Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Super Mario Bros.

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [1].

---

New Super Mario Bros.

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

Did you know that New Super Mario Bros....

• ... is the first original side-scrolling platform game starring Mario since Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins in 1992?
• ... is the first game to be a part of the main Mario series of video games since Super Mario Sunshine in 2002?

Gary King (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Images: User:ESkog has checked the images, below. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

References: All of the references should be standard video game ones, except for this (Nintendo World Report), which I'm using after this conversation. Gary King (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary, you are the nominator or co-nominator of three other FACS at a time when this page is backlogged. Just the other day, Acdixon withdrew a nomination to help with the backlog. Please consider doing the same; reviewers are lacking at the moment. P.S. I will re-review Scene7 when I am back from my travels. BuddingJournalist 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Budding; I can help out with the reviewing, no problem. But, I nominated this article because of "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.", which is the case for my FACs. This includes my previous one, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons Hit & Run, which has three supports and zero opposes. I think that clause exists to only allow new nominations when there are enough reviewers; also, I think that this current FAC meets the criteria, which is why I nominated it. I've got a few more articles ready for FAC, which is another reason why I'd like to get a few through when I can. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked to see which FACs need more comments; they all would benefit from more comments, of course, but the only one that I see which definitely needs more is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore, which I'll review right now. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the FACs need more comments and review; while the page is backlogged, lacking reviews, and Ealdgyth, Moni3 and Awadewit are having to check sources and images on every candidate, pls remember not to overload the page until previous nominations are successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from a video game fan.
  • The Australian date in the Infobox should have a source, since the others do. I'm also a little concerned where ref 1 (link) mentions the release date.
  • The game's story is similar to those of other side-scrolling Mario games, drawing inspiration from Super Mario Bros. in particular.
    • I have a bit of a problem with this sentence. While it might seem harmless enough, there is no source that says it drew "inspiration from Super Mario Bros. in particular." The source provided (ref 4) doesn't say that at all.
  • Speaking of "ref 4", I'm slightly concerned whether it's reliable enough, but I'm more concerned in its usage as a source in the article. No offense, but it seems like a lot of the content was in place in the article (like in this revision before you started working on the article), and then you used that link as an easy reference. If that is the case, then I would oppose. If that is not the case, then I'll look closely to see if all of that information is indeed from that reference.
  • For the image in the plot section, I'm a little concerned if it qualifies for fair use. The image isn't that helpful for what the text is talking about; it seems like decoration.
  • Is there an estimated for games sold, more recent than September 2008?
  • I have a quick question, which I think should be mentioned in the article. How come the game was released 10 days later in Japan than in the US? I thought Japan always got Nintendo games first. I just checked, and every other Mario game (including SMB2) was released in Japan prior to North America.
• I haven't gotten too much further in the article, but these are significant enough that I wish to wait for them to be resolved. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Regarding references in the infobox, I moved them to the first sentence of the Reception section (all the dates are referenced now, also). I removed the "inspired by" bit, considering none of the references specifies this directly. I'm keeping the game guide reference as it is indeed reliable, but I also added a few other references to specific parts of Gameplay and Plot to back it up. I removed the image in the Plot section; it is indeed unnecessary. I can't find a more recent estimate than September 2008, which frankly is actually pretty recent, considering the game was released in May 2006 (most of the sales usually happen closer to the release date and wane later down the road). Good question on releasing later in Japan; I've added a sentence about that to the Reception section, after the article mentions the release dates (I also added Korea's release date, which was missed earlier). Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Korean release date be in the Infobox? That's fine about the sales estimate; I always just like a double-checking, but yes, Sept. 2008 is nice how recent it is. That works about the delayed release date. So just a question about the reference for "Nintendo EAD. New Super Mario Bros." I assume that's the player's guide? If so, that should be specified. But my question: is all of the info in the plot section definitely in the player's guide? I reiterate my earlier concern, because you only switched references. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the Korea release date; it was actually already in the infobox but was done incorrectly. I've specified that the manual is the reference. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but with the player's guide, are you positive all of the info sourced to it appears there? None of the content was changed when you changed references, and some of the content existed before you even started working on the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. As I said, I added other references for the stuff that couldn't be referenced to the game or the manual. Gary King (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based on criterion 3 and the usage of File:New-super-mario-bros-worldmap.jpg. I agree with the above commenter that this is not accompanied by the requisite critical commentary in the text of the article, and the image description page's "Purpose of Use" actually seems to be more a detailed description of what's going on in the game rather than an explanation of how the image is allowable under our non-free content criteria. One image to show the unique aspects of gameplay is typically sufficient unless there's something truly groundbreaking or hard to describe using text alone. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Okay fair enough; I have removed the image. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Great, from an image perspective (which is all I really feel qualified to talk about) I'd say everything's in order. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Hyphenate single-player in the infobox and gameplay section.
  • Nintendo is linked twice in the body, is that really necessary?
• Other than that, nice work. —TheLeftorium 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added the hyphen in the infobox, for "Single-player, multiplayer". I don't think it's needed in the Gameplay section because it's "single players [...] multiple players" not "single-players [...] multiplayers", which would be grammatically incorrect. I'm going to leave the Nintendo link, because I think it's useful in the Development section where it's more likely to be clicked on. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is necessary in the development section, but what about the reception section, is it necessary there? —TheLeftorium 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, removed. Gary King (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done, I'll support the article. —TheLeftorium 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. But one comment I have is that in the plot section where it says Bowser falls into the lava, killing him, it should be noted that this happened exactly the same way in the Old Super Mario Bros. Other than that, great work. ^Tezkag₇₂ 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Article appears to be complete, well-written and referenced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.