Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 [1].

Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

[edit]
Nominator(s): czar 06:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the most complete resource on the web for the Japanese sequel to Nintendo's 1985 smash hit Super Mario Bros. Critics say the title is best known for its extreme difficulty, but I'd wager it's better known for being confused with Super Mario Bros. 2, a completely different game. The Lost Levels was so difficult as to convince Nintendo of America against releasing the title in North America (that's how the "lost levels" were lost, until its re-introduction to English-speaking regions in 1993). But despite The Lost Levels' cultural confinement, the game performed a fair amount of forecasting for the series: its sadistic poison mushroom power-ups and differentiated abilities for Luigi persisted into other series games, but perhaps more salient is how the game served as a precursor to the contemporary fan community that creates challenging (read: impossible) Mario levels for each other, as well as the speedrunning community that attempted not just to finish these sadistic challenges, but with prowess.

The original Mario pulled the video game industry from the crash several years prior, and there was little games journalism infrastructure in place in 1986, nevertheless in English on a Japan-only title. As a result, most extant coverage of this game is retrospective, though I have delved into print media (especially books) to explore a history that isn't profitable for blogs. The writing is polished, direct, and I believe the prose approaches the "brilliance" we once required of FACs. In any event, it is ready for review, as the article is complete and revised. czar 06:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar:Something appears to be broken here, as this nomination is not showing up on the main FAC page. I only chanced across it because it was listed as a FAC at the video game project. Indrian (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian, my fault—forgot to transclude czar 00:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IDV

[edit]
Resolved

Looks good! I only found a few parts I'm unsure about:

  • The construction the bottom of the Mario series and Nintendo's top games is a bit hard to parse - am I correct in reading it as "it is among the worst Mario titles, and also the worst among the best Nintendo games"? What does that mean?
  • joined Miyamoto to develop a sequel to the game: obviously "the game" is meant to refer to Super Mario Bros., but the last mentioned game is The Legend of Zelda - might want to tweak the wording here.
  • Nintendo "cleaned up" parts of the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 is vague, do we know what exactly they did?

--IDVtalk 08:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IDV, thanks! re: bottom, I thought that "worst" would be too much of a value judgment, even though that is the implication. (It's awkward to say it was at the bottom of a list of Nintendo's best games.) The point was that they were included in the lower rungs of these ranked lists, which I read as an important indication of its legacy: important enough to include on the list but not important enough to be one of the list's best. Open to suggestions, if you have a better way of expressing it. Tweaked #2, and re: #3, this was explained at the end of the paragraph (All-Stars additions), so I've rearranged the order for better reading. czar 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition of "of" in "and of Nintendo's top games" is an improvement, but I still find it hard to parse. Would possibly be easier if "Nintendo's top games" came first, so that we get "the bottom of Nintendo's top games and of the Mario series" - "bottom of the Mario series" is a much more straight-forward concept than "bottom of Nintendo's top games", so the readability of it isn't really hurt by being pushed into the end of the sentence.--IDVtalk 20:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV, I think the sentence was trying to do too much. I removed the "Nintendo's top" clause so it only refers to the series, which I think does a better job. czar 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The sentence also appears in the reception/legacy section, though, where it has the same problems.--IDVtalk 22:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV, I had already rephrased it there too czar 22:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this! I now support this FAC on prose.--IDVtalk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved
  • This is a really minor note, but the "like" connector in the phrase "like extra challenge levels tacked on its end" sounds a little strange to me. I understand what you mean in the full context, but I would imagine that a better connector word or phrase could be used in this instance. Maybe something like "citing additional challenge levels tacked on its end".
  • The phrase "famous difficulty" sounds a little odd to me, and reads a little too closely to the phrase used in the cited source (i.e. "famously difficult"). I would recommend adding another descriptor to this part to avoid this, or you could just directly quote the "famously difficult" part.
  • In the phrase "those who would appreciate painful challenge", should "appreciate painful challenge" read as "appreciate a painful challenge"?
  • ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • I would connect the final two lines of the first paragraph in the "Gameplay" section, as it can read a little choppy. I would say something like " Luigi, designed for skilled players, has less ground friction and higher jump height, while Mario is faster." The short three word sentence is a little jarring from the rest of the paragraph in my opinion.

