Talk:Super Mario Bros./GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I will tackle this classic. Comments to follow. Indrian (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds tight. I will start following up to comments as soon as possible (which should be fairly immediately). I know this is a late response, I just haven’t found the time to type out a reply until just now. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox and Lead

•  DoneThere are really two developers on this one, the Nintendo Creative Department and Systems Research and Development Company (SRD). The whole R&D4 thing appears to have been made up by dodgy English-language sources, for various Iwata Asks interviews reference the developers as being in the "Creative Department" and this interview in particular specifically explains that the Creative Department was the forerunner to EAD. As for SRD, at the time, Nintendo did not do any programming in-house, so SRD wrote the code for the game.

Changed this in the infobox (as well as the dev section)- have you got any suggestions as potential sources to use for SRD, by chance?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Source for SRD writing the code? Does the Iwata asks interview state this too? (not loading for me.) EDIT: Also, your claims of "disruption" are silly, the entire point of a GA review is to improve the article. Holding back on sources for no real reason does not accomplish this, nor does throwing around accusations. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Its disruptive because I ask for changes, nominator makes changes, and I review changes. Other editors are allowed to chime in, but if you just start removing stuff we are working on for the review then that becomes difficult. Anyway, Nintendo had no in-house programming capability until the Super Famicom. Toshihiko Nakago was an employee of the System Research and Development Corporation, which was a separate company that did a lot of the programming for Nintendo in the early days similar to Intelligent Systems. SRD was later purchased by Nintendo and became an internal division. In one of the the Iwata Asks interviews, Nakago explains his employment status. I will track it down before the end of the review, but not right now. Be patient, the source will get in eventually. In the meantime, there is literally no reason to take it out because putting that information in the article does not violate any Wikipedia policy. You should put a citation needed tag on it instead. THAT is improving the article; removing accurate information is not. Indrian (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? Removing unsourced (and WP:OR-looking) claims makes the article worse? I'm not being disruptive when I'm following one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, all you have to do is simply provide the source that states this. You are being combative for no real reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's see. Editor walks into an on-going GA review where the sourcing of that claim was already being discussed and instead of participating in that discussion takes unilateral action to remove accurate and verifiable, though currently unsourced, material from the article. So yeah, I would consider that unhelpful to the process. Now, the first time, sure you may not have been aware of the GA, that's fine. Now you are. So because you don't know Nintendo history very well you have decided to remove accurate information for which it is already understood sourcing is forthcoming because you consider it "OR-looking." That would be fine if there were not a GA review going on addressing this specific issue, but not under these circumstances. Indrian (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Doneit was first released in Japan in 1985 for the Famicom Disk System - SMB is not an FDS game. There was an FDS port, but that is not the original.

Fixed- This isn’t a sloppy inclusion is it?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Donethe player controls Mario and his brother, Luigi - This sentence construction implies that a single person is controlling both brothers.

Reworded as “the player controls Mario (or his brother, Luigi, in the game’s multiplayer mode)”

•  Donerunning and jumping through 8 worlds of levels - I would probably change this into 32 levels across 8 worlds or something, as just saying there are 8 worlds of levels does not provide a proper scope for the game.

Changged to simply “32 levels”. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't run or jump in the water worlds, remember? You just swim. Dream Focus 23:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Donedistinct power-ups that aid Mario on his quest - Mario AND Luigi, right?

Fixed this but shortened it a tad by simply saying “the brothers” (too vague?) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Donebegan development as a shooting game before the team decided to instead make it a side-scrolling platformer - This is incorrect. The Iwata Asks interviews make it clear that it was always a scrolling platformer featuring Mario. The shooting comes in because there were going to be some sky stages that played more like a shooter with Mario in a vehicle.

Decided to nix this completely from the lead. Will change it accordingly at some point in the dev section. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneNintendo's mascot - At the time Mario was not a company mascot.

Removed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneThe commercial success of Super Mario Bros. prompted the creation of two direct sequels both for the NES - Three, SMB2 Japan, SMB2 US, and SMB3.

Fixed.

• Since the above comments were made, the intro has been nearly completely rewritten. Overall, I like the rewrite, which greatly improves flow. It feels a little short now if this goes to FA, but its certainly sufficient for GA. Indrian (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Development

•  Donewas designed by Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka, both of whom belonged to Nintendo's former Entertainment Analysis and Development division at the time - Incorrect. They were members of the "Creative Department," a precursor to EAD, as revealed by Iwata Asks.

Changed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneAccording to Tezuka, the prototype initially was not a side-scrolling game, and the player controlled a 16 by 32 pixel square. - This is not quite what the sources say. They began experimenting with those features as you say, but its not like that was ever going to be the final game. Probably should be reworded to say something like "the developers started by creating a prototype in which the player moved a 16 by 32 pixel square around a single screen."

