Jump to content

Talk:Mario Kart Wii

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMario Kart Wii was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 23, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
May 2, 2025Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

What Next?

[edit]

Looking through this article, I cannot find any changes that need to be made. What should be done next on this article? PerryPerryD (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PerryPerryD: You could possibly request a GAN. Usually they'll be able to find any changes that should be made that you didn't catch (and if they don't find any, the article will become a GA). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so I did. PerryPerryD (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerryPerryD: Sounds good. Hopefully if it's immediately declined they say the reason why it was declined because I currently don't see much wrong. It was previously given a GAN (which it failed) back in 2008 so I'd definitely say it's time for a new one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, MarioKart Wii really doesnt fit Sports and Recreation as much as it does Video games. PerryPerryD (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you're getting the "Sports and Recreation" part from. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of this page, "Mario Kart Wii was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee..." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's interesting. WOnder if that's just an old categorization of GAN's (unless they still are categorized like that, I'm unfamiliar with GAN since I haven't done one yet). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel that adding a section about the speedrunning scene of this game is all I can think of. Like are any of these any sources enough for something like that?: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

[edit]

PerryPerryD, for future reference: when you nominate an article for GA, and you aren't the top or highest contributor to it, it's good practice to alert the users who are (you can see so here). Pinging Cat's Tuxedo, and ThomasO1989 if they haven't noticed already, the article's tied shared editors. Panini! • 🥪 18:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only really did some work on the Reception section, and even then not a complete job. Giving my two cents on the issue, I would agree that the nomination is premature on account of the nominator's inexperience and lack of a significant role in the page's current state. And even that aside, the page is far from ready for a GAN, being insufficiently sourced in the gameplay and development areas. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked earlier what work needed to be done to the article, I am going to assume that you simply didn't notice it yet, but if these issues were brought up to me prior to the GAN, I would have not begun the GAN Process.
As for your comment @Panini!, Thank you for your support and advice here. The date of joining on my profile does not at all match my experience, (Mostly due to a 1-year editing block), So I appreciate your kindness and support here
. I'm not the smartest person, and i apologize to anyone I may have annoyed with these screw-ups. I am trying to be better at editing, and i really appreciate you not lashing out at me over it. So, thank you both. Cheers. PerryPerryD 20:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cat's Tuxedo hehe me stupid, forgot to mention you too. PerryPerryD 20:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PerryPerryD, I see the discussion above you're referring to now; I must've accidentally skipped it! Talk pages for specific articles are usually not the best way to reach out to users unless people are active on the current article or have it watchlisted. For future reference, you can bring concerns up to the WP:VG talk page, or Wikipedia's unofficial Discord server, both of which are where you can find numerous highly active video game editors.
As for your article concerns; I see a lot of issues, and since I'm working on other projects at the moment I'll leave you with some general advice, to begin with:
  • Expansion: This is just a hunch, but I think it's safe to assume this article currently is not fully comprehensive of everything out there. This was a really big deal as far as I'd assume, but the Legacy section only talks about a single mod? I find it hard to believe that this is the only example of the game's mark on society. Do a quick browse online and find some new sources that you can introduce; you can use this custom search engine to make things easier to do so.
  • De-cruft: A lot of the gameplay section is unsourced, and a quick look at it I can declare it's way too long and full of unnecessary info. I tried to find an example for you, and all of them are equally terrible, but the best of them is Mario Kart 8. This gameplay section goes into general explanation on what modes there are and what they do, what new features and powerups are introduced, and controller, amiibo, and other special features. This section is seven paragraphs long; see how much of it can go! Cite it, too!
  • Reception: See WP:RECEPTION for more details on how to make it even better.
Additionally, you can set up a peer review for more specific help. Panini! • 🥪 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!: I was the one who recommended they nominate this article for GA. I didn't see any immediate issues and since they said they didn't see anything else wrong I assumed it would be just fine. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!. Ok, literally how are you not a Wikipedia admin, you have been extremely professional, helpful, resourceful, and kind. I really really appreciate your help. Thank you so much. PerryPerryD 21:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Administrator positions are given to users who specialize in background or technical work, and giving them special permissions would benefit their productivity in the field. Currently, I don't do too much fancy work like that (besides being active in newcomer projects) and I currently reside in content improvement. I pan on getting my hands dirty in those fields sometime in the future, though. Panini! • 🥪 21:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAMECRUFT

[edit]

Im still new to wikipedia editing, but in terms of MOS, In this instance its showing the specific NEW items that were added to this game, it does not list every item in the game. I also noticed that hyperlinks were removed without apparent reason. Also the mention of the tricks in the game, does that need to be removed? PerryPerryD 15:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93 PerryPerryD 15:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of tricks and non-notable in-game items should absolutely be removed per WP:GAMECRUFT. And we don't have to Wikilink every noun in the article for readability reasons per WP:SEAOFBLUE. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however a brief mention of them if they were new to this game is perfectly fine. Just don't go into too much detail. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario Kart Wii/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will be working on this over the weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Fuchs Hello! Do you still plan on performing this review? PerryPerryD 04:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs Hello, It has been 7 days. Any updates on this review? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is a solid start for GA, but it needs a lot of work to get it over the finish line. Thoughts as follows.

