Talk:Super Mario Bros./GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.

This article was promoted to GA way back in 2007, when a lot of VG-related Wikipedia articles were filled with stuff that could now fail at WP:GAMECRUFT. For this reason, the article appears to have a ton of issues: some of the "Alternate versions" section (not all) is completely unsourced, the article is way too detailed and poorly written, and the "Reception" section is short and somewhat vague. Another major concern I have is that too much of the article is sourced to TheMushroomKingdom, which is an unreliable source (it is used on All Nippon Night SMB, SMBDX, and the "ports" section). For these reasons, I think Super Mario Bros. doesn't really meet the standards for GA today. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To help, I'm pinging a number of contributors to this page: @Dissident93:, @Anonymous from the 21st century:, @Richardcavell:, and @ProDuct0339:. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concerns. Super Mario Bros must have been exhaustively documented in print media - but we need access to the magazines etc to write an article. I simply don't have the resources to do that. In my view, this article falls short of Wikipedia's present standards for a satisfying article on such a notable subject. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Just look at what I've removed from the article in the not so distant past. (#1) and (#2). This article should really be removed from GA status until it's modernized. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, so sad to see my hard work (did a loooooot of work to get this to GA way back then) go to shit over the years thanks to fancruft. That's the internet for you. Xenon54 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue was only "the Internet's fancruft", we could revert to the reviewed (2007) version, but WP's sourcing and prose standards have changed significantly in the last decade... czar 15:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.