academic lab in Germany).
    • Fixed the error for now, but do we need consensus for removing the entire section? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so I found this source that mentions Super Mario 64: [3]. Is this high-quality enough? I'm asking because WP:RSP says Quartz might be a source to be "treated with caution" for science. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, I may be an extremist on this, but I think the fact that it has been used as a video game condition in a few studies is way over-covered here. WP:PROPORTION suggests articles cover aspects of the subject proportional to their treatment in reliable sources. Right now you have more text on medical studies than on the game's awards or sales figures. I just think it's undue, even with the Quartz article. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so I've cut down on the medical text, but I've still kept some and moved it to the beginning of the legacy section. Does it still violate WP:UNDUE? Because, I'm going to be honest, I really still want some of it in the article because of a did you know I did for this article in the past. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 13:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take another look once you get through those. Thanks for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great, just a few more suggestions from a second readthrough, then I'm happy:
  • Gameplay - "far more diverse than in previous Mario games."
  • Gameplay - "The life system from previous Mario games is kept, and Mario loses a life when..." > "As in previous Mario games, Mario loses a life when..."
  • Gameplay - "There are fifteen courses... There are fifteen Power Stars ..." It's weird to read "There are fifteen" twice in a row. Rephrase? Even something as simple as "Each of the fifteen courses has seven Power Stars. An additional fifteen Power Stars are hidden..." would be more interesting to the eye.
    • Rephrased to "Each of the fifteen courses has seven Power Stars, and an additional fifteen are hidden..." — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot - "he recovers more Power Stars, and once he gets..." > "he recovers more Power Stars. Once he gets..."
  • Development - I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with "he and the level designers then took notes on the key elements of each level."
    • Just removed that since the reference wasn't verifiable. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development - "the rabbit was included in the final game" it's been a while and I can't recall how the rabbit was included. May be worth adding a few words?
    • Trying to find sources... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm back. Found a source that talks about how the rabbit holds secret stars: [4]. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development - "...but the number was reduced to fifteen" any idea why? Time constraints?
    • Trying to find sources... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't find anything that talks about that. My guess is that they may have merged courses together for the final version, but... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release - "At the 1999 Milia... the previous year." Is this a significant award? Feels a bit random as currently worded.
    • I changed it to "At the 1999 Milia festival in Cannes, it won a Gold ECCSELL prize for earning revenues above €21 million (equivalent to €31.5 million in 2022) in the European Union in 1998", is that better or does it still feel random? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception - "... and the fact that its replayability reveals new areas and challenges" the wording doesn't seem quite right. I assume they praised its replayability, and that replaying the game reveals new areas and challenges? If I'm understanding correctly, a wording tweak is probably in order.
    • Changed it to "...its replayability, comparing the game to Super Mario World and citing its similar gimmick of allowing access to new areas upon finding switches". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception - "but suggesting to players to 'skip...'"
  • Reception - "Game Informer stated that... broken'" It's not clear to the reader what the "present day" is here.
  • Reception - You introduce Paul Davies' publication several times. After the first time you can probably just say "Paul Davies".
    • Ditto for Doug Perry and Jonti Davies.
  • Reception - I haven't looked through all the references, just happened to notice the author's name is misspelled in reference 69 (Jonti Davies)
  • Legacy - "generally only allow the" should be "allowed".

Ok I think that'll be it for me! Thanks again. Ajpolino (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your responses. I'm happy to support this FAC on prose. A last few thoughts pulled out of the above for you to consider (though I won't be watching, so no pressure from me!): (1) I still think the medical paragraph is undue, but if it must stay I'd suggest moving it back to the bottom where it was before. The new location feels abrupt, and distracts from SM64's actual legacy discussed in the rest of the section. (2) I'm not sure I understand the revised version of the replayability sentence. I figured I'm probably becoming annoying at this point, so I read the cited review. I'd suggest something closer to your first version; maybe "Maximum found its strongest points were the sense of freedom and the fact that replaying a level reveals new areas and challenges." Not the most exciting prose of all time, but I think it better conveys what the Maximum reviewers were getting at. (3) One more "Name of Publication..." that can be shortened is Nebojsa Radakovic of GameRevolution.
Otherwise, thanks again for an interesting read! I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the review! I got your last comments, and for the second one I made a mention of the switches in Super Mario 64 in the Gameplay section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink edit

It's a-me! Hurricanehink. And yea I gotta review this!