Noted and changed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneThe prototype was based around a shooting mechanic with considerably different controls. - That is not what the source says. It was always a scrolling platformer, but Mario could acquire a rocket at times and shoot enemies while driving it. This is further explained in the Iwata Asks interviews as well.

Changed wording to reflect this. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneThe development team changed the game's focus to jumping action and they thus remapped the A button from shooting to jumping. - Again, I do not think the sources indicate this; they merely explain that the jump control changed. Jumping is present in the earliest design documents, the same ones that include the shooter elements.

Completely removed this sentence. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

World 1-1

•  DoneSuper Mario Bros. is the first side-scrolling video game featuring Mario, and one of the first video games directed and designed by Shigeru Miyamoto. - I don't think this sentence was meant to be here.

This sentence was left over from before I began working on the article, and I have no idea why it was even placed in the middle of that paragraph in the first paragraph. Either way, I completely removed it bc it was unsourced and not really even that relevant to anything. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Release

•  DoneSuper Mario Bros. was first released in Japan on September 13, 1985 for the Famicom Disk System, Nintendo's proprietary floppy disk drive for the Famicom - No it was not. It was a cartridge release. The FDS version came later and was a port of the cartridge ROM.

Fixed. Should this maybe be included in the ports or rereleases section or is it fine how it is??

•  DoneThis version of the game is extremely common in North America, with several copies of it having been manufactured and sold in the United States - Millions of copies were sold. Is this supposed to be variants? Also, there is a stray ref tag here.

Hehe, whoops. Removed the </ref> tag, and also switched the wording from "several" to "millions of".

Vs. Super Mario Bros.

•  Donewith several of them reappearing from the game’s Japanese sequel, Super Mario Bros 2. - Actually, its the other way around. The arcade game was made first and served as the springboard for making SMB2.

Noted and changed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Remakes

 DoneI removed the fan remake because that is not an official release and renamed the section as a result. I note there is also a citation needed tag in the remaining paragraph, which needs to be fixed.

Ok, I dug up an Ars Technica article and added it for a source, as well as a bit of additional elaborative info. I didn't even catch that, thanks for pointing it out!! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Deluxe

 DoneI assume this was merged and redirected into this article. That's not a problem, but the reviews should be placed in the reception section.

Düne. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Reception

•  DoneWhen it was first released, Super Mario Bros. only received one English written review from Computer Entertainer / Video Game Update - This is not true. It was reviewed in some newspapers as well, for instance the Milwaukee Sentinel. You don't need to track down those reviews to reach GA status, but the incorrect statement about only one English-language review should be removed.

Fixed. Perhaps I will attempt to dig the Net Archives and somehow find this Milwaukee Sentinel review at some point down the line, but for now... hell no, too much work... TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

•  DoneIn the United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted an amicus brief citing social research that declared Super Mario Bros to be a violent video game. It was compared to Mighty Mouse and Road Runner, cartoons that depict a similar form of violence with little negative reaction from the public. - This paragraph does not really do a good job of explaining that the brief was in support of overturning a law about violent games and was merely making the point that tame cartoon violence like that found in the game appears in other forms of media without comment. They are not really declaring it a "violent" game.

Saving this point for last since it entails the most effort. I looked into the sources (mostly the first one) and reworked the paragraph's wording a bit to coincide more with the actual points of the event. I did rush this a bit, so it may need a little further elaboration, but i don't know. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the language a little bit more. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And that does it. A few factual things to clear up, but we are in good shape overall. I will therefore put this nomination  On hold while this concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I’ll start tackling these ASAP. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this should do it- it looks like I've gotten through all of your notes. Please respond with any concerns or further suggestions/improvements you have. Kudos! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Indrian:, you're still here, yeah?? Not like there's a rush or anything- please do take your time, and there aren't any worries if you're busy or anything like that. It's just that it's been a few days since I finished up with your notes, and it occurred to me that I didn't tag you on it, so I wanted to make sure that it didn't somehow fly past your radar/get buried in your talk page or anything. Not to be a nuisance, I just want to be safe. :) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer: Thanks for checking in. I did hit a busy patch, but should have this wrapped up this week. I appreciate your patience. Indrian (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw an unreliable reference in the batch (that's Mushroom Kingdom), which is a minor 2b vio. (I would also caution against the press release I noticed--there might be others.) Some citations are not complete, which is not a problem for GAN but should be cleaned up. I would also encourage reviewing the use of the parameters in the citations--|work=/|website= should be used where a number of |publisher=s were used (and I'm sure I missed some in my edit just now). --Izno (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. This review is still ongoing, and I had not gone through all the sources yet. You are absolutely welcome to contribute some formatting suggestions to this review, as I have not yet engaged with the sources on that level. Indrian (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been waiting to conclude the review while Izno has been doing his welcome work on the source formatting. Now that he appears mostly done, I will wrap up shortly. Indrian (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Sequel

@TheDisneyGamer:Alright, lets continue the review. Thanks to Izno for his good work on source formatting! I have a few more source concerns as highlighted below.