  • Prose:
    • The lead doesn't do a great job summarizing the entire article. Why is the first sentence treated as its own paragraph?
    • The prose is pretty rough throughout; a lot of clunky phrasing, and using a lot more words than necessary to say the same thing, e.g. The speaker on the Wii Remote is frequently used during gameplay, with sound effects being emitted from it. could be rewritten as The speaker on the Wii Remote plays sound effects during gameplay. It also sometimes feels like it's veering into editorializing or giving a voice, such as Mario Kart Wii had sold over a million copies in Japan alone
    • The reception section spends almost as much time detailing rankings and lists as it does spending time on detailing aspects of the game; a lot of this could be trimmed or summarized better.
    • Likewise the sales section is just a clunky repetition of dates and figures instead of summarizing it to the relevant parts.
    • What makes a fan mod worthy of its own subsection, let alone calling it a "Legacy"?
User:David Fuchs What are you suggesting here? *with the mod part i mean PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
    • A lot of references are missing information in the fields (authors, publication) and are inconsistent in formatting (some use website, others use publisher or work.)
    • Did spot-checks to [ current refs] 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 26, 35, 48, 52, and 59, spotted some issues throughout:
      • For example, current ref 2 is used to cite the high-level overview of the gameplay, and it basically doesn't cover any of it.
      • ref 4 is used to cite Mario Kart Wii features twenty-four playable characters from the Mario series, which was the largest roster of any Mario Kart game until the release of Mario Kart 8 in 2014. The ref is from 2011, so it can't cite that last part of that statement talking about Mario Kart 8, but the reference also mentions 25 playable characters, not 24.
      • There's no source for the discontinuation of the Mario Kart Channel.
User:David Fuchs The article does not mention a discontinuation of the Mario Kart Channel?
      • Ref 19 doesn't fully support the entire statements before it (the liveblog doesn't mention details from the trailer, or the E3 details.)
      • but was rejected due to the seemingly bizarre image of Mario riding a bike—this really goes beyond what the source states.
      • Other parts of the gameplay section are just not referenced at all, e.g. which include both karts and bikes, are available in Mario Kart Wii, each of which has different properties that affect how the vehicle handles while driving. Half the characters and vehicles are initially unavailable to the player; certain objectives must be completed to unlock each one., While driving, the player collects power-ups from item boxes placed in various points on the track. These power-ups allow the player to attack opponents, causing them to slow down or spin out of control; defend against such attacks, or gain boosts in speed. These include the series staple items, such as the Mushroom, Koopa Shell projectiles, the Super Star, banana peels and lightning bolts., etc.
    • The life-to-date numbers last-published date was updated and that's not reflected in the article.
  • Media:
David Fuchs I disagree with this one. The file is in a low resolution and is used for demonstration purposes only once in the article, following the fair use policy.
@David Fuchs: I think I've fixed it. Let me know if there is still anything else that needs adjusting in the non-free use rationale. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there were many referencing slip-ups and the gameplay section needs a fairly substantial overhaul and to be properly cited that I don't think are a good fit for the timeframe of a GA review, I'm closing the article at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David FuchsThank you for your review. this will be used to improve this article greatly in the coming days. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant word without added value in lead section

[edit]

Please explain why the phrasing without that word is grammatically incorrect. The assertion alone doesn't do anyone any good.

The accusation of 3RR makes no sense at all in this context, I merely reverted your unexplained revert 1 time and asked why you think this word is needed there.

And how would it confuse readers? Please explain, thank you.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And is one of the best-selling video games of all time with over 37 million copies sold vs And IT is one of the best-selling video games of all time with over 37 million copies sold. And is feels un-natural in the sentance structure context. Ignore my 3rr comment as I was tired and forgot how counting works PerryPerryD Talk To Me 03:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mods and CTGP

[edit]

I feel like the part that is talking about CTGP is a bit too centered on this specific modpack. Whilst it is most certainly the biggest modpack there is, there is also a bunch of other mods that do not come with this distribution. I would change the text to say something like The game has gained a second life thanks to mods, with the most popular one being the distribution CTGP Revolution (and then continuing to explain CTGP), instead of directly talking about CTGP. I'm fairly new too wiki editing and unsure if I could make this into a proper edit, but I feel like this had to be adressed. --MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All versions bundled with Wii Wheel?