  • "Nintendo EAD" - you're supposed to spell out acronyms when they are first used in an article. That would make the first sentence on the long side, so I suggest the first two sentences be retooled, like - "Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game for the Nintendo 64, the first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay." That makes it stand out more what makes this game so important, which can then be followed by the bit about Nintendo's publishing role and Nintendo EAD developing it. Then get into the traditional Mario gameplay. I think that would be a better explanation setting up everything
  • Reference for the Japanese title?
  • I think the lead should expand on the plot a bit more, since the lead is on the short side.
    • Expanded a bit. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better. I'd split the below into two sentences. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        As Mario, the player collects Power Stars while exploring Princess Peach's castle and must rescue her from Bowser, who has kidnapped her and hidden the castle's Power Stars in many different worlds behind magical paintings.
        • Rephrased to "Bowser, one of the main antagonists for the Mario franchise, invades Princess Peach's castle and hides the castle's Power Stars in many different worlds behind magical paintings. As Mario, the player collects Power Stars while exploring Princess Peach's castle and must rescue her". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Better, but - while exploring Princess Peach's castle and must rescue her. - the writing isn't FA quality here, using the two different verb forms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is "As Mario, the player collects Power Stars to unlock enough of Princess Peach's castle to get to Bowser and rescue Princess Peach" better? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Its art was created by Yōichi Kotabe," - the infobox mentions four other people
    • Removed from lead, I attempted to rewrite some of the paragraph. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but now that you added more artists, could you explain what they all did? You mention five in the article of the nine listed in the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were created using the Nichimen N-World toolkit" - reference?
    • Removed from lead. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You removed it entirely from the article. Was it not worth including? I'm starting to get worried about comprehensiveness for the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to apologize for that, I have a bad habit of wanting to remove unsourced content too hastily. I found a source that I thought was unreliable, but the poster seems to have sufficient credentials, so I'm adding it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hub world takes place in Princess Peach's Castle, which consists of three floors, plus a moat and a courtyard. " - there's also a basement, so it's four floors, five if you include the mezzanine where the secret slide and first Bowser stage is.
    • Fixed error. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does ref 13 really cover this change? I don't see pages 18-23 mentioning the floors. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made a mistake, I meant to add another reference there. Did that now. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That ref and those pages still don't back up that content. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The worlds are filled with enemies as well as friendly creatures that provide assistance or ask favors." - is the pink bomb-omb worth mentioning here? You do mention the cannon later.
  • "one hundred coin points on a stage" - coin points? Also, numbers greater than 10 should be written as numbers. You do this later with "one hundred extra lives", "fifteen to twenty people", and "five hundred sound effects"
    • No, MOS:NUMERAL says that writing those out as words is okay as long they're expressible in one or two words. Removed "coin points" though. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'endless staircase' - why the single apostrophe? If it's a quote, it should be "endless staircase", as described in the game, or something else. Also, is it "endless staircase" or "Endless Stairs"? You use both in the article.
  • three special cap power-ups appear throughout many stages - the "throughout many stages" bothers me a tiny bit, since they're in most stages. I think you can just cut that part. Maybe.... three special cap power-ups appear to alter Mario's abilities.
    • I actually completely redid that part of the gameplay section, is the "throughout many stages" still inappropriate here? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works. I did some research, and Cool, Cool Mountain, Tall, Tall Mountain, Tiny, Huge Island, Tick-Tock Clock, and Rainbow Ride don't have any caps, so yea, I think "many" is fair. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Metal Cap makes him immune to most damage - not all? It's not an issue if this is what the source says, but I didn't know Mario could get hurt with the metal cap.
  • Some courses feature owls hidden in trees that the player can grab onto for elevation and a view of the stage from above. - maybe a dumb question, but does the owl appear anywhere other than Thwomp's Fortress?
  • Do they call it the "Jumbo Star" in the game?
    • I think people call it that, but if that's an issue, I changed it to "another Power Star". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team prioritized Mario's movement and, before levels were created, tested and refined Mario's animations on a simple grid." - source?
    • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • How come? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the last bit of my review that concerned me. This seems like a useful bit of information about the development. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added it back with this source that was already in the article: [5]. Sorry... — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the game, the Boos shrink when Mario looks at them, but grow large and menacing when he turns away" - do they grow? Maybe I haven't played the game in a while, but there are regular boos and the big boos, but I didn't think they got bigger. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    • That's what the source says, but I don't think that was really necessary for the comparison, so I removed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Super Mario 64 had a marketing budget of $20 million." - two things. First, this is the only dollar figure that isn't inflated. Second, you should mention somewhere that the figure is in USD.
    • Fixed both issues. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should use the inflation template so the article won't become out of date in a year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, although it only goes up to 2020. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine, it'll automatically update so you don't have to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, it's a pretty good article on one of the most important video game articles, so I was extra picky. Hopefully none of these comments are too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this before, but could you get a source for it appearing on iQue Player? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jibreel23 edit

I will review the article more tommorow, but as of right now I think a table or infobox should be added in the awards section similar to Super Mario Odyssey's award section. Jibreel23 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it a bit more, and in the lead of the article it says "Bowser, one of the main antagonists for the Mario franchise" should be changed to "Bowser, one of the main antagonists in the Mario franchise" or "Bowser, one of the main antagonists of the Mario franchise". Also, I think there is some good additions that should be added such as adding a little more to the Super Mario 64 DS section, and possibly or even merge it with the "other re-releases" section and make it just "Re-releases". Although I personally think you should just expand the Super Mario 64 DS section. You can also add quote box to the development section with a quote from Giles Goddard interview similar to the Paper Mario: The Origami King article and Mario Odyssey.

