Jump to content

Talk:Development of Mother 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDevelopment of Mother 3 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starDevelopment of Mother 3 is part of the Mother series series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2014Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 4, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the development of Mother 3 took place over a decade and spanned four consoles?
Current status: Good article

DYK nomination

[edit]
{{Did you know nominations/Development of Mother 3}} czar ♔ 13:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Development of Mother 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing this one could give me some good ideas on how to improve my writing on development sections. I'll leave some initial comments within 48 hours as my time at the moment is limited! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay, I've been very busy lately. Will read through this tonight. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Initial comments

[edit]
  • "The two-part and nine-year development of Mother 3 took place between 1994 and 2006 with a three year gap in-between" - when was the three year gap? Actually, you don't have to specify this if it's going to clutter the lead!
  • "Mother 2 (EarthBound in North America)" - was it known as EarthBound in any other territories too?
  • "...though several people left and the team grew in size" - how can a team grow in size when several people leave?
  • The third paragraph in the Nintendo 64 section leaves me very worried. You are heavily relying on one source that is in Japanese! Over three quarters of this large paragraph contains no citations to back up some of the claims. For example instances like "They estimated the project to be about 60 percent complete at the time of cancellation" - the are no citations that can approve of this. As for the source itself, my browser can't translate it so I will have to read through it manually later to see if this source contains all of the specified information.
  • Much of the third paragraph is unsourced.
  • Can you get any more in the reception section? Is IGN the only one who over-viewed the development of Mother 3?
  • "The game was about 60 percent finished by July 2004 and was set for a late 2005 release in Japan" - the game was also 60 percent finished for the Nintendo 64 release - is there any reason why the game was delayed? Why did it release in 2006?
References
[edit]
  • There are no dead refs and most of the citations appear in the correct places (with the only exception being the Nintendo 64 section)

On hold

[edit]

This is a well written article, the prose is engaging and the on the copyediting side of things there are few issues. However the main concern is that some of the sources are used greatly (this is of no concern to GA) and some claims remain unsourced. The biggest issue is the third paragraph in the Nintendo 64 section, as most of it is unsourced and the only source is in question. If you can address all of these issues then this article should have no problem for passing the GAN! @Czar: Please keep me updated. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! What do you mean, you don't read Japanese? Kidding. There's a link to a translation in the citation. If you think I need to add immediate cites for that stuff, I can, but I didn't think it was necessary since they weren't extraordinary claims and the ¶ had a footnote. Will get to the rest this weekend when I have more time. czar ♔ 22:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar, I think I got everything. Let me know what you think? The three-year gap was between 2000 and 2003 (the N64 cancellation and the GBA announcement). A team can grow while some leave if the numbers that replace the one that left are higher. The Japanese source that has you worried has a translation linked in its citation. The translation site, as a blog, may not be a RS in itself, but it should be sufficient for a translation. Unless there are specific claims that you feel must be cited within the ¶, I think it suffices to leave the citation at the end of the ¶. (Same for that third paragraph—it's not unsourced, just doesn't need repeated citations if cited at the end of the paragraph. IGN wasn't the only EB64 reviewer but it's the only review remaining on the Internet. I left the section open in case other people find print sources to add. Itoi says that all his games are delayed as they work on the details, but no one said that M3 was delayed from 2005 to 2006 specifically, so I left that part out. czar ♔ 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

[edit]

Thanks for addressing all of those concerns Czar, I've translated the source and have read through it all. The source seems to summarise most of the article very well, and I also agree with you with the citations in that paragraph. Anyway thanks for the improvements, this article meets the GA criteria. I'll get to reviewing the other articles soon. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Development of Mother 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Development_of_Mother_3&oldid=1206951373"