Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yoshi's New Island/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2024 [1].

Yoshi's New Island

Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's New Island is a 2014 platform video game developed by Arzest and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS, essentially serving as a direct sequel to the events of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. This is my third FA nomination and my first one for a game not in the Mario Party series. To my knowledge, this would be the first article for a Yoshi game to reach FA status.

I would say the "Development and release" section is the best one I've worked on yet, due largely in part to sources suggested by Captain Galaxy. This article was previously promoted to GA status following a much-appreciated review from Cukie Gherkin. Most of my edits since then have actually been removing redundant or less helpful citations from the gameplay section to make it easier to read. I was recently able to archive a source that had not been archived prior to the Wayback Machine shutdown. As always, feedback is welcomed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat with this being featured only with a bit of work. Overall, this should be featured Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelifeofan413: Do you have any specific suggestions for what work could be done, or do you generally agree with the feedback provided below? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that there could be a legacy section as I have seen that in other similar featured articles. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A legacy section might be better suited if the game were more high-profile, or if there was important information that otherwise wouldn't fit into the reception section, like how the legacy section for Mario Party DS discusses the anti-piracy hoax. How would you feel about a paragraph at the end of the "Critical response" section that evaluates the game's general standing in critic rankings of Yoshi games? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it may be how it was affected by the following of the series. It could also be used to how it affected the story of the Yoshi franchise. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelifeofan413: Could you take a look at the last paragraph in the "Critical response" section to see if it's something like what you had in mind? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat but I could maybe work on it to show you what I mean. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cukie Gherkin

Reserving in case I have the time to review. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm more like, in tune with games and stuff, I'll try to offer comments on how to make the article more legible to non-gamers. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the review template should only have 10 review examples. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will at least do this much. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll try to get the sourcing done, but I cannot promise I can do a full review of the article in terms of its quality due to sudden life complications. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Creating a collapsible list of sources that I have examined and, either already or through the action of the nominator, are formatted correctly and are accurately cited.

List

[2] - Working on this. Not related to this source specifically, but "Each boss is defeated in three hits." feels like it can be adequately supported by this source.
[3] - "The fourth level of each world is a castle course that ends with a battle against the evil wizard Kamek," - This seems like it should be adequately cited without using this.
"Losing a life with the Flutter Wings unlocks a golden variant of the power-up, which provides both flight and invincibility." This uses three citations, but I'm not sure what the other two cover that the Nintendo World Report citation does not.
That the minigames cannot be played online is not cited in the two sources attached; I think this part can be removed. I believe that this source can be removed from this line of text as well, as it doesn't seem to verify anything that the other source doesn't.
"allowing several people with the system to play together using only one game cartridge." - I think it would be appropriate to replace this source with a source explaining what Download Play on 3DS is and how it works.
"Yoshi's New Island was developed by Arzest," this has three sources attached, but this seems like a statement that could be supported with only one.
[4] - Given that this is only used in the infobox and not later in the article, I would remove this citation and use the citation mentioned later.

Cut citations where needed and added a GameSpot reference mentioning that Download Play works by transferring data directly between consoles. I'm not sure which citation mentioned later you were referring to, though I feel that it should be sufficiently supported as is. I haven't seen anything in MOS/VG or Template:Video game reviews about a limit on reviews in the table, though I've narrowed it down to 10 publications. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this source is used as a source, even though there's a source verifying it (the Nintendo World Report source). I also noticed that on multiple release dates you double up on the sourcing; is that to further solidify the correctness of the release date?
[5] - Mostly fine, except I noticed that the article claims the wheel is the goal of most levels, but the Siliconera article says each level. I'm assuming that the most levels qualifier is to acknowledge castle levels?

Somehow didn't even notice that the Japanese release date is already supported by Nintendo World Report. I've removed the primary reference. And you're entirely correct with castle levels being the only levels without the ring for the goal, which the article unfortunately fails to mention. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Yoshinewislandboxart3ds.jpg - Sufficiently low res, description is accurate. Should state that it is not the whole image, as it is a cropped image. Image does not match the image used in this source, should change source to this: [6]

File:Yoshi's New Island - Mega Eggdozer gameplay.jpg - Sufficiently low res, source is accurately stated showing the context of its use. I would recommend using a stronger rationale, including exactly why the screenshot is necessary for the reader to understand. Ie, you could mention UI elements being depicted, the graphics, the gameplay, etc.

