Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Smash Bros. Brawl/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has currently achieved GA status, and we wish to push it up towards FA standards. To achieve this, I've listed this article for peer review to receive so feedback in ways to improve this article to meet FA standards.

Some things I'm interested in may include:

  • Are the image fair-use procedures used correctly?
  • Grammar, Spelling?
  • Is the format of the article satisfactory?
  • Is the reception section long enough?

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Review by bibliomaniac15

[edit]

I've watched this article since say, August of last year. I've seen the article steadily grow and the talk page explode with sometimes violent activity. I'm not surprised that this has come up, since everybody's been so jumpy to improve it. That said, it's a very fine article, and the format is quite good. However, there are a few things that should be addressed.

  • There are eight fair use images now. While the game is comprehensive, the only thing I think could be better in accordance with fair use is to take a screenshot with both Sonic and Snake in it, eliminating the need for two pictures.
  • If you're going for FA, I think it would be best to wait until the PAL release for article stability. That said, I don't think that it would sink your FA, but I'll just alert you to something that might come up if you nominate early.
  • The reception is a bit short. You might do better in adding in a few more reviewers and giving mention to general sentiment echoed by a large number of reviewers.
  • Perhaps you should mention that Brawl is often abbreviated SSBB?
  • Grammar and spelling is a-okay.
  • The article is overall a tad too focused on gameplay. When possible, try to merge to the SSB gameplay article.
  • The Vault section has a lot of short, choppy paragraphs. Try combining a few into chunkier paragraphs.

Overall a very fine written article. I couldn't find much stuff to pick on, but keep working on that FA. By the way, when the FA does come, if I don't catch it on my watchlist, remind me please. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 04:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will. I've re-worked the Vault section a little, but couldn't find a way to shorten the Gameplay section. The reception section is a bit difficult, and I believe the reason why its constantly being discussed on the talk page but not the source of major expansion is due to its complexity. If I might suggest to anybody reading this: addon Soundtrack reception paragraph, which seems to be almost completely positive according to the reviews I've read. Thanks for the suggestions! --haha169 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zomic13

[edit]

Two quick comments right now (I'll look over the article more in-depth later.

  • A bunch of the links were redirects (I think I fixed them all though)
  • Some of the citations are formatted a little inconsistently or incorrectly.
  • The playable characters image should be replaced with an actual screenshot. The other images are all quality shots, but you can tell that this one was taken by someone with a camera as it is a little crooked and lower quality. It is ok for now, but it should be replaced when possible.

Otherwise looking great. -Zomic13 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're trying to find a better shot soon, and I think I can possibly provide one this weekend, if my Wii-SD Card-Computer transfer goes smoothly. As for the citations, could you possibly tell me which ones they are? I'm a bit hopeless and correcting ref tags, but I know the basics, and most cite templates. --haha169 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - actually, the image is now up to quality like the rest. --haha169 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the citations: Looking at it now I'm not really sure what I saw. I was looking over a few articles at the time, so perhaps I just mixed things up as the citations look fine. One thing I did notice though is that the majority of the Dojo blog posts do not list an author while a few do. I'm not really sure which is correct (although I would say no author since it technically doesn't list who wrote each post), but they should probably all be uniform either way. If I notice anything else about the citations, I'll just fix them myself, since I'm used to dealing with citations. Great work though.-Zomic13 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User: Ashnard

[edit]

Okay, I see you've got FA in sights, so I'll review this as if it were an FAC.

  • "video game composers that originated in previously released video games". Is technically incorrect. They did not originate in video games.
  • Lead needs to mention released dates and a bit of development info, which should probably be in the first paragraph. The lead could do with having three paragraphs.
  • "Most of the game's music is made up of arranged versions of pieces by one of 39 renowned video game composers that originated in previously released video games." This sentence suggests that most of the game's music is composed by one person. Needs rewording.
  • In the lead, needs a sentence explaining the fundamental gameplay.
  • "This installment also includes a deeper single-player mode than its predecessors." Single-player refers to any mode that only has a single player, which applies to several modes besides Subspace Emissary. Also, Subspace Emissary uses multiplayer, if I'm not mistaken.
    • Comment: The Subspace Emissary is considered a single player mode. It has the option of co-op play, but it is still primarily a single player mode and is featured under the "Solo" menu option. -Zomic13 (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, attributing the whole single-player experience as the Subspace Emissary is technically incorrect. If co-op is available, then it is not exclusively single-player, is it. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment We generally use the game as a template for Smash articles. For example, we included Zero-Suit Samus as a separate character in the list because she was listed separately on DOJO. Since DOJO puts SSE as a single-player mode, we've put it there as single player mode. --Haha169 18:39 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "this mode is a plot-driven, side-scrolling beat 'em up game". Which is it, a mode or a game?
  • "trying to knock their opponents off the screen". "off the stage" would be more appropriate.
    • Comment: I think "off the screen" is more appropriate. Characters don't die unless they go off screen and many stages extend forever so there technically is no way to knock them "off the stage". -Zomic13 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well replace with "out of bounds" or something similar because it doesn't sound right. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed--haha169 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "each attempting to knock their opponents off an invisible boundary line" sounds really awkward now. It was much better before. Everyone would understand "off the screen", but what is this invisible boundary line people have to get knocked off of? I've played Smash Bros. for years and if I didn't know the context of the change, I would have no idea what "knocking opponents off an invisible boundary line" meant. It should be changed back to what it was. -Zomic13

(talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            • Shrugs I did my best. You can change it back if you want (just don't revert, because I squashed a lot of useful work in one edit). I also agree "off the screen" is best. --haha169 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, I didn't mean to totally rip apart your change - just trying to make a point. You're doing great work for the article. Anyways, I'm going to change it back to "off the screen". -05:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Oh, thanks! You're doing great work as well. And no, its fine. I didn't really know what to put there, so I came up with a bad replacement. I didn't really like it either, but whatever.--haha169 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut out some redundant "alsos".
  • "The characters can fight each other with a variety of attacks." Redundant. Name me a fighting game in which this isn't applicable.
  • Be careful with the second paragraph of gameplay—you may be going into unnecessary detial here.
  • "and are usually invincible". So when aren't they invinvible? "that generally assist the summoner". So when don't they assisst the summoner?
    • Comment - Mr. Ressetti and Nintendogs. Wobbuffet and Stafy. However, adding that information is going in too much detail, in my perspective. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. --haha169 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the lead, there's no need to write the game's name in full, just write Brawl.
  • "semi-randomly generated matches". What? Explain please.
  • Gameplay is too long and is packed with extraneous detail. Alot of it needs to be cut out.
  • Number inconsistency: you use "10", and then proceed to use "five". Please read WP:MoS.
  • If captions are not full sentences, don't end them with a full stop.
  • As with all other sections in gameplay, TSE is bloated with unnecessary detail. The last paragraph should probably go in "Development".
  • Why is "Plot" a subsection within gameplay and unleash a Subspace Bomb?
  • "Suddenly, the Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army attack". "Suddenly"? "unleash"? Inappropriate style of writing here.
    • Corrected
  • Having a section dedicated to the stages is very questionable.
    • Keep Stages are quite an important aspect of Brawl. Each is unique with their own features, while a Stage Builder function allows for customizable stages. I've just read that section, and it only contains notable information. I think we should keep it. --haha169 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Melee doesn't have one because it's not necessary, and I don't see why it should be different here. Best to raise as the talk page, I suppose. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but thats because Melee doesn't have a "Stage Builder", 3rd party stages, destructible terrain, or live events happening depending on the Wii's internal clock. --haha169 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to argue this here. This should at least be raised at the talk page.
  • Expand Reception; try to add stuff about the music and stuff like that. I don't why all the gameplay features seem to have been listed, but the article's sparing when it comes to Reception.
  • Think about merging "Playable characters" with "Inclusion of characters".

A decent article with the foundations to become FA one day, but I'd recommend waiting until the European release. It won't go too far if the extraneous detial in "Gameplay" doesn't get cut down, though. Needs a major copyedit, and someone to look over the prose. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow some of the advice here and do it. I probably won't have much time to respond exactly which mistakes I've corrected though. I've got my sights on the easy/obvious ones first. I'll move some of the more "difficult" ones to the talk page for discussion. --haha169 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see gameplay as that long. One paragraph on fighting style (how to lose a life), one paragraph on control methods and Final Smash, and one extremely short paragraph on items. --haha169 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I'm also referring to all things like stages, online, vault etc. That's your opinion, but I think you need to look at other FAs to have an idea of how much weight to give to these things. I respect that Brawl has expansive gameplay features, but that doesn't warrant the massive amount of space devoted to it. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. All that other stuff. I thought you meant the 3 gameplay paragraphs. Those are perfect, in my opinion. Some of the rest does need shortening. --haha169 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Make sure images have specific fair use rationales, explaining what is being demonstrated with the image and why it is important that it be demonstrated.
  • Copyedit the article to make sure it flows, it seems choppy with lots of two sentence paragraphs.
  • Reference the plot section.
  • Reference this "This system is similar to the Checklist feature of the Nintendo GameCube game Kirby Air Ride."
  • 8 Fair use images is a lot, ones like the menu image are very not necessary, and I am very not clear as to why the last two images are needed, they seem decorative.
  • Reference the first paragraph of the playable character section
  • Reference the first section of the stages section
  • acclaim for the music of Brawl is very large, so there needs to be more content in the music section on how they made it and some reference should be made to peoples opinions of the music in the reception section.

Do that, and you should be ready for FA status! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the citations your asking for aren't necessary, since the game itself is a reference. And we're still on with the images, so that takes patience. I've been trying to get attention towards the music section...but people just won't listen...jeez. Thanks for taking my side. And...all of the images have proper fair use rationales, so I don't see why thats important. Thanks, haha169 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl/archive2&oldid=1085562334"