Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 1

• Adding it makes it fact which cannot be confirmed for the moment, thought your free to rumor the game's connection to 128. Any mention of 128 as the working title for galaxy is technically incorrect until Nintendo officially confirms it is 128. Also, I sort of agree it might have been a concept anyways. In any case nothing can be changed until any sort of confirmation. Just because you might have a hunch it is the game doesn't qualify as reliable info. -Pelusa 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• What needs to be done is that data on the SpaceWorld demo needs to be added and then this page will serve as a guide to the long history of the name. -Artimuszeln 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept separate until Nintendo confirms it otherwise your saying its fact when it really wouldn't be (for the moment) meanwhile it can only be posted as a game in development. --Pelusa 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is, truly, Super Mario 128... -- gakon5 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, should we merge? I think we should merge that articles for the time being, and put all the info about Super Mario 128 in a "history" section. Zorgon 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this is Mario 128. A lot of sites are assuming that this is what became of it, but there's no official statement that Galaxy is 128. Personally, I don't think it is. I remember it being mentioned that there was already a Wii-specific Mario title in the works when 128's development was ported over fro mthe GCN.--Claude 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iwata did mention that 128 would have a newness that was missing from sunshine. Galaxiy? defenaly new. General JellyJiggler 18:13 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No for now. Wait until after e3 to make any judgements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait until it's official. The Kids Aren't Alright 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait, but it's almost certain that this was the game formely known as Super Mario 128. Spyke 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until we hear more than the sparing details we have now too. Since there seems to definitely not be consensus, I'm removing the merge request. Edit: Well, someone else did it in the time it took me to write that. Klondike 11:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait. No use on jumping to our guns until we know something. It'll just confuse people if we edit it in, out and in again etc. Hwoarang8 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it turns out this is what eventually became of Super Mario 128, there might not be any need to merge the two. After all, the article for SM128 contains mostly info about the mystery surrounding the game. That information shouldn't be lost, and it would make this article lengthy and cluttered (when combined with the plethora of information this article will inevitably have after the release of the game). I say keep them separate, like

OPPOSE we're not 100% sure that they are the same game Since this is being discussed here, and it's probably a good idea to get input from others, I've added the merge template. jaco♫plane 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeff Silvers. Mario 128 isn't a game; it was a concept. It began as the codename for what began as a tech demo for the Gamecube, then at one point may have been the codename for Super Mario Sunshine, then was maybe the codename for Super Mario Galaxy, and maybe it was also the codename for some other Mario game which never came to fruition or grew into Super Mario Galaxy. The whole term "Super Mario 128" is clouded with so much intrigue that simply doesn't belong in an article about Super Mario Galaxy. Klondike 19:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until Nintendo makes a statement, I don't think it is fair or accurate to merge. If they do confirm that 128=Galaxy, then we essentially have two articles on the same game. In short, I feel that if Nintendo says yes, then we should merge.--StAkAr Karnak 21:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No don't merge, it's not the same game, heck Super Mario 128 isn't even an actual game, this article clearly states that this "game" has been more of a launching platform for various ideas, even if it was announced oficially it still wouldn't be the same game as "Super Mario 128" most likely incorporated both ideas from Galexy and Sunshine. Deathawk 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Heck no! don't merge it. for all we know, Sunshine could have been the 128 and Miyamoto was just covering. It might be Galaxy, and Galaxy might change its name to "Mario 128" but for now, they are seperate. --PopiethePopester 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep them seperate. Even if this is super mario 128, The concept and the game are different things.Julz

• I believe that Super Mario 128 was just a demo of innovations that mario can do in future games and some features are used here in Galaxy. See Super Mario 128 for more details.-Frankyboy5

• Super Mario 128 was bunch of ideas that Nintendo had, and some of the ideas will be used in Super Mario Galaxy.-Coolluck

• "In the July 2006 issue of GamesMaster, a short interview with Miyamoto at E3 2006 reveals that Super Mario Galaxy is not necessarily Super Mario 128.

GAMESMASTER: What inspired Super Mario Galaxy and what does it mean for Mario 128?

MIYAMOTO: Well, Mario 128 was a collection of different experiments. Super Mario Galaxy takes a lot of the experiments from Mario 128 and implements them in the game. Because of that it's partly 128 but there are also elements that existed in Mario 128. I don't know when we'll be able to bring those out."

