Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Mario Bros. 3/archive1

Super Mario Bros. 3

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article recently passed GA and I would like to shoot for FA. I've found my greatest weakness at FACs is writing "brilliant prose", and would appreciate comments related to that. But any other comments about the images, organization, accessibility, etc. are welcome and would also be appreciated.

Thanks, (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Nice article. I'm not going to get you to brilliant prose, but I'll try to help.

• I did a copyedit fixing a few spelling and grammar errors.
• I also broke up the first gameplay paragraph. I thought it jumped into the game's plot suddenly and stared to sound in-game. It may still need tweaking if others or you may disagree with the split.
• The suits also provide extra abilities intended to give the player more navigation options in stages; I changed this to Some abilities provided by the suits are intended to give the player more navigation options in stages. Abilities were already described, so also provide extra... seemed out of place to me. I tried to retain the meaning. I also feel the last line of that paragraph A new feature is the player's option to save power-up items they've obtained in minigames for later use in the game via a menu accessible at the overworld screen. seems tacked on even though it's probably the best paragraph for it.
• MMC chips are smaller, cheaper and held more memory than previous Nintendo chips used in cartridges. I don't know how it make this brilliant and grammatically correct. The simple solution is to insert are before cheaper because the implied are held more doesn't make sense. Alternatively, the held could be dropped if held more memory were changed to something like more capacious.
• Whistles and hidden items are first mentioned in the reception. There should probably be some note of them in the gameplay.
• Parts of the article mention that this game introduced lasting features to the series, but the legacy section barely touches upon them. Consider giving a paragraph to expand upon game elements and a second paragraph for the rereleases and TV series.

Good luck getting FA. Let me know if I'm unclear in my comments or my edit and I'll try to explain. —Ost (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments.

• I'm on the fence about the split. I felt it was a bit much for a single paragraph, but worried the individual sections were too small to be separate paragraphs. I'll see if I can beef them up with some extra details.
• I've reworded the development sentence you mentioned. Let me know if it's an improvement.
• In regard to the tacked on sentence, how about if it was moved to the end of the previous paragraph where it first mentions the minigame items?
• I'm normally hesitant to include such details (like a similar overworld map being used in Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros.) unless I have a source because I feel it can border on original research. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. Also, I look through the game's strategy guide to find a source for the whistle and other hidden secrets.

Thanks again, and let me know if you have any other suggestions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I added some more content an sources. Don't know if the prose flows well though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for considering my suggestions. I like the changes that you've made. The reworked sentence flows better and I think moving the item sentence works. I like the expanded Legacy section and its paragraphs, and I understand your concern with original research. I have additional thoughts on the gameplay section that you may want to consider when reworking the article:

• I still have some trouble with the beginning of gameplay section where I split the paragrpahs. I think you're right to combine down to two paragraphs due to size. I liked it better when it started out with the 2D-platform game sentence but I also like what you're doing by isolating plot to the top of the section. Is there a way to write the plot so that the player's presence is still felt as in the rest of the gamgeplay section? I think it may have a better presence if it says something along the lines of The player controls the protagonists Mario or Luigi as they embark on a mission from the Princess to stop Bowser and his children from terrorizing 7 kings of 7 kingdoms of the Mushroom World. If the plot were phrased more along this line, I think it would feel better within the gameplay section and probably flow better into the part about the 8 worlds. The part about the Koopalings and the kings turning into animals can rewritten similarly and kept where it is or moved to within the explanation of the 8 worlds.
• Additionally, the two-player section at the end of the gameplay section seems orphaned. It might do better in the beginning of the gameplay section (where I split). This can potentially increase portion not relating to the plot and worlds two make the paragraphs more balanced.

—Ost (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried copy editing that section per your new comments.

• I rearranged things and incorporated the sentence you added above.
• I also left out the info about the wands and animals because they seem like trivial details compared to the overall plot. I think the tighter plot description really strengthens the paragraph and improves its flow.
• I'm not sure what to do about the two-player section. It doesn't really fit in anywhere else because it mentions some things that are described in the middle of the section; it's hard to properly explain it without explaining the overworld map and minigames first.

