Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:02, 16 July 2008 [1].

Super Smash Bros. Brawl[edit]

Nominator(s): Haha169 (talk), Judgesurreal777 (talk)

previous FAC (21:25, 13 May 2008)


This article had nearly passed the previous FAC, in my opinion, with only a few more days left until a possible promotion. Since then, DHMO, now User:Giggy, has given it a peer review, and the article has only improved since then as members of the taskforce edit any errors they've seen. The previous FAC was archived when an issue was still being discussed, and I believe that the issue has been addressed satisfactorily. I believe that this article meets FA criteria, but please give any suggestions for improvements. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the principle contributors and was the nomination discussed with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if WP:FAC instructions were followed: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Do other signficant contributors (who were recently active) agree the article is ready, and were they consulted?
I've talked to Satoryu prior to the nomination, a few weeks past. He said, "Wait a few weeks". I've talked to Arrowned, but I received no reply, and it was only recently that I noticed Sukecchi and FullMetal Falcon were still active, since they've been straying away from VG articles. I've also discussed the article's status with Giggy, but not about possible FACs. And I discussed with Judgesurreal, who has recently became a major contributor, but obviously not on the list. And me, I'm on that list, so... --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article stats:

Satoryu 329
Sukecchi 283
Haha169 268
HighwayCello 245
FullMetal Falcon 234

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This generally looks good; however, please disambiguate the following links: Link, Wario Land. Gary King (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that's what the new FAC tool is. I'll do it right now, consider it Done --haha169 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nominating - As Haha has stated, the article issues from the last FAC have been addressed. The only issue I see that people may notice is a long Gameplay section, but you will also notice there are many different gameplay options and modes to explain, and the plot section is also incorporated as a subheading under Gameplay, so it is only natural that it is a bit longer than most gameplay sections. It should therefore be FA worthy at this point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the Kotaku refs (current refs 74 and 78, both by McWherter) reliable sources?
Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FixedCurrent ref 74, we had a discussion about in the previous FAC. "It is an interview with the creators, and you cannot fake an interview" like that. I've removed current ref 78. --haha169 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly nearly there Comments - given that I am watching the thing at the moment I may as well review it:

  • Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands that of its predecessor; - the roster isn't doing expanding (as a transitive verb) as such, so needs to be reworded. 'Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has expanded from that of its predecessor;' or 'has grown', 'has been enlarged'. Have a play with this.
    • Done - I decided to use, "have grown in number from". I think it works. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were numerous minor issues of redundant words, tense, repetition, some passive verbs and grammar that I corrected as I went along as I felt the prose needed a bit of a massage. I can't think of what else it needs comprehensive-ness wise, so once this grammar issue is fixed i will Support. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ashnard gave lots of examples below, which I have all fixed. If you can find anymore, please feel free to list them. I will go on a treasure hunt for mistakes and errors after a while. But I'm not the best editor to do this, since I'm biased...:P --haha169 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:Neutral: Okay, as said, I'll review the article. I'll work from bottom up, as there's something I noticed straight away:

  • Three decimal places is inappropriate for a Gamerankings score. Round down, or round to one decimal place. I think I remember reading in MoS that three decimal places should be reserved for scientific use, but I can't find it now.
    • Done, it looks odd with all those decimals anyway. I think its vandalism because GR doesn't list so many decimals in the first place. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon release, Super Smash Bros. Brawl has received widespread critical acclaim." Redundant.
    • ??, I've only seen one instance in the article where that it used. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said this in other FACs, but having a "Reception" format divided by pros and cons is just simplistic and basic. However, I do realise that this is just personal preference, so I don't expect anything to be done over the course of this FAC.
    • It is basic, but if you have a preference, we can work on it after the FAC.
  • I have a problem with source 83. You say that "GameSpot editors noted that", yet it is attributed to a review source, which is supposed to be reviewed by one person. Then I follow the link to realise that it isn't the review, and them quoted words aren't contained on the page.
  • An author isn't named in source 84, although one is clearly specified in the link.
  • Make sure that author attribution is consistent, as some list the forename followed by the surname, while others use the reverse order.
    • I've fixed Bryan Vore to Vore, Bryan, but that was all I spotted. --haha169 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agh, source 91 doesn't state the author although it is clearly stated in the link. I'm not going to look through all the refs—check every ref to ensure that all the info is provided. I can see many at a cursory galnce.