[edit]

The lead section says that "Each copy of the game was bundled with the Wii Wheel accessory", whereas the "Wheel" subsection of the "Development" section states that it was only included "with some versions of the game".-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Characters and Races of Mario Kart Wii" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Characters and Races of Mario Kart Wii and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#List of Characters and Races of Mario Kart Wii until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Coconut Mall theme" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Coconut Mall theme and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#Coconut Mall theme until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wii kart" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wii kart and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#Wii kart until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glitches/shortcuts

[edit]

Should information at the 'ultra shortcuts' be added onto this page? Or other infamous glitches? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless notability is established through reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these sources I mentioned reliable? Or even make this glitch notable for just a mention? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this [6] article. Is this reliable? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/14/22230905/mario-kart-wii-rainbow-road-speedrun-ultra-shortcut-arthur

https://www.eurogamer.net/after-tens-of-thousands-of-attempts-mario-kart-fan-finally-pulls-off-ultra-rainbow-road-shortcut

https://screenrant.com/mario-kart-player-rainbow-road-shortcut/

Are these sources reliable? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? [7] NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NintendoTTTEfan2005: I realize that this is more than a year after you asked, but I'd say both Polygon and Eurogamer are reliable enough to include in the article. Focus on writing content about what ultrashortcuts are and what they do vs a "game guide" like the above editor thought might be your intention. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will think about how this can be incorporated in a way that isn't against Wikipedia guidelines. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NintendoTTTEfan2005: I'm glad to hear you're still active and willing to give it a shot! It's always a gamble replying to older comments like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Moo Moo Meadows" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Moo Moo Meadows has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 12 § Moo Moo Meadows until a consensus is reached. Mia Mahey (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coconut Mall" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Coconut Mall has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 29 § Coconut Mall until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mods section

[edit]

A couple weeks ago, the mods section in this article was removed. This prompted me to make a (now deleted) article for CTGP-R. In the discussion about deleting this article, I asked about re-adding the mods section, but got no replies about it. Should it be re-added as it was written prior to me writing my ctgp article, rewritten entirely, or not added back at all? For context, the section i'm referring to is this:


While official online play support officially ended in 2014, unofficial video game mods created by fans, such as Wiimmfi, have re-established online play. Custom track packs, such as CTGP-R, added additional courses and new features, such as 24-player races, and additional modes such as Countdown and Item Rain. Another pack that has gained notoriety recently is Retro Rewind, a mod that incorporates every track from Super Mario Kart to Mario Kart 7, along with some tracks from Mario Kart 8 and above. TotallynotWario (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TotallynotWario: I encourage you to be bold. Personally, I have no objections to a mod section here on this article, but if anyone does they can discuss it later (WP:BRD). Just make sure you write about such content neutrally and that is cited to reliable sources. Avoid phrasing like "gained notoriety recently". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiim Fi" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wiim Fi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § Wiim Fi until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiim-Fi" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wiim-Fi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § Wiim-Fi until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mario Kart 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Mario Kart 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § Mario Kart 6 until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"CTGP" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect CTGP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § CTGP until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"CTGP Revolution" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect CTGP Revolution has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § CTGP Revolution until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"CTGPR" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect CTGPR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § CTGPR until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario Kart Wii/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TzarN64 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SleepyRedHair (talk · contribs) 17:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart Wii is a game I am particularly fond of, so I'm happy to review this as my first time reviewing a GA nomination, as requested by TzarN64. My apologies if this review takes longer than needed or expected to do; as I mentioned previously, this is my first time reviewing a GA nomination.

  1. Well-written: – I can't seem to spot any grammatical errors, and everything is well organised, mainly in terms of paragraphs.
  2. No original research: – The gameplay section contains three citation needed tags. Said claims should either be backed up by citations, rewritten to fit any available citations, or removed if none are suitable. In addition, citations 31 and 48 are primary sources and sole backups to their claims with no additional secondary sources attached.
  3. Broad in coverage: – No part of the gameplay is left out and Development is laid out very well and balances the game's conceptualisation and additional phases of development.
  4. Neutral: – While this comes quite close to a pass—such as the good balance between positive and negative reviews—"Official Nintendo Magazine" being used as a source twice (in Reception and Awards) is a red flag.
  5. Stable: – The game was released and discontinued a decade ago, so new information arising is highly unlikely.
  6. Illustrated: – Gameplay has two images and Development has one. Both fit their topics well.

