Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yoshi's New Island/archive3

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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 18 June 2025 [1].

Yoshi's New Island

[edit]
Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's New Island is a 2014 platform game developed by Arzest and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS... Still.

Third time's the charm? After two previous nominations and a peer review in the middle, I firmly believe this article is finally ready for FA status. I've reached out to several editors involved in the second nomination to implement additional feedback beforehand, just to be safe. Of course, new editors and new feedback are always welcome and appreciated. Please note that no additional references have been added to the article since the most recent nomination, nor have any changes been made to existing references.

Courtesy pings to all editors who actively participated in the second nomination: @Thelifeofan413: @UpTheOctave!: @Vacant0: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Considering that issues that I've found in the previous FAC nomination and the feedback I've left on the article's talk page have been addressed, I'll support this hopefully final nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a source review in the coming days. @The Green Star Collector: I'd suggest asking fellow editors to review this nomination. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I'll ping every other editor involved in the previous nominations one last time to see if there's anything I'm overlooking: @Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • VentureBeat, Nintendo World Report, PC Magazine, Polgon, Joystiq, Shacknews, Eurogamer, Digital Trends, Kotaku, Siliconera, Nintendo Life, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, Famitsu, GamesRadar, The Observer, Edge, and Ars Technica are all high-quality reliable sources present across FAs.
  • TheGamer, however, is not a high-quality source and I recommend finding a replacement for it.
  • Why do you think Destructoid is high-quality in this case?
  • What is the reliability of inside-games.jp?

@Vacant0:

  • I'm seeing that News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable for TheGamer, with this particular article having been published in 2022 and updated in 2024. I've also found retrospective takes from Valnet's Screen Rant and Game Rant, though I can see that both publications fall into the same reliability category as TheGamer. I can remove the source if absolutely needed, though I haven't been able to locate a good replacement for it.
  • The author of the Destructoid review has been writing for the site since 2009 and was reviews director at the time of the review's publication. The other Destructoid source's author has written almost 1,500 articles for the site since 2015 as an editor-at-large.
  • The reliability of inside-games.jp is unclear.
(This is reiterating some of my responses to UpTheOctave!'s source review in the preceding nomination.) ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd then recommend removing TheGamer and inside-games.jp references from the article. I'll do a spotcheck by the end of the week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • Ref 1 done
  • Ref 3 done
  • Ref 8 done
  • Ref 9 done
  • Ref 10 mentions that you got 10 seconds to pick up Mario, I don't see a mention of 30 seconds (Ref 2 seems to mention this)
  • Ref 2 done
  • Ref 13 done
  • Ref 15 I don't see "For each flower collected in a level, one is added to the ring" being mentioned
  • Ref 16 done
  • Ref 17 done
  • Ref 15, 17 I don't see Super Yoshi being mentioned, though the rest is backed up by these sources
  • Ref 19 done
  • Ref 21 done
  • Ref 18 done

Development and release

  • Ref 27 done
  • Ref 13 done
  • Ref 31 done
  • Ref 26 done
  • Ref 29 done
  • Ref 32 done
  • Ref 33 done
  • Ref 35 done
  • Ref 42 done
  • Ref 44 done
  • Ref 2 done

Reception

  • Ref 45 done
  • Ref 47 done
  • Ref 5 done
  • Ref 2 done
  • Ref 50 done
  • Ref 17 done
  • Ref 49 done
  • Ref 30 done
  • Ref 51 done
  • Ref 54 done
  • Ref 46 done
  • Ref 53 done
  • Ref 30 done
  • Ref 54 done
  • Ref 2 done
  • Ref 17 done
  • Ref 1, 54 I don't see gyroscope being mentioned
  • Ref 18 done
  • Ref 51 done
  • Ref 55 done
  • Ref 58 done

Thank you for the source review, @Vacant0:

  • The Digital Trends ref does mention that stars can be "spent" to extend the amount of time you can be separated from Baby Mario (you can store up to 30), though I've swapped this out with ref 2 so it's less confusing.
  • I added a different Nintendo World Report ref for the flower ring info.
  • I added a booklet ref for the name of the Super Yoshi transformation.
  • I replaced "gyroscope controls" with "motion controls", since this is better reflected in refs 1 and 54.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's better. You should now remove TheGamer and inside-games.jp referecnes from the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My source review is done. Support on prose and sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I've forgot to mention that there should be consistency with the |publisher= parameter, some references use it, some don't (e.g. Ars Technica is owned by Conde Nast and it's not mentioned). You can also remove the parameter if you want. The style is also consistent, all references are written in sentence case. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the publisher from every citation. Going forward, I will omit this parameter for consistency. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support   Comments   from Noleander