    • Fixed Its been put in my someone. I've also added an author to current ref 96, or last ref. Added author to Gamespot review ref as well. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." Are we forgetting the blue hedgehog as well? The article is contradicting the statement made in "playable characters".
    • Fixed image caption to say: "the first third-party character to be announced for appearing in a Smash Bros. game." Since Solid Snake was announced way before the blue hedgehog--haha169 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emphasise". Conflict of language. The article uses American English predominantly, so it should stick with that.
  • "Melee leading to the international release of the formerly exclusive Fire Emblem series,[72] he became more interested in characters exclusive to Japan-only releases" Exclusive...exclusive. If you're mentioning the FE international release, then there's no need to say "formerly exclusive".
  • "but Sakurai said that Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima "practically begged" for Snake to be included in Super Smash Bros. Melee, which did not happen since the game was too far into development." This needs a source, especially considering a quote is included in the sentence.
  • "game's official Japanese site, for possible inclusion." Needless comma
  • I personally find it strange that two very similar sections—Inclusion of characters and Playable characters—are separate although again, this may be just personal preference.
    • Inclusion of characters is about the development teams' decision to put what characters in as PC, AT, or trophies, etc. Characters is just describing how the selected ones are from a wide range of Nintendo games, 3rd party, etc. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console, butand would hopefully be a launch title with Wi-Fi compatibility for online play." I've striken (struck?) some things I feel the sentence could do without. Strange to write in this way.
  • "The announcement was a surprise to Sakurai, creator of the Super Smash Bros. series. In 2003, Sakurai who left HAL Laboratory in 2003. the company that was in charge of the franchise's development." Just clarifying what, in my opinion, is an unnecessary way of wording the data.
  • "He was not informed of Nintendo's intent to release another Smash title, despite the fact that Iwata told Sakurai shortly after his resignation from HAL that if a new Smash game was to be developed, he would want Sakurai to again serve as director." Needs a source
    • Current ref number 10 is the source, being used to source the next sentence. --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was not until after the conference that Sakurai was called to Iwata's hotel room, where he was asked to be involved in the production of the new title, if possible as its director." How is the reference to the hotel room required to establish this concept. In the broad spectrum of things, this is a meaningless detail, unless something is being implied.
    • Rewritten the sentence, see if you like it. --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console" – Development of the game did not begin until October 2005, This inconsistency needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
    • Fixed Did some random fixing up here and there. See how it looks now. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of May 2005 was the only member of the new development team." Again, I don't understand how this is compatible with the previous statement.
    • Removed that sentence. Looks amazing without it. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nintendo also enlisted outside help from various developer studios, including Game Arts. Sakurai stated that these people had spent excessive amounts of time playing Super Smash Bros. Melee. This team was given access to all the original material and tools from the development of Melee, courtesy of HAL Laboratory." Why have three short sentences that aren't linked when they could so easily be joined? poor prose.
  • "several Smash Bros. staff members that reside around the area of the new office joined the project's development" Shouldn't it be reside in the area around the area of the new office.
  • "As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned, Sakurai stated his plan was to include Wi-Fi connection compatibility and online functionality" The two are virtually synonymous, so why mention both? Why not join to the next sentence instead of having a standalone statement.
  • "as stated in the Toukouken on the Japanese version of the Smash Bros. website" The what? Wikilink or explain.
    • I don't know what a Toukouken said. Revised to fit the reference. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "just 2 months". Write out in full, per WP: MoS#Number.
  • "Nintendo of Japan president Iwata" You've already stated his position in the company. Plus, he's the president of the whole company, so why say "Nintendo of Japan"?
    • Removed True. That could be to differentiate between Reggie Fils-Aime, but I find it un-needed, since his position is described elsewhere, and the name is also linked. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was pushed back one week". Too informal for my liking, use "delayed".
  • "As Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the first Wii title to use a double-layer disc, Nintendo has conceded that some Wii systems have trouble reading the game due to a dirty laser lens." Strange way of wording things. Implies that the second disc to use this won't have problems.
    • I'm not even sure when that was added. It was really recent, and consensus was against its addition, so I've Removed it. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've mentioned this before, and I suppose it is still personal preference, but I find "Stages" to be needless.
    • I don't think you have. But anyways, I just can't remove such a well-cited section, and it does include some new aspects to a Smash Bros. game.--haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "statuettes of video game characters and objects, that can be collected in the game" Needless comma here.