Anything else, please let me know as the article's prose has really improved. I'm feeling much better about taking it to FAC now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Well done. I like the more concise plot and I see what you're saying about two player mode needing explanation from above, so it makes sense where it is. Good luck at FAC. I hope it goes well. —Ost (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead could do with a bit more about the gameplay as it's legacy
• Even though the game doesn't have much of a plot, it could do with a small section about it.
• "Gameplay" section needs something about the lives system.
• For such a well known game that is almost 20 years old, I think the "Reception" and "Legacy" sections could be expanded.
• The "Legacy" section at the moment seems to be more about continuity and what Nintendo have done since the game was released. "Legacy" to me is more about how it is viewed as a great game, references to it in popular cuture (if there are any), or how other game were modeled on it.
• If you need anymore refs to exspand the "Reception" and "Legacy" sections, you may find the following three videos useful as they all give the game very high praise: [1] [2] [3]. Mario 3 in only mentioned at the very end of #2 and 3.

BUC (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments

• I tried keeping details in the lead to a minimum. Mainly because I'm worried that mentioning specific gameplay elements that've carried over may confuse a layman.
• An earlier revision had a bit more details on the plot, but it still wasn't enough for its own section. It also disrupted the flow of the surrounding prose. After trimming it down, I found it really improved that first paragraph. I'm still open to suggestions if you have anything specific.

Maybe a sub section to the gameplay section?

• What about the lives system? I don't remember it being anything different from previous games; I mainly tried to focus on the new and different features the game introduced to prevent redundancy with other Mario articles.

I don't think it was any diffrent but it still should be mentioned.

• Unfortunately, given the age of the game, finding appropriate reviews is problematic. I try to balance what I can find among reviews from its time of release and retrospective reviews. I'll look through the links you provided to see what else I can add.
• I see legacy as a mix of the two things you mentioned; continuity and remakes, as well as pop culture references and inspirations for other games. Though I normally consider how people view it as reception, and try to keep the two sections separate if I can. Unfortunately, that's the bulk I could find. Most everything else was trivial and found on sources deemed unreliable.

How people view it years later is legacy.

I'll see what more I can add from the GT links. Thanks again, and let me know if you have any other comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Update- I added some content from one of the GT links you gave. I already used the third one, and, unfortunately, the Angry Video Game Nerd is not considered a reliable source by the VG project. I aslo added a bit more in the legacy section about Tetris DS. Hope it's an improvement.(Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Who said AVGN is not a reliable source? and what was the reason? BUC (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the most recent discussion was this one. The main argument against his content are the lack of editorial oversight and intended humorous tone as entertainment. Similar discussions have taken place on other humorous reviewers like Yahtzee and Sean Baby. I believe Sean Baby is the only one deemed suitable for regular use because the number of publications he wrote for had editorial oversight on his articles. If you disagree, you're welcome to bring it up at WT:VG.

Regardless, I'd rather not take the chance with a source from AVGN at WP:FAC. I'm not too familiar with his work, and wouldn't know what information to provide a legitimate rationale for reliability. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Comments by Noj_R

Most of my comments are nitpicks and suggestions, since the article has no outstanding issues I can see.

Lead

• "terrorizing the kings of seven kingdoms" - king king. This statement isn't wrong, but maybe "kings of seven regions" is better. Also occurs in gameplay. Its probably fine the way it is.
• "The success of the game resulted in an animated television show based on its characters and elements, and in the game's rerelease on later Nintendo consoles." - I had to re-read this sentence several times to understand what the last part meant. Maybe its just me. But I think the sentence should be rearranged or split.

Gameplay

• "which is further divided" - Technically it cant be "divided" without having already been divided.
• "more navigation options in stages" -> "transform Mario into an invincible statue." - How does the tanooki suit help mario navigate the level. Also, tanooki should be wikilinked.

Development

• "Other costumes with different abilities were added, and levels were designed to take advantage of these abilities." - This sentence is very ambiguous.
• "was derived from different areas" - eh. How about "were derived from real-life experiences" or something similar.
• "The character graphics were created by using a Character Generator Computer Aided Design" - This whole paragraph is a bit confusing. And this is coming from a guy with programming experience. Try clarifying it.
• "Nintendo licensed its products to be included" -> "Nintendo chose to include Super Mario Bros. 3" - seems a bit redundant.

Reception

• POV issues? - Nobody had anything negative to say about the game? There's got to be some schmuck who didn't like it.

Conclusion

This is a really good article. Everything seems pretty tight. No outstanding issues I can see. Great work -- Noj r (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I tried massaging the prose per your suggestions, which were very helpful.