[edit]
  •   Regarding footnote Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island (Japanese: ヨッシー New アイランド, Hepburn: Yosshī Nyū Airando) - The "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" is confusing to me... they speak Japanese in Japan, not English. And when I run the first Japanese name thru Google Translate, it gives me the possessive: "Yoshi's New Island". Suggest either (a) drop the English name entirely from that footnote; or (b) provide a source that positively says that the Japanese name is _not_ possessive.
  • Mid-sentence citations: Yoshi's New Island is a platform game[1] with gameplay.... The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels,[1] for a total of 60 courses.... The superscript citations in middle of sentences is a bit ugly & intrusive. I don't think the WP MOS prohibits them, but - in my opinion - they interrupt the reading flow, and hence should not be used unless there is a compelling reason. I would expect them to be found only in the middle of sentences that are very contentious. Another: .... collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels[13] and replaces the post-leve... Is there a strong reason you avoided putting those superscripts at the end of the sentences? Did some editor challenge those specific assertions that have the mid-sentence cites?
  • Cites in plot: . Moreover, it is revealed that "Mr. Pipe",[25] a moving Warp Pipe who supplied the ... I believe that WP generally discourages citations within a Plot section. Probably not a strong rule, but it is odd that the Plot section in this article is mostly free of cites, then - boom - there is one near the end.
  • As of when? The Lead says: The game has sold more than two million copies worldwide and... Statements like that alway make me suspicious ... when was that statement valid? See WP:As of. I see that the "Sales" section in the body correctly specifies an "as of" date.

Thanks for your comments, @Noleander: I've done my part to address some of them:

  • My guess is that the "Known in Japan" part is just trying to find the closest Japanese → English translation. I've seen this in a few other articles, but I can remove it if needed.
If the source for this is giving the English phrase that Japanese speakers use (when they are required to identify the game in English) then the article should say exactly that; also: including the Japanese spelling of the game is making it hard for readers to understand that point. If that is the point. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and cut the "Known in Japan as Yoshi New Island" portion; the Japanese and Hepburn names will suffice. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try to include citations mid-sentence only if the information isn't supported by a citation at the end. I could try bundling them, though I find this makes it confusing which citation supports which piece of information and leads to clusters.
Mid-sentence cites are permitted in WP, so this is no reason to oppose FA. But it is a balancing act the editor must perform: balancing flow/readability vs citation clarity. Very few readers will scrutinize the cites, but all readers will read the sentence. When I do that balance, the conclusion is to favor readability. I don't understand what you mean by "I could try bundling them ..." ... the article already has many sentences that end with 2 or 3 superscripts, such as ... that the platforming was rarely difficult.[8][17][50] Can that approach be used to eliminate the mid-sentence superscripts? If you want to help the reader know which specific fact is supported by the source, you can put that in the citation. e.g. "Smith, 2015, "New game arrives" page 14. Game rating is 82.5 In this example, you add the specific fact (rating is 82.5) at the end of the citation. That would only be required in the handful of mid-sentence cites that you move to the end of the sentence, not all cites. Again, mid-sentence cites are no reason to Oppose for FA .... I'm merely suggesting how to improve reader's flow. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander: Apologies for my late response, but I was actually able to cut or bundle quite a few of these citations in the gameplay and development/release sections while ensuring every statement is still supported. If you wanted to take another look over, that would be much appreciated. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, Mr. Pipe's name is never actually mentioned anywhere in the game, so I would recommend including just this one reference in the plot section.
  • Specified the relevant year for the statement about the game selling two million copies.