  • Another example of how the prose could be better: "Returning from Melee are trophies, statuettes of video game characters and objects , that can be collected in the game. These trophies which give brief histories or descriptions of their subjects."
  • "Trophies obtained in this manner may contain information on the backstory of the game." What game? That which is represented in the trophy or Brawl.
  • Cut out some redundant "also"s.
  • "The players' nicknames will be displayed during multiplayer matches." Why are short, needless sentences like these littered across the article?
    • Removed your example, but I couldn't find other short and needless sentences in the article. --haha169 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Spectator mode allows players to watch matches from players who have enabled the "Allow Spectators" option," Defining a gameplay feature by way of another feature in the game will leave non-gamers non-the-wiser.
  • "While waiting for a match to start online, players may practice fighting against Sandbag." And yet you wonder why "Gameplay" is so long with a writing style like this.
    • ...true. I've removed the sentence you pointed out, and will scourge for more. --haha169 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A purple cloud slowly forms around the stadium, where the Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, transporting the stadium into Subspace." Writing style is inappropriate. The cloud doesn't need to be mentioned, nevermind the fact that it appeared "slowly"—like that gives us a judgement of the speed anyway.
    • Done Changed to "The Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army suddenly appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, which transports the stadium into Subspace" --haha169 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section also contains multiple unexplained terms such as "subspace". Reading it I think you'd be better rewriting from scratch.
    • Done, its an alternate dimension where Taboo lurks. Source cited on the bottom of section, in Sakurai's DOJO plot update. --haha169 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Primid, enemies that come in many variations." None-the-wiser.
    • Fixed "eneimies that fight with a variety of weapons". Better? --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stickers" are capitalised in the SSE section, but not in "Vault". Why?
    • Um, I don't know. But it's fixed now. --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I may as well just stop there. My oppose is reluctant but well founded I feel. There's too many inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, and poor examples of prose to be ignored. Sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashnard, its fine. That's what an FAC is for anyway. I'm certain I can fix all the problems you've mentioned, making the rest of the FAC easier. I should be thanking you anyway, since you volunteered to do this before I nominated anyway. Your help is very much appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me when you're done and I'll look over the article again and reconsider. I'll also say not to feel any onus to address problems that have been judged as personal preference, as I can't force something which may amount to an opinion. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, since you've been working hard on this and other related Smash articles, and we all want the FT. Don't worry, many of your examples mention one example, and I'll try my best to find others with the same problem. --haha169 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ashnard's Concerns, IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've copyedited a bit and added a load of author info missing from multiple sources. Ref 7 and 55 need sorting out by a major contributor. I'll return with a full copyedit and review, after which I'll reconsider the oppose. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a date to ref 55, and 7 was added very recently, here. I'll see what I can do about 7, but I think USK rating is unnecessary. Update - I've removed ref 7.--haha169 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've declared myself neutral considering the examples have been addressed and that I've copyedited the text. I still think too much weight is given to particular aspects, but that may amount to personal preference. The main issue is the quality of prose I feel. Thanks for your hard work addressing my comments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor Support the article is great shape, though criteria 1e (stability) won't be easily handled (new info — specially on awards, though it didn't stop other articles from promotion — and many vandals). At least it's semi-protected to help. igordebraga ≠ 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I requested for semi because of the vandals. There won't be any problems with them for a while. Awards will come out at the end of the year, "Game of the Year" awards, and that won't come for a while, at least. I don't the stability will be a big issue, at least during the course of the FAC. But thanks for your concerns and comments! --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brawl allows the player to select between 35 characters. Some can transform into alternate forms, with different move sets and play styles. Some are new, but others return from Melee—in some cases updated or refined, either in appearance, fighting capabilities, or both. - This implise that all characters from melee either stayed the same or got better (fighting-wise). This isn't quite true - some characters have been made much weaker fighting-wise since Melee (Sheik) while others have been greatly improved (Zelda). Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: If you need a source for my above comment, see this mlg article: Zelda was buffed from Melee which helps a lot because Shiek was slightly nerfed on some of his Melee-style killing moves, such as Foward Air. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I do, in fact, trust your source, the whole matter is of opinion. I can add it in as a reception complaint, though. Is that fine? --haha169 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, after reading the source more in-depth, I'm going to think about a good way to put it in the article. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support, I think this article is very close to FA status, the only problem I think is that the prose needs a little sprucing up. Some examples:

  • "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of its predecessor, and is the first in the series to feature third-party characters. Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." I believe the first instance of the word "predecessor" is redundant, as it is used in the next sentence. Changing it to Super Smash Bros. Melee, which it already links to, would solve this problem.