I've clarified that certain elements of the first image were cropped out and corrected its source. I've also strengthened the rationale for the second image, mainly by noting UI elements that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

This looks like it's been citation bombed to within an inch of its life, making it difficult to read. Can I strongly recommend you consider both rationalising and bundling them so there are no more than two or three at any point. (For example: Does "All of Yoshi's transformations are controlled with the console's gyroscope" need five citations to support the information? Without checking the sources, I would guess that one of those five would probably suffice.)
I'm opposing based on reading just the Gameplay section. This needs a re-write so it makes sense to people who have never played the game, or even heard of it. Even after reading it, I still have no idea what a "yoshi" is, nor what or who a "Baby Mario" is. Ditto for a "Kamek". Some of the terminology is equally incomprehensible: "30 Yoshi Medals are collected from a goul roulette" is gibberish without any context and I have no idea what "a mid-boss" is supposed to be. Even having read that section, I still don't understand what the point of the game is: does it have an end that people can reach and "win" the game? There doesn't seem to be any description of the overall game (which is what the section should open with): it's straight into detail without context. This seems to be a common problem with video game articles, where it's written from the point of view of gamers and insiders, which excludes a large percentage of readers, who are left confused. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking generally, but would terminology such as "mid-boss" be more comprehensible if mid-boss linked to this? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS says - MOS:NOFORCELINK - "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." So, if it is necessary to understand something to understand what is more generally being communicated then that something needs explaining in line. After all, we're an encyclopedia, explaining things to people who don't understand them is what we do. Sending a reader off to a link to read another article to come back to yours, possibly in mid-sentence, doesn't really cut it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will keep that in mind for any game articles I bring to FAC then. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'll simply rephrase some parts of the section to make it easier for readers with a lack of knowledge of video game terminology to understand. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Would you mind taking another look at the gameplay section? I've kept most of the information the same, but restructured it in a way that should make the actual goal of the game clearer and the terminology less confusing to all readers. I've also cut a good number of citations from both that section and the plot section. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment my oppose still stands. Partly it's still the same issue of requiring too much pre-existing knowledge to understand this, partly quality of prose and partly, still, the excessive citations. One example of the citations is in the first para of the body. I looked at the phrase "enhanced and enlarged by Kamek's magic". This six-word phrase apparently requires four citations ([13][14][15][16]), but only one of which (no 15) supports the information. One of the citations doesn't even mention Kamek and the others don't support it at all. Why are the other three citations there at all? I'm going to repeat WP:CITEBUNDLE to you, as the sheer number of citations makes this an uncomfortable read. Combines with the unwelcoming aspects of the prose, I gave up reading before I got to the end of the Gameplay section.
Skimming down the article, I see the review section is full of OR/SYNTH. By that I mean that if you look at—just by way of example—the phrase "The game's soundtrack was widely panned by critics", I see four citations: [7][9][17][25]. Ignoring the unencyclopaedic term "panned", none of these citations actually support that the music was widely panned. They are four examples of reviewers criticising the music, which is not enough to support the text. In order to say "The game's soundtrack was widely panned by critics", you need something that says that, not your OR in picking four reviews that and you coming to the conclusion that it was "widely panned". The whole section is rife with this and with the format of "[Reviewer] of [Publication] said..."; it is, unfortunately, a million miles away from FA standard.
Sorry this all sounds very harsh and negative, but I really do think you should consider withdrawing this nom and working on the issues before going to a peer review. When you do, I strongly suggest you ask some non-gaming people to review it to see if it is entirely clear to them what the game is all about. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat For what it's worth I neither write nor read video game articles, and have no comment on your other criticisms, but as to to criticism about OR, isn't that just how reception sections are written? Looking through the list of video game featured content, literally every article I picked is written like this. Looking at a lot of other media type articles (books, movies, TV shows) this is common there as well, but slightly less so. I've never understood this myself, but either we should delist every single video game FA or this is not that out of line. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how it’s phrased. It’s fine to introduce a paragraph with a sentence that gives an overview (depends on the phrasing), but not to make a definitive sweeping statement based upon four reviews. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would seven reviews suffice? The three citations at the end of the sentence are intended to contribute to this statement. Or would it just be better to begin the sentence with something along the lines of "Many reviewers criticized the game's soundtrack"? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you got rid of widely, it would help address the issue - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reflect the source material without inferring across all reviews, "multiple reviewers mentioned X" is a fine topic sentence. Even better would be to characterize how exactly they were criticizing its soundtrack, citing the sources and/or providing quotes in the citation as evidence, then followed by individual examples of the criticism. czar 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I was tempted to close this soon after I saw SC's withdrawal suggestion but decided to let it go and see what developed. I can't see any real progress towards consensus to promote so will be archiving it shortly. PR could be worthwhile before another try at FAC, after the usual 2-week hiatus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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