★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Green Star Collector: Replied above, below specific topics. Noleander (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Star Collector, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... some more comments added by Noleander 25 April 2025:
  • Terminology: The game features six areas on the island known as worlds, each comprising eight mandatory levels and two optional levels, for a total of 60 courses. I gather the terms "course" & "level" are synonyms? I believe "level" is more common, especially in US. Consider using "level" exclusively in the article, so as to minimize confusion to readers unfamiliar with gaming.
  • Trim unneeded words: Much like that of its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... Consider Like its predecessors, Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ... or Yoshi's New Island's gameplay revolves around ...
  • No need to identify source in Lead: According to producer Takashi Tezuka, a sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen.. When I see a source explicitly named like that ("According to producer Takashi") it draws my attention, and makes me think the fact is contentious, e.g. a controversial opinion. I'm not sure there is any need to name the source in the Lead, which is supposed to be a very high overview. Maybe omit source from Lead, and put into the body text?
  • Include job title: The game was first announced by Satoru Iwata ... consider naming that persons title e.g. "producer Satoru Iwata ..."
  • To use a source within an FA nominated article, it is generally required that the nominator read all the sources (at least, the parts of the sources relevant to the article). A few of the sources are in Japanese (14, 43, 47). Have you read those? If you cannot read Japanese, perhaps you can post a query at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles asking if it is okay to rely on the translated versions of those sources?
  • Categories: They are appropriate & alphabetized.
  • Wording second to last ... consider next to last ... so fast readers don't read it as "second"
  • Image free-use: The article has only two images; both are copyright, and both have "fair use" justifications that seem satisfactory (but I am not a copyright expert)
@Noleander: Most of your recent suggestions should now be addressed. I feel sufficiently confident in my understanding of the Japanese articles, at least the parts that are relevant to this article. With regard to the dead external links, should the archived versions also be removed or simply relocated? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think those dead archive links are historically valuable. Just try keeping them in the article but hide them in a footnote. Maybe a footnote at the end of the some other external link. Noleander (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noleander (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Image placement, ALT and rationales seem OK. I see spotchecking was done above. I'll disclaim that I am relying heavily on WP:VGRS for the sources now: Are Chris Carter and Andriessen, CJ from Destructoid and Klepek, Patrick from Giant Bomb reliable sources? Same for Slant Magazine. Siliconera apparently is only barely acceptable as a source, so probably unsuitable for FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The author of the Destructoid review was the site's reviews director at the time of publication, while the author of the other Destructoid article was an editor-at-large. Likewise, Klepek was a news editor for Giant Bomb, and his name even redirects to Wikipedia's article for the site. LeChevallier authored more than 200 articles for Slant Magazine between 2011 and 2015, though I can remove this source if absolutely necessary. I've also removed the Siliconera citations wherever possible, though we do still have to rely on a few for the name of the art director as well as some key sales info. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't mean to bother you, but are you satisfied with the above response, and is there anything else you wished to add? ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's fine now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article needs a copy edit. Even in the lead, there are confusing elements, such as:
    • "to safely transport the infant Mario across the island in a series of levels while escorting him across the island to his brother, Luigi." - you're already transporting Mario, why repeat it with the word 'escorting'
    • "A sequel to Yoshi's Island was chosen rather than a follow-up to Yoshi's Story due..." - chosen by whom?
    • "neutral opinions on its aesthetics and level design" - I assume you mean mixed opinions. Reviews would be boring if they just state everything is "OK".
@Hahnchen: I've gone ahead and made some copy edits throughout the article. As for the suggestions for the lede:
  • Rephrased the objective of the game to safely transport the infant Mario to his brother Luigi by completing a series of levels across the island.
  • It's somewhat unclear who chose this. Producer Takahashi Tezuka stated that we thought it would be the perfect choice for a new Yoshi action game, though I'm unsure whether this refers to just him, a portion of the development team, the whole development team, etc.
  • I've changed "neutral" to "divided", as I would strongly prefer not to use the word "mixed" twice in one sentence.
★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Discussion has stalled with limited support to promote. Unless that changes in the next few days the nomination is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: @RoySmith: Don't mean to pester anyone, but it sounds like this is your last opportunity to throw in feedback, a support vote, an oppose vote, etc.
@Thelifeofan413: @Cukie Gherkin: @SchroCat: @UpTheOctave!: @Hahnchen: @RoySmith: Don't mean to pester anyone, but it sounds like this is your last opportunity to throw in feedback, a support vote, an oppose vote, etc. Repeating the ping - they don't work if you don't sign them. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where would I position my section? Above or below the Coord note - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Below is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am stacked at work and with other activities at the moment, so won't have the opportunity to comment on this nom. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was pinged because of my peer review? I did a quick scan and see that many of the issues I raised at PR have been addressed, but video games really aren't my thing, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of doing a full review. RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm swamped just now so unfortunately don't have time to contribute a review. Apologies! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't have time to give a new review, my support on referencing formatting and reliabilty still stands from last time. I agree with Vacant0 on all points, especially the removal of TheGamer sourcing. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cukie Gherkin

[edit]

Will be contributing comments here soon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cukie Gherkin. Nudge! :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was just waiting for Jenhawk to do a prose check, though it seems like she's finished, so I'll do my review tonight. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Cukie Gherkin: Thank you for your feedback; I was able to implement all of it. As mentioned, I've also tried to implement some of Jenhawk's suggestions while preserving accuracy. (Players don't "choose" a Yoshi, for instance; the color of their character is based on a constant rotation.) Let me know if you have anything else. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Plot section suggestions have been implemented. Your reasoning for the removal of the sentence about Mr. Pipe seems reasonable. I still feel that "incorrectly believed to be their parents" is clearer wording, especially to readers who are unfamiliar about the process of storks delivering babies. Furthermore, "the wrong parents" might suggest that the couple are still parents, which I do not believe is the case. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: I was able to implement nearly all of your feedback for the development/release and reception sections. As for the 3D visuals, Culafi appears to be specifically referring to the background and enemy designs; his exact wording is that whoever designed the visuals knows how to make those 3DS textures sing. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing other comments as well as the changes made, I'm inclined to lend my support for this article becoming featured status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  1. 'Friendly' can be dropped, as the reader can infer the friendliness of the dinosaur based on them being the protagonist and protecting a baby. Could just as well say "controlling dinosaurs known as Yoshis".

Gameplay

  1. Same beef re: 'friendly'
  2. 'Evil' can probably be dropped, as readers can intuit that Kamek is bad
  3. I believe it may work better to explain what stars are following the 10—30 seconds sentence, as it more immediately explains why it works like this.

Plot

  1. I believe that it should be mentioned that the Yoshis were responsible for helping Baby Mario reach the stork and Baby Luigi in the prior game. This both makes the connection of Yoshi in this story clearer and sets up mention of the reunion.
  2. I have to agree that, while it's mildly clearer to say "to a couple in the Mushroom Kingdom incorrectly believed to be their parents," I don't know that it's really needed. I think that "to the wrong parents" gets across adequately that the stork's delivery was due to believing they were the parents.
  3. "but they are ambushed by the evil wizard Kamek" Two points: I think it reads better as "is ambushed by", making it about the stork being ambushed rather than the stork and the babies, who are passive participants in this scene. Second point is that, like in the Gameplay section, there's no need to say evil, as anyone will agree that kidnapping babies is pretty classically evil!
  4. I question if "Mr. Pipe" is worth mentioning. Mentioning him here implies that this is an important detail, but he's not mentioned in the plot section, nor is his gameplay function mentioned earlier.

Development and release

  1. The second instance of "Nintendo announced" could be changed to "Nintendo revealed" to reduce repetition
  2. Perhaps consider "published by Nintendo in 2014" and just say the month/date releases after? I.e., "Yoshi's New Island was published by Nintendo in 2014, and released in North America and Europe on March 14, in Australia the following day, and in Japan on July 24."

Reception

  1. I would suggest picking only one of the NWR reviews or replace both with a different source to keep the reviews in the table down to 10.
  2. "Additionally, Alex Culafi of Nintendo World Report and Kathryn Bailey of GamesRadar+ noted nostalgia in the game's sound effects and level design" Honestly, I feel like this may need some expanding upon; it sounds like they are feeling especially nostalgic, but in the article, Culafi states that t his nostalgia eventually wears off. I think Culafi's sentiments should be acknowledged. Especially with Edge's line, it almost implies that Culafi's comments don't go beyond simply acknowledging the nostalgia.
  3. When it says "3D visuals," is this referring to 3D models or the 3DS' 3D gimmick?
  4. "Critics were also divided on the game's level design" Placed after the graphics, this feels like it's implying that critics were divided on the look of the game, when they seemed to hold a consensus on the graphics being poor and are internally consistent on their opinions.
  5. "Although Kyle Orland referred to the Eggdozer mechanic as a promising idea," Rephrase to say "Kyle Orland found the Eggdozer mechanic promising,"
  6. Consider including that Yoshi's New Island is the lowest-ranked Yoshi's Island game on both lists.

Jenhawk777

[edit]

Will be contributing a prose and copy edit review - soon. Please don't archive yet! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a few unexpected minutes right now! So, Yoshi's New Island is a platform game with gameplay similar to that of the other Yoshi's Island games, revolving around one of multiple friendly dinosaurs known as Yoshis needing to reach the goal at the end of each level while protecting an infant Mario from enemies like Shy Guys and other obstacles. Long and awkward. How about: "Yoshi's New Island is a platform game similar to its predecessors. Players choose a friendly dinosaur, known as a Yoshi, to protect infant Mario from enemies, overcome obstacles and reach each level's goal." Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the optional levels in each world is unlocked by obtaining every collectible and finishing with full health in each level of that world, while the other is unlocked after 30 medals are collected by jumping through a roulette ring,[3] which functions as the goal of most levels and replaces the post-level minigames from the previous Yoshi's Island installments. I got lost in the middle of this sentence... I am unfamiliar with this game and could not figure out what this is describing. Please clarify - with separate sentences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other sections revolve around the use of a power-up known as the Yoshi Star, which briefly transforms Yoshi into Super Yoshi,[18] providing temporary invincibility and enabling Yoshi to travel at high speeds, as well as run up walls and across ceilings, for a short period of time.[16][19] That is a dangling sentence fragment at the end. How about a period after Super Yoshi [18]? Then perhaps use that fragment as the opening clause to the next sentence: "For a short period of time, Yoshi has invincibility, can travel at high speeds, and run up walls and across ceilings." Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have time for today, but I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do a prose review, so if you could let me know when yours is finished, I'd like to do that in addition to double checking various bits and bobs - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cukie Gherkin I got little cooperation, so I think I am done. Perhaps you will have better luck than I did. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I just went ahead and copy-edited, cutting it by about half. Check to be sure there are no factual errors please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll ping you. They have not done all I asked - so far. No one likes having their text cut; copy-editing is difficult to accept, but necessary. We'll see what they do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

The third entry in the Yoshi's Island series, Yoshi's New Island had its development outsourced to Arzest, with some members having previously been involved in the development of the original Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island DS Copy edit this down to: "Yoshi's New Island was outsourced to Arzest." The rest is unnecessary. It's in the rest of the paragraph.

From Arzest, Masahide Kobayashi directed the game, founder Naoto Ohshima served as a producer,[27][29] Masamichi Harada served as art director,[13] and Masayoshi Ishi composed the game's soundtrack.[30] Nintendo producer Takashi Tezuka had previously directed both Super Mario World and the original Yoshi's Island. Copy-edit: "Masahide Kobayashi directed, founder Naoto Ohshima was producer, Masamichi Harada was art director, and Masayoshi Ishi composed the soundtrack."

During an interview with Nintendo Life, Tezuka stated that a Yoshi's Island sequel was chosen over a Yoshi's Story successor due to being simpler in both gameplay and construction, as well as the former's hand-drawn art style being better suited for the Nintendo 3DS. Copy-edit: "Tezuka stated in an interview that a sequel was chosen due to Yoshi Island's simplicity of gameplay, construction and art style."

The use of oil paintings, watercolors, and crayon drawings for the game's aesthetics helped its graphical style retain what Tezuka described as the "warm and friendly vibe" of the original Yoshi's Island, as well as the "handicraft feel" the series had become known for. Grammar: don't end a sentence with a preposition. Be careful of verb tense. It's correct to switch between the past tense for discussion of the people, then to present tense for what the game does since it is still doing it, but that requires careful attention. Copy edit: "Graphics include oil paintings, watercolors, and crayon drawings thereby retaining the the "handicraft feel" the series has become known for and its "warm and friendly vibe".

During an interview with Nintendo World Report, Tezuka stated that Yoshi's New Island was developed in tandem with Yoshi's Woolly World, despite the latter title being developed by Good-Feel, and both games shared some level design staff. use Wikipedia's voice Copy-edit: "Yoshi's New Island was developed alongside Yoshi's Woolly World, sharing some design staff, despite Woolly World being developed by Good-Feel."

According to Tezuka, the concept of throwing giant eggs originated from the development team being interested in "creating something big and impactful".[29] Moreover, in the Nintendo Life interview, Tezuka stated that the game's levels were made easier in comparison to those of its predecessor, though the collectibles would be difficult and time-consuming enough to provide "a nice challenge for more experienced players" Copy edit: "The desire to create something big produced giant egg throwing, while levels were made easier, and gathering collectibles provided "a nice challenge for more experienced players"."

Last paragraph's copy-edit:

"First announced in April 2013, the game's name, a trailer and a demo were revealed in June 2013, and its release date was announced in January 2014. In early March of that year, a special edition Yoshi-themed Nintendo 3DS XL system was announced, and in a March 9th promotion event, Benjamin Stockham (About a Boy), Garrett Clayton (Teen Beach Movie), and Bella Thorne (Shake It Up), posed with the special edition system, throwing balloons containing green paint at a large egg. Yoshi's New Island, by Nintendo, was released in North America and Europe on March 14, 2014, in Australia on March 15, and in Japan on July 24, 2014."

I understand that copy-editing cuts text, and that we are all invested in our text, so it's common to find it hard to swallow. Trust me. I have been where you are; learning to never use two words where one will do improves writing no matter how skilled or experienced you are. This is a good thing. Edit out all repetition, unnecessary detail, and descriptive adjectives whose purpose is providing "color". I will wait on your response to do more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jenhawk777: Thank you for all of your suggestions thus far. I appreciate your revisions to the plot section, though I've updated it to add missing details or revise statements that were misleading or did not reflect the formal tone of Wikipedia. (For instance, it wouldn't make sense to a casual reader that Yoshi and Baby Mario travel to Baby Bowser's castle if it's not established that Bowser is an antagonist, and failing to mention the adult Bowser "warping through space and time" could lead readers to incorrectly assume that they exist in the same timeline.) I've gone ahead and made copyedits to the development and release section, albeit while trying to preserve active voice, particularly whenever something is announced by Nintendo. I anticipate any further feedback you or Cukie Gherkin can provide. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require a formal tone just an encyclopedic one which is best communicated in a concise and clear manner. Most writers have a problem with concise. For example, taking place immediately after the original game is the definition of sequel, so it's redundant. This: incorrectly believed to be their parents uses 6 words to replace the word "wrong". Intro's like Upon realizing this are implied by events and are therefore unnecessary, as are details like mid-flight and by taking turns escorting him across the island. Anyone inspired to play will find out details for themselves. Only main points are needed in a summary. I looked over the rest. I was truly wanting to support this nomination, but as it stands, I can't. I am disappointed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concision is definitely one of the main pillars of Wikipedia writing, but I think you misunderstand the difference between "concision" and "terseness". You cannot explain in two sentences something which needs five. Concision trumps prolixity, but clarity trumps brevity. To illustrate, I don't think "taking place immediately after the original game" is entirely redundant. The word really being stressed there is immediately, meaning there is little or no time between the entries, whereas a sequel in general can take place at any time after the first entry. Also, the detail about the couple "incorrectly believed to be their parents" could not be replaced by "wrong." That is necessary (or at least non-trivial) information to convey—it is a plot point in the story that is explained at no other point in the plot summary. Furthermore, ending with a preposition, a point you raised, is, in this case, not incorrect, as it is part of a quote.I got this wrong. That's my fault. I thought it was part of a quote, but you had just quoted the article. However, I should comment that your fix does not address the ending of the sentence with a preposition as it would in academic writing. Rather, it should be written as "for which it had become known", not "which it had become known for". Again, sorry for the mixup! Now, I know I am not the nominator, and I am not trying to coax you into supporting this nomination (because it is ultimately up to you and your own interpretation), but the grounds upon which you seem to have opposed are shaky, to say the least. Nub098765 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nub098765 This writer is wordy. So are you. So am I. We all need good copy-editing by a disinterested party. Terse often works quite well.
You say - not that Wikipedia says - "clarity trumps brevity", and while that isn't actually part of the MOS, it seems fair as far as it goes. It doesn't go far. Wikipedia makes it clear that the best and clearest writing uses the fewest unnecessary words. That's why FAC criteria includes "... without going into unnecessary detail." Is there unnecessary detail in this article? I say yes.
Your examples to the contrary don't seem valid. The internet defines sequel as "something that takes place after (follows), or as a result of, an earlier event." What you want to include after saying it's a sequel is literally the definition of sequel - which is redundant, by definition, since redundant refers to unnecessary repetition. Its immediacy does not impact anything one way or the other. That phrase mainly provides emotional "color", which is almost always a sign of unnecessary verbiage. This is an encyclopedia, not an advert.
How is "incorrectly believed to be their parents" not the same as "wrong parents"? "Incorrect" is defined using the word "wrong". Yes, it is a plot point, and I did not suggest excluding it. I only suggested making it shorter.
If this is your version of coaxing, I wonder how you define opposition! But I have not opposed this nomination. I think it is not yet representative of Wikipedia's best, but I don't think it's far from it. I do think it's pretty easy to fix, but I haven't gotten cooperation, so I have not supported it. This is a FAC nomination. That means both clear AND concise. That seems like pretty solid ground to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from. We are all inherently wordy writers, and I'm not saying copyediting is a bad thing (hell, most of my work on this site has involved trimming down wordy articles). But the way you are going about this doesn't seem the best.
Clarity does trump brevity. We obviously shouldn't give weight to every small detail about a subject, but we need to present the information, above all else, clearly. We are here for the reader's entertainment and education, not so we can get an article under 1000 words. Wikipedia actually does say this; see WP:5C. The best and clearest writing does use the fewest unnecessary words. And this article might have many unnecessary words (I haven't checked). But "unnecessary" doesn't apply to words or clauses that add to the article one way or the other. If it adds something to the article, it cannot be redundant, but it might be WP:UNDUE.
Immediacy does actually change a lot. Usually, sequels take place months, years, or even decades after the original entry. I'm not disputing that sequel means what you say it means; I'm disputing the idea that it just provides "color" to the text. Could it be removed if it doesn't really change anything? Sure. But immediacy can implicate many things beyond adding color to the article. Also, "immediately" isn't even an emotional adverb.
I misread your intent, and that is my fault. I thought you were trying to remove the whole clause. However, I still think your revision is incorrect—the couple is not the "wrong" set of parents (an inherently ambiguous and unhelpful description), they are seen as their parents, but aren't. It's not that they're not their parents, it's that people think they're their parents.
As for your opposition, you're correct, you never actually opposed the nomination. I presumed your opposition from "I was truly wanting to support this nomination, but as it stands, I can't. I am disappointed", which, in my mind, meant you opposed (or were going to oppose) the nomination, but I realize now that this is unfounded. I apologize for that.
You have gotten cooperation, though. The Green Star Collector has shown a great appreciation for your revisions but states that you cut out necessary information. You can copyedit, but you can't remove information that actually contributes to the article. They were clear in their reasoning, so you can't expect them to implement your every word into the article.
Ultimately, I appreciate what you're doing. Really. I love to see copyeditors streamlining prose like I do. But, as I said, clarity always trumps brevity. Nub098765 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nub098765 They made one change. In my own FAC nominees, that has never once been seen as sufficient cooperation to gain support. Has it been for you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my comments on your comments, I feel like there's issues with some of the suggestions you've made resulting in the loss of key information or changes the meaning of what's being cited. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have never nominated an FAC, but I'd imagine yes, it would, if I give sufficient and substantial reasoning why I opted not to change the text in that way. Wikipedia is all about consensus—either the nominator can implement the changes without pushback (because they see nothing wrong with it and therefore have come to a consensus with the other person that it warrants inclusion in the article), or the nominator can give a reason why they won't do that. Those are both forms of coöperation. Nub098765 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An aside by Cukie Gherkin