To answer your questions above

• The Tanooki suit can turn Mario into an invincible, immovable statue. While it's kind of counter intuitive to call that navigation. But the lack of movement is a type of movement as well. To further explain, many of the enemies are able to move, but don't really track Mario. What this amounts to is that the statue ability can be used to allow enemies to safely pass you by. A bullet bill for example, will pass right through Mario without doing damage. Once it passes, he can continue. There were a couple stages also that used moving platforms to travel through them. Turning into a statue will allow you to sit there instead of dodging enemies on a moving platform with no ground underneath you. It basically made navigating some stages less dangerous.
• Unfortunately, the source about the level designs was just as ambiguous.
• Can you tell me which specific areas need clarifying? I admit it's not the best paragraph and I had a hard time writing it.
• As far as NPOV in the reception, the most I found was one reviewer calling the graphics outdated. Everything else I found was nothing but praise. Considering it's the best-selling, stand alone game ever, I'm not entirely surprised. I'll go over the sources again to see if I missed anything.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Your welcome, I'm glad they were useful. Some responses to above:

• In regards to the tanooki suit, counter intuitive is exactly what I was thinking when I read that sentence, obviously because he turns into stone. Then I later remembered Tanooki Mario can also fly, heh, and that was kind of embarrassing.
• I looked at the ref for the Character Generator. It is pretty confusing in its own right. Are "character banks" supposed to be memory locations? Maybe each character had a "bank" containing sprites. The computer retrieves sprites corresponding with its character's action state (e.g. Mario is jumping; jumping = 1; computer retrieves sprite at location 1 in "Mario bank"; draw sprite 1). I don't know, basically those two statements regarding the character generator don't make much sense. Not your fault really, since it is Nintendo Power who wrote it. Regardless they need clarifying. Also, "compile" should be wikilinked; people with no programming experience wont understand what it means.
• IGN and Gamespot's VC reviews believe the graphics were outdated, and Allgame posted a review, here, where they questioned the absence of a save system. But I think if you are going to mention VC reviews, it should be noted so. After all, these are reviews being written decades after the game's release.

Hope that helps some more. Cheers, -- Noj r (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's really shaping up now.

• I'm not sure what to do about that paragraph. I interpreted the character bank as a collection of variable declarations in the code, but I can't really say for certain one way or another. The other source used in that paragraph mentioned bank switching when talking about the game paks. Maybe they're related?
• The "compile" I wrote there was meant to be the general dictionary term (to put together). Though now I see how it could cause confusion. Any suggestions for a different word?
• I added the Allgame review, but not the VC reviews. I tried avoiding them because I didn't want to talk about the rereleases without introducing them first. I'd like to add them though. The only solution I see is to move the legacy section above reception, which doesn't seem like the best place for them. Any thoughts?

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• We cant guess what those statements mean, because that would be OR. And I dont think they should be left in their current state, considering they make little sense. I have an idea that might solve all your mentioned problems; Consider this:

1. Remove the two statements pertaining to the character generator.
2. To compensate for the missing content, move the paragraph from legacy speaking about the SMB3 ports to development.
3. This will leave legacy a short, so move the paragraph in reception pertaining to SMB3 appearing on greatest games lists to legacy.

• Since the VC release is mentioned in development, you can now include VC reviews in your reception section without it sounding awkward. -- Noj r (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me go through the graphics source again and try to rewrite that section to see if it can be improved. Quick question, do you think the "character banks" are those collections of block sprites arranged in grids?

Your suggestion to rearrange things makes sense. Just throwing out another idea, if the character graphics content is kept, then how about something like Marble Madness#Reception and legacy? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok, the character generator statements are looking better I think. Having Reception and legacy together is entirely up to you. Personally, I believe having separate sections is better: reception is people's responses of the game at the time of its release where they judge gameplay and such, while legacy is people's responses after the release of the game and they talk about its impact on the industry, its influence in other games or genres, and sequels. I wrote System Shock 2 with the aforementioned sections, but you can do it however you like. -- Noj r (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also prefer to keep them separate, but find it works to combine the two when including reception about remakes. I'll kept it as is. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Thank you all very much. This has been one of the most productive peer reviews I've ever seen, let alone had. The article's quality has really tightened up and I think it will stand a good chance at FAC. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC))