Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Paper Mario: Color Splash/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Panini!

Comments by FrB.TG

edit
  • "Color Splash was announced via a Nintendo Direct in March 2016, and released the game worldwide in October 2016." See MOS:NBSP for March 2016 and October 2016.
  • "On release, however, the game received generally positive reception from critics, praising the game's graphics, soundtrack, and improved dialogue." I suggest replacing "the game's" with "its" to avoid the repetition of "the game" in a close proximity.
  • Fixed
  • "Players traverse through a world map containing stages; the goal of each stage is to reach the Mini Paint Star." This could be condensed to "Players traverse through a world map containing stages, whose each goal is to reach the Mini Paint Star." Plus, we would eliminate the repetitive "stage(s)".
  • This was similar to how I originally had it, but another user suggested the switch to a semicolon. I won't throw them other the bus, however, and I'll pretend it was all my idea just this once.
  • "Depending on how the player collided with the enemy, the player or the enemy may be able to attack immediately." Player ... player, enemy... enemy
  • Ah, a double redundar™!
  • The plot section uses "reveal" a lot, whose usage I am not a big fan of in an encyclopedia anyway, as it creates an element of suspense.
  • I believe it's because I didn't do too much work on this section; I haven't played this game, so I didn't want to mess with the Plot too much and accidentally misinterpret the plotline.
  • "The focus of the Paper Mario series shifted towards" - should use "toward" instead as it is the preferred variant in American English, which the article seems to be using.
  • Towed
  • "Shigeru Miyamoto, the lead designer of the Mario franchise, insisted that only characters from the Mario franchise should be used for the game." Why is Mario franchise linked twice here? It should be only linked here: "...series would replace Paper Mario as the Mario franchise's role-playing series". Also, you don't need "Mario" in the second "Mario franchise" (§ Design and characters).
  • "Why is Mario franchise linked twice here?" I have no idea. I've also clarified the meaning behind it a bit.
  • "This led the team to create multiple Toads with multiple color schemes to represent their different personalities." multiple.. multiple.
  • Multiplied
  • "When creating characters, major emphasis went towards" - same as above (towards).
  • "Nick Pino of TechRadar called the petition, "a frightening example of how quickly, and harshly, we judge games we know next to nothing about."[21]" The comma before "a" is unneeded.
  • Uncomma'd
  • "The game sold 20,894 copies in its first week of release in Japan,[30] the following month having sold 37,093 copies." → "The game sold 20,894 copies in its first week of release in Japan,[30] and 37,093 copies the following month."
  • Changed
  • "In 2017, the game was nominated for "Favorite Video Game" in the 2017 Kids' Choice Awards, but lost to Just Dance 2017." "In 2017" is unnecessary since "the 2017 Kids'..." also specifies the year.
  • Uh-...fair point!
  • "Writing for Nintendo Life, Conor McMahon considered the writing" - writing.. writing
  • Rewriting
  • " In opposition, Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb disliked how every character was a Toad, and their individual traits weren't enough to keep them individually unique." Contractions (weren't) should be avoided in an encyclopedic writing; you could condense "were [not] enough to" to "failed to".
  • Failed
  • "They noted how the player purchases cards with coins that can be used in combat, and combat rewards" - repetitive usage of "combat".
  • Combated
  • "due to the loss of role-playing game (RPG) elements" - not sure why role-playing game is linked here and has the abbreviation in the parenthesis when there are previous uses. You could link it in its first instance and replace the following spelled out ones with the abbreviation.
  • This may just be because I've worked on this article out of order, so linking issues may be common elsewhere.

That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review, @FrB.TG! I believe I've addressed everything. Panini! • 🥪 19:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Nevermind, there's one more; I'm not quite sure what it is you're requesting for your first comment. Panini! • 🥪 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
"... March{{nbsp}}2016 and October{{nbsp}}2016". FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I took the liberty of doing it myself. FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
  • Starting three consecutive sentences with "The" as you've done under the first paragraph of "Gameplay" feels monotonous. This issue is even worse with FIVE in a row opening that way under "Design and characters".
  • Un-the'd
  • I'd replace "opposition" from "In opposition, Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb" with "contrast" or use "Conversely".
  • I could've sworn I used converesly at least once. That's my word of the day!
  • "The use of the hammer and paint received generally positive comments; Ryckert enjoyed the use of the paint mechanic and had the urge to paint everything in each world to full completion, and although Petit found early levels of the game slow to progress due to the very limited amount of paint that the hammer could hold, the problem became redundant as paint storage increased." is quite a mouthful! You can split that overly long sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • I'm just trying to make sure your mouth is well-fed, that's all. Chew with your mouth closed!
  • What benefit does that box quote from USgamer provide when you've already used their review in the main prose of reviews?
  • Removed