I feel like I should weigh in as someone who's gonna be doing a prose review and as someone who has played the game. For simplicity, I'll discuss each proposed green change here:

  1. Looks fine
  2. Looks fine
  3. Looks fine
  4. I feel like, since it's only one member whose past involvement was discussed, it makes sense to mention the past involvement of other staff members. A possible change would be to change the sentence to read: "with some members having previously been involved in the development of the original Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island DS, including producer Takashi Tezuka."
  5. The typo fix is valid, but you've misunderstood what the sentence is saying and loses a crucial detail. In the current sentence, it's being said that they chose to make a new Yoshi's Island instead of Yoshi's Story. It also does not explain why the art style is better, just that it is, whereas the current sentence states that they chose it in part because of how the art style translates to a 3DS screen.
  6. This one feels a bit odd, as it reads like the article is claiming this of the art style and not Tezuka.
  7. Seems fine, although I would sooner see the shared level design staff mentioned still.
  8. I feel that these changes make it read awkwardly; easier in comparison to what? Also, I do not think that impactful is implied by big, so losing impactful removes context.

Just my two cents. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go with what Cukie and Nub say. There appears to be agreement that being more concise is also communicating less information that seems important to them to include. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jenhawk777, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. My objections weren't supported by the other two editors, so I probably shouldn't oppose, but since I did think there were problems and they were not addressed, I can't in good conscience support it either. The best I can do is not say anything at this point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2025 (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/Yoshi%27s_New_Island/archive3&oldid=1296271389"