Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mother 3/1

Mother 3Edit

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: keep. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This article gained GA status eight years ago. Since then, the page has changed quite a bit, including the plot section getting completely mangled, which meant I had to replaced it with a clunkily-written plot summary of my own (I am not the best at using words). In addition, there are claims on the talk page that the Development section is now severely outdated now that more sources have been found and translated into English. I'm not entirely sure whether or not it meets the criteria to be delisted from being a good article, but I feel it deserves being looked at again. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to vote Keep as GA. About the Development section, well, the section is a summary of Development of Mother 3, so people interested in seeing more details about the development can read that specific article. A GA needs to "[address] the main aspects of the topic", and this article does, in my understanding. The Plot may not be perfect, but I don't think the GA status should be removed only because of that Skyshifter talk 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the issue regarding the GA criteria? If the plot is a mess, feel free to revert back to what it was during the GA nom. Plot sections are a magnet for cruft across all video game articles (and the linked version was fully sourced!) Any "outdated" claims re: development are a matter for the talk page, not a GA reassessment. czar 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I prefer to see the Plot section as referenced as much as feasible, even if using the primary game as the source (i.e. via quotes; game guides can also suffice). The "Legacy" section could be cleaned up prose-wise, and some of the references need to be fixed, namely most of the Nintendo Dream references. I'm not 100% the issues are enough to delist as a GA, but my standards are a little higher than many GA reviewers. --MuZemike 03:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards keeping this as GA as well. The plot section has gotten a little messy, but not anything to demote. Agree that we can always just revert back to the plot version that was promoted, and there is another GA to pull from to improve this further (from Development of Mother 3). Shooterwalker (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
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.