Thankfully the article is better now than when I found it at peer review. You should be able to spruce it up in a reasonable timeframe. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to leave another review, SNUGGUMS. I've addressed your new comments. Panini! • 🥪 18:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Review by Lee Vilenski

edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • This stems from this and this from a while back. With this in mind, do you still belive I should switch it? I don't really care for the matter.
  • I agree with that statement. Removed, linked video game
  • Added "and his new ally"
  • It became the primary topic recently. Fixed.
  • Fixed
Prose
  • Might have just been the way it was formatted. Rewritten
  • Removed
  • Also removed, checked for other instances but were none.
  • Not sure why either; removed
  • I have an duplicate link checking script, and there doesn't appear to be any instances were Wii U is overlinked. I did catch some others, though.
  • Not sure if you questioning it or actually don't think so, but in my opinion, yes; old games relied on combat because they were RPGs, and people kept asking for Nintendo to bring those elements back. However, Nintendo was moving away from the RPG format and therefore centralized the games around a certain gimmick rather than the RPG elements, including combat. It was designed to get in the way rather than be a main focal point.
  • Parted the Blue Sea
  • Added reviewer name
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, @Lee Vilenski! I've fixed the problems listed and left comments on some of your points. Panini! • 🥪 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support by Shooterwalker

edit

Reviewing this as we speak. Will be back with more thoughts. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • "The story follows the protagonist Mario and his new ally Huey, on a quest to retrieve the six Big Paint Stars to save Prisma Island and rescue Princess Peach from Bowser." - this is a bit of a mouthful. consider dropping one part just to focus on a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (maybe drop the six paint stars?)
  • Cut
  • "and to implement a gimmick-based standard for the series" -> this doesn't have a clear meaning. I'd rephrase or drop it.
  • Rephrased
  • "Wii U hardware, such as its GamePad" -> maybe "Wii U console and gamepad" (what other hardware is there?)
  • Good point
  • "and released the game worldwide in October 2016." -> "and released worldwide in October 2016."
  • This opposes a comment I received earlier but I much prefer this
  • "for continuing the genre format introduced in Sticker Star" -> this is a little vague, and maybe it's better to say what the controversy is than when it started. That, or you need to summarize more of the information in the article, to explain this game in the context of the series.
  • Clarified
  • "lack of RPG" -> again vague, and could be rephrased
  • Not sure how that got there
  • "and consult Huey, Mario's ally, for assistance." -> this feels tacked on and could be its own sentence, because it really is a separate thought.
  • Split
  • "either collect from stages and defeated enemies, or purchased" -> "either collect from stages and defeated enemies, or purchase"
  • Tensed
  • the writing in the gameplay section is generally really clear and flows well. Good job so far.
  • Phew, I was getting worried.
  • "folded Toad" -> this might be a little vague for someone without any context of the Mario series, let alone the paper concept
  • Uncofidentaly rephrased
  • "He proceeded" / "They also discover that he" -> maybe use the proper nouns Bowser / Mario here, just to avoid confusion
  • Propered
  • Again the writing in this section is generally good!
  • "other gameplay elements were altered or improved to help fix what was disdained in the previous title." -> "some gameplay elements were altered to address criticisms towards the previous titles." (shorter / clearer)
  • Ctrl c Ctrl v'd
  • "different types and textures" -> "different textures" (same idea)
  • Textured
  • "They implement player interaction between the gamepad and a television screen because they thought that sorting through cards on the gamepad and using touch controls to fling them onto a screen was entertaining" -> something about this sentence really sticks out as awkward. Who is they? Is there a better way to describe "player interaction between the gamepad and television screen"? Because that sounds like the basic definition of a video game. There's probably a shorter and clearer way to explain this.
  • Not sure what happened here either.
  • "cards were limited" -> the number of cards, or the card abilities?
  • Clarified
  • "Although the gamepad was much more advanced, focus was shifted to gameplay" -> I don't know what this means. More advanced to what? Don't all video games focus on gameplay? What does one have to do with the other? Is this sentence even important?
  • Doubt it.
  • "central gimmick" -> you describe a central gimmick without explaining what it is
  • Clarified
  • "a lot of the personality comes out in text" -> I'm not sure this quote is clear or useful. If text means writing, say that. If text means character dialog, say that.
  • Said that
  • The reception section is generally well-written and grammatical, which is good.
  • Still, the reception section starts to lose the forest between the trees, and there's an enormous amount of detail here that loses the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I know this can be a matter of taste, but as is, it feels more dense than even a metacritic summary. On most featured articles, I've found that the reception section should roughly tell you why it was praised, why it was criticized, and where the critical consensus lies (favorable, negative, or mixed). At most, I might see if there were stand-out elements that were notable or controversial, in the critics' eyes. The current reception section starts to feel more like a complete catalog of what every reviewer said about every aspects of the game. I wouldn't be too pushy about this because the rest of the article is quite good. But maybe find ways to tighten this section up, as it's quite long and complicated compared to the rest of the article.
  • I feel that these other reviewers would have called out its length if it was an issue, but I do agree that some of it may appear cumbersome. This is an example of my new version of writing reception sections, which varies a lot from how I used to do it before; I originally would make them super short (as in, borderline WP:SYNTH), and this new way of doing things keeps things much more comprehensive. I did cut out a lot of recursive content and split one of the paragraphs into another subheader for better navigation. If you feel problems still exist please let me know. Panini! • 🥪 15:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article is very close to featured quality. I think those tweaks, along with some clean-up of the reception section will get you there. I hope this is helpful. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Shooterwalker! I'll address your comments tomorrow. Panini! • 🥪 17:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Shooterwalker, I believe that's everything. Panini! • 🥪 15:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