Wonderful work with this article! It was a very interesting read. My comments are relatively minor and nitpicky, and once they are addressed, then I would be more than happy to support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Aoba47! I think I've addressed your points, if you'll take a look. Re: painful, it's not a singular challenge, hence the lack of article. Would you have time to do an image review? czar 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to my comments. I support this nomination. Great job with this. I will do the image review later today if that is okay with you. If possible, could you provide some comments to my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]
  • Extremely minor, but there is a sentence in the reception section which begins with "indeed". I feel this is sort of un-encyclopedic. Other than that, this page looks great! Good work on this. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think "indeed" helps underscore the point, and its use is grammatically correct. czar 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Wonderful work with this article. This passes all of the requirements for the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

[edit]
Resolved

Within four months, it had sold tens of millions of Nintendo Entertainment System ... video game consoles and signaled the end of the 1983 video game crash.[10]

@AJona1992, given the text/sourcing, I think it describes the nature of its "success" quite succinctly. Open to improvements, though czar 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say the concern with the phrase "smash hit" is not necessarily on its accuracy (as the quote that you included clearly indicates that this is correct). However, it does sound somewhat informal for a Wikipedia article, and can lean a little bit on POV issues. It may be better to say something along the lines of commercially successful. I apologize for intruding on this discussion. Just wanted to add my two cents to the question/comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008

[edit]
Resolved

Comments – Ah, here's a video game I'm actually in the process of playing on my old Game Boy Advance (on the Game Boy Color version, which works on the Advance). I'm really good at it, too—it only took me about five restarts to get through the fourth castle. :-) Here's the couple of issues I found:

  • Rereleases: Feels like "and" should be inserted before "features such as the wind and the five bonus worlds are omitted."
  • "Challenge modes are added." Do me a favor and double-check this to the source, as I haven't gotten far enough into the game yet to know if a challenge mode exists, and haven't encountered any evidence that it does, at least for The Lost Levels. The challenge mode may be referring to a feature related to the original Super Mario Bros. game, which I am also playing on that cartridge. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Giants2008, thanks! The ref that immediately follows that statement is openly accessible and verifies the claim: "Also new are Challenge Mode and You Vs. Boo. ..." czar 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "Challenge Mode" is for the original Super Mario Bros., not The Lost Levels. Unless something unlocks once The Lost Levels are beaten, I don't think that has anything to do with The Lost Levels. You Vs. Boo is a race mode with what I would call original courses based on Super Mario Bros. backgrounds. There's more details on these modes here, but based on my knowledge of the game I don't believe the challenge modes relate to this game. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008, that's fine--I removed it czar 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Since that was my only remaining concern with the article, and it appears that AJona's issue was also resolved, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber

[edit]
  • References formatted consistently, and webrefs archived.
  • Earwig's copyvio clear.
  • FN 15 - used twice, material faithful to source.
  • FN 16 - used three times, material faithful to source.
  • FN 25 - used twice, material faithful to source.

Spot check ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: , is this one good to go? Wanted to make sure bases are covered before Wikicup deadline (in a few days) czar 07:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: A couple of issues for me. First, not all of the refs are in numerical order. Was this a conscious choice, as most articles use ascending numerical order for their refs. Also, I have a little issue with "Journalists have ranked The Lost Levels among the least important in the Mario series[38][39] and of Nintendo's top games" as this is referenced to a "125 top games" article. There is no indication in that article that the reviewer intends to make a negative "worst in series" comment, or is in fact making any such judgement on its importance (the article specifically says that it is explaining why each article is important). At a stretch, if all the other Mario games were in that article and listed above this one, I could just about accept the Mario comment except that there are 3 more "Mario" games below it in the list. And given that Nintendo has surely released substantially more than 125 games, I really cannot accept "least important of Nintendo's top games". Such an apparent misrepresentation of the source does worry me slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sarastro1, thanks. Yes, the refs are ordered by pertinence, not numerically. The "top games" sentence was discussed with IDV's comments above. I specifically avoided making a "worst in series" claim (what would "worst" mean?) but the articles did call the game among the "bottom tier" (#26 of 35) of the series and the other source implied the same (#16 of 18). Based on that, it wouldn't be appropriate to describe its legacy as illustrious or even lukewarm, and short of more descriptive language, the rankings do clearly show that the game was among the least important in the series. The argument is similar for the listing at #117 of 125—the least important of Nintendo's top games, though that's a mouthful. I think it would be more deceptive to omit that it was at the bottom of the list by saying only that it was just included in a list of top games without describing where it stood in that list. (And for what it's worth, I think that writing "ranked 117 of 125" instead of the qualitative description would make for shoddy prose. The sentence is also not written declaratively, with its rank/position as incontrovertible fact, but neutrally offers that journalists have ranked it in this position, which the sources support and which other sources can certainly refute, were they to exist.) Happy to discuss further, but know that it has indeed been discussed here, in the edit history, and on the article's talk page. czar 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion now (this is why it's not always helpful to collapse comments, but never mind). I'm still not entirely convinced that the reference really justifies saying it is one of the least important of Nintendo's top games, but I doubt it's worth holding the review up over this. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Super_Mario_Bros.:_The_Lost_Levels/archive1&oldid=1138472345"