I shall be putting the article on hold; the flaws can be fixed, but they aren't simple or small enough to be dealt with quickly. SleepyRedHair (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SleepyRedHair What exactly does this article fail at NOCR and neutrality? TzarN64 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait I didn’t see your reasons next to the icons. My bad, please ignore this! TzarN64 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepyRedHair Alright, I’ve fixed the original research and neutrality issues - including all Nintendo Power and ONM sources. TzarN64 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The battle mode citation works well and includes all of the information necessary, and I appreciate the removal of primary sources. However, the Mega Mushroom and POW Block are not mentioned in citation 7, which is the GameSpy one you attached. SleepyRedHair (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a reliable source to mention that, so I removed it. TzarN64 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good, just one more thing I've noticed upon re-reading the article; Gameplay paragraph 5 (which goes over the various game modes) is completely unsourced. I would also recommend finding alternate citations for the Development section, as most of the ones used currently are Iwata Asks. These aren't bad citations and shouldn't be removed, but other sources should probably go alongside them if possible. SleepyRedHair (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to that section of the article. TzarN64 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, the citations fit well and I don't see any more major issues (aside from the sentence I removed). I shall now mark this article as a good article, thank you for nominating and contributing! SleepyRedHair (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TzarN64 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SleepyRedHair: please perform a spotcheck; it's required per WP:GAN/I#R3. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked some samples, and I've found a new issue:
"The game features characters who have appeared in previous installments, including Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Toad, Donkey Kong, and Bowser, in addition to characters such as Rosalina, Funky Kong, and Dry Bowser who are playable for the first time." The GameSpy citation attached does not mention any character names. SleepyRedHair (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot seem to spot any copyrighted material, on the other hand. SleepyRedHair (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find a source for that, it has been removed. TzarN64 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quality concerns

[edit]

@TzarN64: @SleepyRedHair: I have concerns about this article and whether it actually reaches GA standards. As demonstrated by my reversion, this article used a user-generated source that was present during the GA review. I also believe, Tzar, that your contributions to the article were not significant enough for you to actually nominate the article in the first place. For instance, I do not believe that you could reasonably explain a lot of the reasons for why things are done a certain way, which is why it's important that a GA nomination be done by someone with significant involvement in its improvement. For example, did you verify that every source was accurately cited before nominating, and did you do a thorough copyedit of the article's content? It seems like your contributions to the article have been limited to adding citations and changing up the lead some.

I don't want to discourage your contributions to Wikipedia, but I'm wondering why you are so involved in trying to bring articles to GA status. In the grand scheme of things, GAs and FAs are not important. There are likely articles out there that could be GA or FA in the state they're in that are even better than what we label good and featured articles. The most important thing to do is to write quality articles, and it seems like you're focusing more on getting a green plus mark on the article instead of making sure it's good. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've hidden the sentence until a reliable citation can be found, as a Kids Choice Awards nomination seems like something that is very likely noteworthy. I cannot speak for Tzar, but I assumed that they were eligible to nominate the article due to how many edits they had made recently. There is an external website tool that shows the most significant contributors, but I do not remember what it was called and probably should have checked before the review. SleepyRedHair (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m ranked 4th on the most contributed to the Mario Kart Wii article, which is why I was able to nominate it. The article was already well written anyways, so a copy edit wasn’t that necessary. TzarN64 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you just had an article quick failed for quality issues. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 00:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Mario Kart Wii was originally going to have a mission mode but was scrapped?
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by TzarN64 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TzarN64 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • This DYK is not written in a manner that most people would understand what is even being said. Only Mario Kart fans would understand what a "mission mode" is. Furthermore, the proposer has been indeffed, so this probably isn't going anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user appears to have chosen to leave Wikipedia, and appears to likely be blocked soon. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Mario Kart Wii

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reviewed article + Zero spot checks + The prose doesn't read good, especially the reception section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Give CTGP Revolution its own article?

[edit]

I think that the CTGP Revolution mod pack for Mario Kart Wii is big enough and notable enough in the Wii Homebrew community that it deserves its own article. Wikipedia already has precedent to make some mods their own article - such as OpenRCT2, a mod of Roller Coaster Tycoon 2, and Garry's Mod for Half-Life 2. Evrstz (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough news coverage and reliable sources mentioning the mod? SleepyRedHair (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to write an article about it about a month ago, this article was deleted for a lack of notable coverage. I do believe that it should remain a section, as it does ultimately play a huge role in the way people play this game in 2025. TotallynotWario (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a search and found two sources:
This is obviously far from enough for a full article, but in my opinion, they seem like enough to write a Legacy section mentioning Wiimmfi and other fan-made online servers in general, including CTGP. SleepyRedHair (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A section mentioning this has existed in the past. It was removed in march, causing me to write the ctgp article. With this article now deleted, I've re-added the mods section, now with information on retro rewind. TotallynotWario (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mario_Kart_Wii&oldid=1291863946"