  • The second paragraph of the article uses the word Brawl four times. I think you could replace one or two instances of it with "the game" in order to eliminate redundancy.
  • "A player can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." Wouldn't the sentence work better with "Players" instead of "A player"? I don't know if that's just my personal preference or not.

Overall, there are just a few minor quirks, but other than that I think it should be good to go. Artichoker[talk] 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your edit summary says, support, right? Ok. And, what are these quirks? I'd love to fix them soon. --haha169 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? I think you only read the last paragraph of my edit. There is a beginning paragraph that states Weak Support, then three bullet points, and then a final paragraph. Artichoker[talk] 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, Fixed, Fixed! :) --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image:SolidSnakeandMarioinBrawl.jpg is still in the article, and I still believe it violates "significant" clause in WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, this time the image caption has been rewritten to establish notability. 3rd party inclusion is very notable, and violates Sakurai's promise back in 1999 to stick with Nintendo 1st and 2nd parties. Plus, it has text about it right next to the image. --haha169 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True... one thing, however... the larger image sizes don't seem to add much except to add blank white space (such as the snake picture.) Perhaps they could be resized down to thumb (except for the cast pic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ??? I see a white space no matter how small I put it. Could you please elaborate more? What size exactly? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think David means that "250px" should be removed, so that only "thumb" is left. That way you get the standard image size. The Prince (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed. —Giggy 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, I understand now. Thank you, Giggy. --haha169 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - did some more minor copyediting, I think it's finally ready. —Giggy 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I fixed a few quote endings where the quotation marks were inside the sentence (". instead of ."); other than that, the article looks good. I was going to bring up something with the images, but it appears that has been dealt with. Since I have nothing further to suggest, I give the article my full support. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks :). I thought we'd fixed that already, but good job at catching some more! :) --haha169 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to hold off, I guess, until I've been able to go through it all, but some openers: Neutral:

  • TopTenReviews link is not properly formatted. (cur. #84, [2])
    • I'll get to that immediately. Done. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • jeuxvideo.com: what makes this site reliable?
    • Replaced I see it reliable enough, looks like French IGN. However, I found a better source saying the exact same thing so I decided to replace it. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{cite web}} not complete filled out for all refs (ex. cur #97 is missing the date of publication.
    • Reply ...There is no ref 97. 96, 95, and 94 all have publisher dates, so I believe you made a mistake.--haha169 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I see what you mean - after I fixed a ref, it appeared. I've added date of publication. --haha169 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned about weight of sources. There are next to no print sources, but that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that about 50% of the sources are from a primary source (the game's page.) Couldn't secondary sources be used to balance this?
    • Reply There are really no printed sources except for the instruction manual, and they are all on the game's site anyway. The rest of the sources are all reliable. Jeuxvideo is answered above. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead does not address all aspects of the article (e.g. development)
    • "Masahiro Sakurai, director of the previous two games in the series, assumed the role of director for the third installment at the request of Iwata.[10] When development of the game began in October 2005,[11] various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Is there about Development. Gameplay, Reception, and everything else is also in the lead. --haha169 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's musical score was composed through a collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers,[17] and was lauded for its representation of different generations in gaming history." doesn't really fit when you suddenly switch gears from reception to music creation. Reword or split into two different statements.
    • Reception does include reception of music, but I'll try to find a way to re-word it. --haha169 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4.85 million units as of March 31.... could we find sales figures more recent, that might thus include Europe and Australia?