image review

edit
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Screenshot FURs need significant improvement - the purpose of use seems to have been copied from the cover image, but these images have a different purpose. Including multiple non-free media requires stronger justification for each. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Nikkimaria! I really appreciate the amount of review work you do around here. Alt text is something that should've been done without someone else pointing it out, so that's a little embarrassing.
As for your second concern, I could use your opinion; it seems my last FAC had this same issue, and in the end, one of the non-free images was removed. That article had one image of a battle sequence and one of the players just wandering, so there was a clear winner on what was removed. However, the whole paint gimmick is pretty big, but so is the combat... which image do you suggest removing? Or, with proper justification, should I keep them both? I'm doubtful about it. Panini! • 🥪 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest keeping the paint - it appears to be the more central gimmick, and "there are cards" seems to be a concept that is more intuitive to understand without seeing it. It might be possible to keep both, but you'd need very strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Nikkimaria, I've decided against keeping both for the reason you stated. I also went back and updated the other image rationale to better justify its inclusion. Please let me know if more clarification or expansion is needed. I've also completed the alt texts for the other images, and found a better image of the Wii U to use while I was at it. Panini! • 🥪 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Nikkimaria, not sure if you saw this, but do you pass? Panini! • 🥪 16:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Source review

edit

Using this version, for footnote number reference.

  • Suggest marking [12] as dead; you have url-status=live but it is no longer available. Ditto for [22] and [26].
  • Buried, said some words, felt teary, I'll return in a month to leave flowers
  • [3] and [14] appear to be the same source; you have slightly different citation details for the two, but the URLs are the same. The September 5, 2016 date appears to be the correct one.
  • Merged
  • For [30], you list the author as Carolyn Petit, but the link takes me to a review by Miguel Concepcion. Also, this is from GameSpot; per WP:VG/S, for GameSpot one should "ensure that the content is staff authored, not user generated". How can we tell Miguel Concepcion is staff? Or Carolyn Petit, if that's who this link should point to?
  • I'm... not really sure what happened here. According to the hatnote at WP:VG/S, if the URL contains "user-reviews" its unreliable, meaning that this reviewer is staff. You are right, it does link to Miguel Concepcion, and Carolyn Petit is nowhere to be seen. How weird. Not only that, but I currently have Miguel Concepcion's name under the IGN review, when actually it was a review by Terri Schwartz. Not sure where I got Petit from, or how Concepcion replaced Schwartz, but I fixed all of it now.

Other than that the sources seem reliable and I can find no formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nice catch on that last one! Mike Christie, I've addressed your comments. Panini! • 🥪 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Paper_Mario:_Color_Splash/archive1&oldid=1082494425"