Talk:Super Mario Bros. 3/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I had some difficulty understanding the game (as I am unfamiliar with these games) but, all in all, you have done a good job for GA status. (I could get into more detail if you were going for FA.) I have one hesitation in passing it for GA. I do wonder if you can justify the three fair use images of the game in addition to the fair use of its cover art. The three images, although interesting, don't make much sense to me, and they are very small. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What part is the root of the confusion? I can try to further explain and expand the rationales.

Also, any comments you have I would appreciate as I would like to go for FA eventually. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Update- I removed the image from the Legacy section as it seemed to contribute the least. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Comments

• The gameplay is much clearer to me now. I am curious about some of the elements. For example, in the "Legacy" section, you mention "Bowser's appearance with a red mane has become his standard image." Does the red mane confer some power like the raccoon appearance does?
• The two extra fair use images still may be too many. Perhaps one can be justified to show the "frog suit", say. Even if they get through GA, I doubt FA would allow them. I cannot tell from the pic what the "Tanooki Suit" is, as the images are very small. (OK, I figured out what the "Tanooki Suit" is!)

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Bowser, maybe "mane" is not the best word to use. Check out File:Bowser-Nintendo.png, the red hair he has was first introduced in this game and has been included in every game appearance since. It's more of a visual element rather than a gameplay element. I tried rewording that part. Let me know if it still needs improvements.

Of the two screenshots, I'd rather keep the map. To be honest, I don't think the frog suit image tells as much about how the gameplay functions as the map. The image with the "Tanooki Suit" is more to illustrate the overworld map than anything else. The Tanooki suit was more of an extra, and should not be the focus. Any suggestions as to give the map more focus?

Speaking of images, some editors have expressed disapproval over the inclusion of Miyamoto's image. They state the image is not relevant and adds nothing to the article. Is this the case? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, of course at FAC, you can just remove anything they object to in the way of images. As far as Miyamoto's image, they objected because the article is not really about him? That had not occurred to me. Such issues seem vary among editors, as I have seen peripherally related images allowed in some FACs.

As far as the overworld map, is this a game where the players have to stay on the "roads" as illustrated on the map? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed similar images in old and new FAs, and, though I'm not as active at FAC, I don't recall a free image of a creator ever being asked to be removed from an article. Other than Wikipedia:Images, which doesn't give much guidance to this situation, I've been unable to find any policy or guideline.

Yes, though the bulk of the game is played out in the side view stages like in the Frog suit image, the player uses the overworld map to progress through a game by following the roads. Players are unable to move through a "action panel" until they complete the stage it represents, and the roads also offer a few different paths to reaching the world's final fortress. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't recall a request for such a free immage to be removed either. Should be O.K. Anyway, it would be easy to just remove it if an FAC editor objects. I think the article is clear. It is only because I am so game-ignorant that I ask these questions. But it is fairly clear even to me now! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear as I try to write the gameplay to explain it to those that have never played or seen the game. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

• I think this is a good article and you have explained the issues clearly. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written and concepts are clearly explained b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good luck! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)