    • Reply No, Nintendo doesn't give sales data a lot. We update when Nintendo releases, and they have not released. --haha169 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding info on sales, there's the UK sales charts for Brawl. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for that for so long! But...there is no sales numbers. Just sales standings. Plus, wouldn't it be violating WP:SYN if we combined it with JP and NA sales? And also, this is ignoring the sales in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the rest of the EU, not to mention Australia. Perhaps we should wait until the Nintendo sales report... (Ashnard, do you know how to access those? I can't find them using normal Google.) --haha169 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used, although actual numbers are preferable. Yes, it would be original synthesis to combine sales for multiple regions and then present it collectively as total sales. I'm afraid I don't know how to access them. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. I guess the best thing to do is to wait for the guys at List of best-selling video games article update them. --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find you any sales figures, but the company "GfK international" seems to be in charge of charts, and here are the Australian charts for it's debut week and it's second week (last week), along with the Spanish and German charts for it's debut week there. Hope they help and are usable! Deamon138 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know where they got the information from, so the figures are probably not reliable, but this has sales data galore. It says that SSBB has sold 5,963,306 units worldwide in total, and there are figures for different weeks too. I guess if these figures are deemed reliable enough, that would be fantastic, but it seems unlikely. Deamon138 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guessed right: VGChartz data are not to be used on Wikipedia. However, Gamespot is perfect. Thank you so much! --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Oh wait. Gamespot only has charts, not figures. That won't work so well. Thanks anyway. --haha169 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not say somewhere in the article (using Ashnard's and my links), "It outsold all other games in it's debut week in the UK, Australia, Spain and Germany" or something much better phrased (you know what I mean)? Or is chart data not allowed for a FA? Deamon138 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its not specific enough, and the Brawl article wasn't organized to do this. I could possibly fit it in, but it would be much simpler to wait for numbers. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, do what's best for the article, but I will say that chart data is acceptable in any VG article. On a side note, The World Ends with You uses VGChartz, but with an "according to" to sort of negate any dependence on a dubious source. Whether this is an example to follow remains to be seen as the article is still undergoing FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It's a GA article. But WP:VG has a discussion about it...so I'd rather not. Chart data is acceptable, but I'd rather have uniformity. "Brawl sold 1.5 million in U.S. on first day, and hit #1 charts in UK." ... sounds odd without numbers, but that's IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that both facts (i.e. that it sold X in one place, and it placed Y in another place), have to both be in the same sentence? Surely as long as they're both mentioned somewhere in "Reception" it doesn't matter? Deamon138 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there will be organization issues. There are only two or three sentences about sales in the Reception anyway. That would make it a bit difficult. I don't know - maybe you can try on one of your sandboxes, Deamon? I'll see what I can do, but I still think it would be much easier to wait until numbers come out. But yes, I will try. Hmm...I read over the few sales data sentences, and added another one in it. How do you like it? --haha169 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what you've put seems fine imo. So long as no-one else has a problem with writing "European", as in "top in several places in Europe", then I think it should suffice. Deamon138 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VG articles usually describe the entire Europe, or European Union, as opposed to separate countries. --haha169 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Anyway, hopefully there's not too much more to do to get the coveted FA standard for SSBB! Deamon138 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well above a GA standard and very deserving of FA status. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing only image licensing: looks good, I think. I'm not sure about the importance of the Snake image. --NE2 13:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check out the discussion with David Fuchs. The image caption says all. Its definitely less important than the others, but still merits entry due to the importance of its subject. Thanks for reviewing, though.--haha169 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brawl is a great article which is very worthy of FA status.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, I don't think this is surprising considering your username! Deamon138 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, after the recent volley of changes and copy-edits. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose, not happy with the tone and accessibility. It's come a long way, but it still reads like a game guide to me. The lead and opening sections are thick with jargon, poor narrative, and audience-specific prose. I've left some examples below starting from the top. At the least, a thorough treatment by a non-gamer is needed to sort out the rough prose and jargon.[reply]
    • Disappointed that the penchant for long strings of foreign-language characters persists in the opening sentence, causing me to have to jump over a good 1/3 of the sentence's length to continue reading.
      • This follows policy the guidelines is what I meant to say, see here. If you have a problem with it, bring it up on the talk page over there. Artichoker[talk] 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not a policy. It's an editorial decision. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you find a policy that states "All FA articles cannot have foreign titles?" --haha169 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, as I said, it's an editorial decision and I recognize that. I don't care for it, and I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it. It's funny though, because every time I say something, someone tells me it's a policy to have it in there, which is simply not true. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When development of the game began in October 2005, various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Not well-written. They collaborated only when the development began? Terms like "second- and third-party" should be hyphenated. Why is "Brawl" not in italics here?
      • I did some work on it - that sentence has always been awkward and difficult to proofread. Maybe some more help might do it some good. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of Super Smash Bros. Melee, becoming the first in the series to feature third-party characters." Bewildering to a non-gamer and without context. The reader has no idea of the significance of the characters and who "third-party" characters would be. As written, the "roster" is "becoming the first in the series".