•  DoneI see no indication that Transmission Zero is a reliable source, as it just appears to be someone's blog.
  • I’m afraid that you appear to be correct about this one- I didn’t look through every source and it seems that this one was added quite a long while ago and never caught/removed. I went ahead and did some digging, and I found this journalistic write-up that mentions the workings of the glitch in detail at one point- does this fly as reliable enough or is it too journalistic??? ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneRefs 27 and 28 on the Minus World from legends of localization and UK Business Insider have no source information included, just a link to the original web page.
  • Fixed both of these- I don’t know if I was wrong in my uses of publisher/website, so please feel free to correct me if needed. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 23:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneDitto refs 36-39 and 41 referencing various release formats.
  • Most of these were simply a result of me not wanting to go through the effort of typing out an entire citation template (especially on a mobile device, which makes it quite tedious) and thus leaving it as a mere link for the time being. Regardless, I have expanded all of theme.
•  DoneIs the website oprainfall actually reliable? I see no indication of editorial oversight.
  • Good point- found the official Euro website and used that instead. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneRef. 59, the NES Classic Interview with Tezuka and Miyamoto is not properly formatted.
  • Fixed- Once again, this is a case of me having been a lazy teenager. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneRef 70, "Mario Sales Data" links to a website that I am not certain is reliable. Nintendo has released these figures, so finding an alternate cite should not be difficult.
  • Changed to a Guardian article on 25 series facts- perhaps another, more direct source can be found somewhere along the line, but this is good for the time being. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all I can see on that front at a glance. Indrian (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Looks like I’ve gotten through all of your notes. Some of these are old citations that I never even bothered to notice until you pointed them out, so thanks. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Real quickly, sorry for the lack of context in adding the new section- I meant to explain it in the edit description, but just to quickly clear it up, I put your new ref notes in a new section in order to desperate them from the rest of the review and make it easier to get to them more quickly. Sorry if this messes up the talk page... log...(?) or whatever, but I thought it’d be more practical. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence

@Popcornduff: & @Dissident93:...

I don't feel that your example works. While I understand your reasoning to an extent, calling this a "video game" as opposed to simply a "game" is different from calling something a "novel" as opposed to a "novel book". @Dissident93:, ff something is a "novel", then it can only be a book- there isn't such thing as a "novel video" or a "novel movie"- a novel is a category of books and nothing else. A "game", on the other hand, can be a large variety of things- it can be a board game, or a sports game, or- obviously- a video game. There are several subcategories for simply a "game", and that's why it needs to be clarified as being a "video game". The same applies to @Popcornduff:'s earlier examples- a "cat" can't be a "cat plant" or a "cat fungus"- a cat is and animnal, and nothing else. And similarly a "sandwich" IS a type of food- there's no such thing as a "sandwich drink", is there?? No! As my dude @Indrian: said, a WP article is supposed to be geared towards a general audience- that means that anyone who comes onto this article and reads the beginning paragraph should be able to think "OK, this is a video game- not just any game, not a board game, but a video game." If someone sees the page for, just to take an example, BLT and reads that it's a type of "bacon sandwich", then they understand that it's a sandwich, which is a type of food, and can't be anything else from an automobile to a pornographic novel. And if they don't understand what a sandwich is, then they can go to the article for "sandwich" and find out if they wish to.

I guess the best way I can put my argument is this- let's create a template phrase of simply "xxx yyy"- "xxx" being the first word, or the descriptor word, and "yyy" being the second word, or the subject word. In this present context that we're speaking in, "Video" (or "board" or "sport", for that matter) is the subject word ("xxx") - meaning that it describes "game", which is the subject word ("yyy"), or the thing in question. "Video" is describing the kind of "game" that the subject is- essentially, "xxx" is describing the characteristics of "yyy". Conversely, if you're talking about a novel in the context of a novel, then "novel" is the "yyy" in this case- never mind that it's being categorized as a "book", because a novel can't be anything but a "book". For an example, let's take the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is described as a "dystopian novel"- "dystopian" is the descriptor/"xxx" word, and "novel" is the subject/"yyy" word. This means that "novel" is a "yyy" word and "video" is an "xxx" word- in other words, completely different. If you call something a "novel book" or a "sandwich food" then that's simply redundant on a different because you're technically establishing the thing's occupation twice- you're using 2 "yyy" words in one. "Book" could also be classified as a subject word, but in a slightly different case in which it'd be a single-word phrase- so if you're talking about the broad concept of a "novel", then you'd just call it a "book"- a subject/"yyy" word without a descriptor/"xxx" word, because no such descriptor word is needed for a general umbrella term like "novel". In this case, if you're talking about just a "video game", then it'd be classified as a type of "game" ("yyy"), because that's all what it is.