  • Jibreel23(talk) 20:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the grammatical error and added a quote box. As for your second suggestion, I don't want too much information of Super Mario 64 DS in the Super Mario 64 article, since Super Mario 64 DS has its own article and adding too much might make it a coatrack article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolperson177 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jibreel23: Hello, so are there more things you're concerned about? I've done some of the things you've suggested. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolperson177: Nothing else at the moment, but I will review it more and let you know.Jibreel23 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jibreel23, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this article becoming a featured article Jibreel23 (talk) Jibreel23 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Spot-checks not included.

  • Source 4 - what makes ChuApp a high-quality reliable source?
    • Sources (at least ones that aren't wikis) that mention the release date of the iQue Player are hard to find, but I'll take another look for a better source. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one by The A.V. Club but it only says that iQue debuted in November 2003 and Mario 64 with it. FrB.TG (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FrB.TG: After some more looking, I found this from the EE Times. Unfortunately, there's no link to a profile of the author (Yoshiko Hara), however, the magazine is owned by Aspencore, which describe themselves on their about us page as "the voice of record for the electronics industry". What do you think? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a better source but it only discusses the then-upcoming launch of iQue. Nowhere does it say that it was released in November that year or that Super Mario 64 was part of it. The link I suggested above at least provides the info that it was in 2003. FrB.TG (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, in that case, I'm removing the iQue Player from the release date section in the infobox. The sources that claim they know the dates conflict anyways (November 16th? 17th? 21st?). I'm just going to limit it to the release section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I'm so sorry for bothering you, but the iQue release date has recently been added back, sourced by iQue's website. I've let the change stand, but I just wanted to check if the source meets WP:PRIMARY. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. If anything, it's much better than any other source you could possibly find on the information. What better source than the one straight from the horse's mouth? FrB.TG (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks for the review! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 6 - the publisher needs linking and should be Nintendo of America, not Nintendo. According to archive.org that it links to, the title is "Super Mario 64 NUS-NSME-USA Manual", whereas it's called "Super Mario 64 Instruction Booklet" in the article.
  • Source 9 - nintendo.co.jp is redundant when you have already listed Nintendo there.
  • Source 11, 132, 179 - The Guardian sources should have Guardian Media Group as their publisher.
  • Source 6, 13, 15, 27 - you need to cite the book only once in a subsection (of References) called "bibliography" and use {{sfn}} to cite the four sources. If you're not familiar on how it works, see Robin Williams filmography as an example or read the documentation.
  • Source 12, 14, 16, 18–20, 26 - same point as above.
  • Source 35 - Andy Crane should be listed by his last name and first name as with other sources. Use |authorlink parameter to wiki-link him.
  • Source 40 - Zelda Universe needs linking.
  • Source 60 - same as the point about source 9.
  • Source 74 - the author is listed as K. Orland; it doesn't say if K. stands for Kyle.
  • Source 85 - I don't see an indication that the issue is called "Now Playing - September 1996". In archive.org, it's called Nintendo Power.
    • That's not the title of the issue, it's the title of the chapter. Is it not supposed to be like that? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 95 - a |via= parameter is needed and should have Newspapers.com.
  • Source 121 - zoonami.com is unneeded when you have Zoonami as publisher.
  • Source 123 - it is The New York Times.
  • Source 162 - same point as source 121.
  • Source 164 - what makes Notebookcheck a high-quality reliable source? FrB.TG (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking back, I'm not entirely sure why I even added that since the Kotaku article already states pretty much the same things. I removed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just interjecting, but "you need to cite the book only once in a subsection (of References) called "bibliography" and use {{sfn}} to cite the four sources. If you're not familiar on how it works, see Robin Williams filmography as an example or read the documentation" is not required. There is not a requirement that books be treated this way nor that sfn be used. (And using "bibliography" as a section header for that is discouraged anyway by the MOS - see MOS:NOTES for information. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sfn part is definitely not needed (just a personal preference I guess) but I do think listing the book once in a subsection is better than repetitively citing it in references. FrB.TG (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went with your suggestion since I started editing the article before Ealdgyth's reply. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes based on formatting and reliability. My concerns have been properly addressed and I found no sign of copyvio or close-paraphrasing. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Super_Mario_64/archive2&oldid=1079473345"