      • First of all, let's say I come across an article that talks about "Charon", but I have no idea what it means. I click on the link. Quite simple; that's why things are wikilinked. And it is first in the series regarding third-party inclusion. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please check my revision for correctness. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good. I like the new revision. Never thought to write it that way... --haha169 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." Again, lacking context or meaning to lay readers. We've not even had a basic sentence such as, "The object of Brawl is to use one of the available characters to knock other characters out of a ring." Readers have no idea what the game does yet.
    • Why link "multiplayer" for reader context but not "single-player"? The linking strategy is erratic. Some puzzlers like "side-scrolling" appear unlinked early but are linked later in the prose.
      • I've fixed the concerns you've used as examples. When I'm done with the rest of the list, I'll come back and see if I can catch some more. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It received an aggregate review score of 94% on Metacritic and 93.3% on Game Rankings." You've just been writing about the musical score—the score received a 94%?
      • Fixed Oh, apparently that's an organization error that was missed during the huge lead proofread. Thanks for catching that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Players can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." As written, the stages attempt to knock their opponents off the screen.
      • Fixed "Players can choose from a large selection of characters, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen as they fight on various stages." - better now? --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Instead of using health bars, percentage displays are employed, which begin on 0%, but increase as the characters take damage." I implore you—imagine you know nothing about video games and re-read this.
      • I doubt anybody is ignorant such basic things like health-bars and math. A character gets hurt, percentage increases. Difficult? I really doubt that anybody, non-gamer or not, can't understand that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't come across too harsh—I can tell a lot of work has gone into this. But, it's not ready in my view. You absolutely have to get some more non-gamer eyes on this. --Laser brain (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's always appreciated when you give a big list of "disappointments" at the last part of an FA with a few hours to react before it gets archived :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. It's not as if the nomination was the subject of wild approval before I left comments. Of the editors above that actually delved into the prose, I see either neutral or outright oppose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to get non-gamer eyes, since only gamers volunteer in the Volunteers for Peer Review list. I'll fix your concerns immediately, as well. Thank you for reviewing - I can tell the article has improved since your comments are no longer asking to fix very obvious errors. --haha169 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laser Brain, am I right in assumming that most of the errors, in your opinion, congregate in the lead and the gameplay sections? --haha169 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Laserbrain, there are absolutely no opposes above, except for yours. --haha169 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you got me. Fuchs switched to neutral. After I posted this. I actually stopped reading after the lead and gameplay sections to get these issues posted, but I hope I will find fewer game-guide jargon issues when I'm clear of the gameplay and plot. I realize it's difficult but I had two other non-gamers sit down and read what I covered, and they were confounded. You are too close to the text to understand the challenge here, I think, which is why I'm requesting an external copy-edit. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're getting here. But the problem is, it is very difficult to get a non-gamer to copyedit this thing. Don't think I haven't tried. I got Ashnard, Giggy, and several other people to copyedit/peer review it, but they were all a part of WP:VG. When I went to the "I can copyedit anything" list, each one came up with the excuse: "I'm too busy." If you have any suggestions, though, I'd gladly take it. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continued at Talk. --Laser brain (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have any more specific fixes, your oppose is not valid. Either list more things to fix, and we can fix them, or strike your oppose. Fishing for others to find copyediting problems in FAC is not cool. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judge, please calm down. I doubt Sandy will archive this FAC just yet. If she does, I'll just re-start it with valid reason. Plus, truthfully, its not the FAC assessor's job to copyedit the article. Its our job to. LaserBrain does list some interesting issues, but its very possible that his concerns will not hinder this FAC process greatly. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Deep breathes:: Ok, what I'm saying is that yes, it is our job to copyedit it, but people have copyedited the hell out of this article, it has already had three peer reviews, and at this point, for us to take his prose concerns seriously, he must state what issues remain specifically. Can't fix what we can't see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have that issue a lot, myself as well, Judge. You're not the only one. --haha169 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize changes have been made in response to my comments, and I will revisit them shortly. Since editors are quite actively addressing feedback, I will do my best to delineate any remaining issues. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up in time to see the article promoted. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Fixing your concerns was actually the first thing I did. I learnt that in the previous FAC - delaying doesn't do any good. Thanks for your effort. Its greatly appreciated! :)--haha169 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Laser brain, if there is no policy against having the Japanese in the first line like this article does, then why should that hamper its chances at becoming a featured article? Deamon138 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deamon. That's not the problem. The issue being discussed on the talk page is the problem. Check it out here. --haha169 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know. I was just referring to his problem further up the page, on which hos last comment was, "I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it." If there's nothing wrong with it, then it shouldn't affected this articles chances. If he doesn't like that articles are allowed it, it should be raised on the appropriate VG page, not here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He said it wouldn't matter whether or not he comments on it. Its not really a big issue - even he said so himself. He doesn't care. But deamon, remember that Laser Brain reviews pretty much every FAC article, so he can't remember everything. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, thank you Laser Brain! Just another note, I wiki-linked "Health Bars" to help anybody who honestly doesn't understand what health bars are. --haha169 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: why is European red-linked? (Why is European linked at all?) I see at least one missing publisher: ^ Gerstmann, Jeff. "Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Review". Retrieved on March 28, 2008. WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues throughout. Copyedit needs: ... Hideo Kojima "practically 'begged' " for Snake to be included ... (strange quote marks). Redundancy even in the lead: Overall, Brawl received an aggregate ... (what is the use of "overall" here?) I believe the block quotes are wrong, see WP:MOS#Quotations. Perhaps ask User:Epbr123 to fix these MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Sandy. I've fixed your concerns. I'll ask Epbr123 to see if he'll help, as well. Thanks again. --haha169 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional queries We're almost there, I think. I've been making some edits but I'm left with a few questions/issues:
    • "In Classic Mode, the player goes through a number of randomly generated matches, although there is a specific order of appearance for each series." I couldn't make heads or tails of this statement—can someone clarify?
    • Are we confident that "minigame" is not jargon? I've never heard of minigames outside the the context of video games. At the first mention, how about saying, "Brawl also features objective-oriented minigames, or small games within the game, in Stadium Mode."
      • Done Sounds a bit awkward, but looks fine to me. --haha169 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does sound awkward. I was hoping someone would one-up me. :) --Laser brain (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the above sentence is the first mention of "Stadium Mode" with no explanation.
    • "Though primarily a single-player mode, cooperative multiplayer is available." What makes it primarily a single-player mode?
      • Fixed Its designed as single-player, listed in single-player section, and most people play it single player. I only included the last example, since all of them would be too much. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This mode features a power-up mechanism ..." Spot the jargon.
    • "Once one character loses a life, another character on the team can take his or her place until the stock count, of which each stage has a set number, depletes." This lost me.. stock count? How/why does it deplete?
      • Fixed. Ah, I understand. Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sakurai claimed that this mode would be more "fleshed out" than the single-player modes in previous Smash Bros. titles." The name is mentioned rather suddenly after not reading it since the lead, I think—I had to scroll back to recall who it was. Suggest beginning the sentence with "Game director Masahiro Sakurai claimed ..."
      • Fixed. Added a little creativity myself, but nothing major. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Naming some modes you capitalize "mode" (Stadium Mode, Adventure Mode) and some you don't. Please make consistent.
    • I spotted at least one "mini-game" as opposed to "minigame". Please make consistent.
      • Okay. Fixed. Thank you for your review! --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All right. I believe I've addressed all concerns. I feel proud of myself. You should to, Laser. Thank you for your hard work. Is there any more? --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to support above after making a few more tweaks. Well done, and thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. You may want to ping Ashnard, David Fuchs, etc. to let them know additional copy-editing has been done. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you! I know I've told you this many times throughout the course of the day, but your work is really appreciated. And yes, I'll ping Ashnard and Fuchs. Thanks again! --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Make sure that new additions are revised properly: "Brawl reached number one on both European[99] and Australian[100] sales charts, surpassing all competition that week." "surpassing all competition that week."—that's usually what being numer one means. Doesn't state which weeks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fixed. —Giggy 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the article is looking better regarding prose and minor issues. It seems the accessibility and readership has been fixed, although I didn't notice it because of my gamer mindset. However, I am remaining neutral mainly regarding personal prefrences. I've stated them before, but this is mainly due things like the organisation of Reception, and the weighting given to particular gameplay aspects. However, that's just me—I'm sure the article will pass anyway. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine. Thanks anyway. :) --haha169 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&oldid=1138472388"