Wikipedia:Peer review/Paper Mario/archive2

Paper Mario

The former peer review took place here and was unsuccessful. I plan on promoting this article to a featured article, so please inform me of anything that could be added, removed, improved upon, etc. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the article needs a good copyedit and more wikilinks. Once that's taken care of, my main concern is that after story and gameplay, the article's basically a big list. The story needs work too, it's a very detailed description of the opening, then ends with "Oh yeah, then Mario finds eight partners and gets the stars". --Pagrashtak 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you could add more images (maybe an image of every major character). About the story line, if you have the player's guide, that would probably be a big help. Bcem2 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do own a copy of the player's guide, actually. Kind of amusing, isn't that? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eternal, although the article is well written, I find that a common criticism I have about this and other video game related articles is that they read more like a strategy guide introduction (list of characters, summary of story, etc.) and less like an encylopedia entry. As a form of entertainment, I feel that video games should be held to the same standards of an article for a musical artist, song, movie, etc. That means there should be outside research into:

Critical reviews -- As a "sequel" to the beloved Mario RPG, I know there was initial hestitation in the change to 2D paper cutouts as the characters.
Sales -- Did it sell well? What was its competition? Sales figures or rankings should be available.
Influences -- Why did the designer make this game? And why change to paper figures when the format in Mario RPG was so popular? Was it influenced by anything previous, as its graphic style seems pretty unique? Perhaps some quotes from Nintendo or the designers should be included to show their thoughts on the game.
Awards -- Did the game win any awards?

Again, it is well written, but as it stands now, it is more of a game overview and less about the game history, i.e. sales, creation, etc.

I hope you found this helpful. I don't want to sound critical -- I love my video games as much as the next geek, and would enjoy seeing more video games on the front page. Best of luck with the article. --Ataricodfish 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and inline citations are a must if your aim is FA. Also, the "characters" part of article is full of sections way too short. One paragraph sections are bad. You can remove the headers and just bold the character's name. More pictures would be nice, though not a requirement for FA. It shouldn't be difficult to get screen captures or promomaterial to illustrate. Circeus 17:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Ataricodfish and Circeus wrote above are essential. What I offer is an idea: if the character are not filling sub-sections well, consider creating a table for them, like this with an image, their name, some notes, and color-coding according to villian/hero or someother criteria. --maclean25 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]