I suppose this opens up a few fallacies in my argument- for instance, I called "video game" an "xxx yyy" phrase at first and then basically switched over to simply calling it a "yyy" phrase for the following context, and I've completely ceased to make any mention of the role of "platform" in this case. I'm no genius, and I'm not great at writing out long, detailed arguments like this, so I'm positive I left many holes in this one. If I had the time (i.e. the patience) to truly delve deep into this bullcrap I could probably come up with a whole thing having to do with a phrase structure with 2 descriptor words and a subject word ("xxx yyy zzz"...?) for "platform video game", but either way, my point is that I find your driving logic to be considerably narrow-minded. Calling something a "video game" is entirely different from calling something a God damned "novel book", and I think it'd be far more logical to call it a "video game" as it'd make it more understandable for a general audience. If this is a consensus all across Wikipedia that you're both conforming to then I wholeheartedly disagree with it and wish to protest. If you come up with a better example for a counter-argument then I could perhaps give you more credibility.

Sorry for my somewhat incessant rambling. Thanks for reading all of it (assuming that you did, of course- if not, then shame on you, fool!) ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 20:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. A novel is a medium of expression. Mystery is a genre. Platform game is a genre. A video game is a medium of expression. The apples to oranges comparisons certain editors are attempting to make here are not helpful. Look at some FAs. Halo: Combat Evolved is identified as a first-person shooter video game even though no other medium of expression involves the FPS concept. This is because one is a genre and the other is a medium. I have not clicked on every FA video game article, but every one I have identifies the subject as a video game (I would not be surprised if one or two don’t, but it does appear to be the widespread practice). It’s disappointing that such a basic fact needs to be explained this exhaustively. Indrian (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at the Titanic article. It begins: RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner. It doesn't say "passenger liner ship". Perhaps there are people who don't know that passenger liners are a kind of ship, but it's not the role of the the Titanic article to explain this. Besides, "passenger liner" is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMON term, and all passenger liners are ships, so to write "passenger liner ship" would be tautological. The same goes for the Roland TR-808 article, which describes it as a drum machine and not a "drum machine musical instrument", even though some people might not know what a drum machine is; the beagle, which is a breed of small hound and not a "breed of small hound dog"; or the electron, which is a subatomic particle and not a "subatomic particle physical body". These are all FAs, by the way. (edit: actually, I see Titanic has lost its FA status.)

"Platform game" is the WP:COMMON term, widely understood, accurate, concise, and natural. It describes both the genre and the medium. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. Wikipedia's own article identifies "platform game" as a genre; it is not a medium of expression. WP:COMMON is misapplied because "platform game" is not the common term for the medium, video game is. As I said though, virtually every video game FA identifies its subject as a video game even if in a genre exclusive to that medium, so its clearly not just me that has this opinion. Indrian (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that the term "platform game" is a medium. Instead, the term conveys two pieces of information simultaneously: the genre (platform game) and the medium (video game). You cannot write "platform game" without also implying the medium, by definition.

This is widely understood. It is so widely used and understood, in fact, that the platform game article itself is titled "platform game". And this is why WP:COMMON does indeed apply: "platform game" is the common term for a video game of the platform game genre, and I've only ever read "platform video game" on Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrapping Up

@TheDisneyGamer: Well, I feel like we have been on a real journey here full of twists and turns and even a little conflict here and there, but we have just about reached our destination. All my above concerns have been addressed. I am going to read the article carefully one last time, and if everything looks good, I will promote. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to your thoughts (and possibly your further notes). ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer:I made a few more copy edits, and we are down to one final issue, after which I will promote. In the gameplay section, the article states "The final stage of each world takes place in a castle where Bowser or one of his decoys are fought." The article does not state what is meant by a decoy, nor does it explain the mechanics that are used to defeat the Bowser at the end of each world (getting past him to touch the axe and collapse the bridge or using fireballs when powered up with the fire flower). Once the boss info is expanded a little, it will be time to finalyl put this sucker to bed. Indrian (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Indrian:: Done and done. I went in and elaborated on the false Bowsers as well as explaining how he is defeated. It might need a source (probably the manual or an IGN article or something), but as it is, how does this look?? I can always try and rewrite it again if need be... ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Time to promote! Thank you for your effort and your patience. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thank you in return for your civility and your great help in this fairly long and eventful journey- this was a fun trip, and it's satisfying to have finally reached the end, after months upon months of revising and rewriting. To quote Princess Peach from the end of the game, "Thank you Mario! Your quest is over. We present you with a new quest. Push button B to select a world." :) ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)