Taken from Super Mario 128 --Mikco 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, don't just think Mario Galaxy as a full game. Therefore, if we watch closely the Demo Videos (like the brilliant parts on Earth that creates some kind of shape), we could get into a conclusion. Remember, Mario 128 was said to be the "true" sequel to Mario 64, so maybe Mario Galaxy is the code-name for Mario 128. If you guys think that what and where the adventure occurs, as a stage of Mario 128, it would make sense. It is also obvious that Nintendo would not launch such a game where Mario goes jumping around planetoids trying to defeat bosses or get to the location where the starman is. Think, if Mario gets a star, where would he be? Back into the beginning of the level? Back into Princess Peach's Castle or even Hyrule Castle? If you think about those things, you could understand more about it and claiming Mario Galaxy as Mario 128. If Mario continues on the place he is after he gets the star, he would go to another part of the galaxy. This would get boring if you keep playing, though. So, it is the same thing as if I say that Super Mario 64 (on the N64 era) with the name of "Super Mario Rainbow Sky", as the game itself is the Rainbow Road stage in Mario 64. Mario Galaxy would be, as it is called, a "Demo" of Mario 128. Remember, the story may change, like a mix with Mario and Zelda, as Mario being the hero (if anyone is interested in what Link would be, please ask it on the same section) and Bowser and Ganon as the main enemies. And if you guys are good to remember, you would know the logo of Super Mario 128 or if you were a big Mario fan before or since the year 2000, you would have saved a picture or logo on Game Stop or any other place during 2001 (one hint...check the Spaceworld's Mario 128 Demo background.) . So I say we should wait until E3 07 for more details and a help for a conclusion. But just in case, I say we should merge. --Mr. Mario 192 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is full of flaws. Miyamoto clearly stated that Mario 128 was simply a tech demo to show off the power of the Gamecube, not implied as Mario 64's sequel. Mario Galaxy is a full game that took the spherical concept from Mario 128, as Pikmin did with the concept involving the large number of characters. Plus, Miyamoto specifically said he would never allow Mario and Link to be together in a canon game, as they come from two distinct game worlds (Smash Bros doesn't count). Your reasoning that "Nintendo would not launch such a game where Mario goes jumping around planetoids" has no real evidence to support it, either. In conclusion, the evidence you brought forward isn't enough to merge this article with Super Mario 128, which got deleted anyway.--ThomasO1989 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Excuse me, but if you are wrong in saying that Miyamoto surely stated such a thing. On an interview( only in Japan, which wasn't broadcasted or published, but answered questions from the people asking him) with Miyamoto, he stated that Mario 128 IS the Mario 64's sequel and he was thinking in putting only Zelda and Ganon on the story, saying that the event occured while Link was in Termina. Now, such a ridiculous speech in saying that he would never allow Mario and Link to be togetger is a truly false statement. And, Miyamoto controls 52% of the Zelda Universe while Eiji Aonuma controls 48%. But, this doesn't mean that he would allow directly, he should first convince Aonuma for doing any action. Though, if you noticed, both worlds are actually not different, but it occurs in different locations and different time. You see, there are great connections between Mario and Zelda. Think... why would Shigeru Miyamoto put a Mario painting inside Hyrule Castle?? Now, check the name of Mario Galaxy. Even if they were different, a good example of a famous game that features characters from two different universes would be Kingdom Hearts. The Demo shown on Spaceworld in 2000, is actually a representation of Mario 128. Although, we could just look closely at the shapes that the round board bends. Also, the spaces on the edge of the board shows names, which is hard to see. The Demo would apply the future ideas that Nintendo already had, such as Pikmin and The Wind Waker. As a matter of fact, the two demos that shown the power of the Gamecube were Luigi's Mansion (shown for its graphics) and the Zelda Movie-Demo. But, Mario 128's Demo also shown the Gamecube's power by putting 128 Marios on the same screen. That is why there where 128 "Tiny" Marios. But they shown all this just to distract people showing their system's power and their strange new game. But it could be revealed some information by looking close to the Demo Videos. This could give us more information. What they could have done is show the game's name and story, then delay it to more years ahead, say its cancelled, say it was just an experiment, and launch it as a surprise. It is said to be a "Tentative Title", which means the name can be replaced. Never did anyone said that Mario Galaxy was a full game. But, parts of Mario 128 can be found in several places, such as Pikmin. Pikmin only took the form of having a large amount of characters. Man, can't you admit that Nintendo could be hiding Mario Galaxy's real profile??? Remember, you are discussing with Mr. Mario 192... I know far more things about other games (including this one) than most of the other people.--Mr. Mario 192 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It doesn't change the fact your evidence is mostly speculation and the Mario 128 article was deleted. Watching Mario 128 videos over and over doesn't do anything. It's a waste of time. Also, most thought that Super Mario Sunshine was Mario 128 when it was released, and it's going to be the same for this, which we do not need. That bit about a Mario painting in a Hyrule castle- Mario shows up in Zelda all the time, and vice-versa. But those are simply cameos that do not have any impact on the game play nor the story, and they occur all the time. And putting "only Zelda and Gannon in", you're saying that Miyamoto could dump Mario from the Mario 128 project and just turn it into another Zelda game, not a Mario game. And the main difference between Mario 128 itself and Mario Galaxy is that Mario Galaxy has concrete evidence of its development, while Mario 128 was simply mentioned for several years and absolutely nothing was shown since Space World, until GDC 2007, where Miyamoto said the Mario 128 was just a tech demo. They just simply decided to use Mario in it.

--ThomasO1989 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Who cares about the Mario 128 article? Alright, if you are stating that is a waste of time watching the Demo videos, then you've watched it over and over again. They thought Mario Sunshine was Mario 128 because it was close to the time Mario 128 was shown. But after its launch, it was clear it wasn't Mario 128. It wasn't what Mario 3D platformer really was. And because of that game, the music, stories, and stages of later games were like what Mario Sunshine's theme was, which is one reason the N64 games were better. But Mario Galaxy has one sound effect that is the same of Mario Sunshine: the starman's sound, which is more like the Sunshine's sound. Now Galaxy looks more like Mario 64 for its Gameplay, characters and the outer space movements and stage itself. A similiar thing would be the rabbits in which Mario chases, just like Mario 64's yellow rabbit. The game was like the return of the real 3D Mario platformer with new ideas. "Because of new speculations of gameplay, Mario 128 could possibly appear", as Miyamoto stated on his Japan interview. And about the cameos, Miyamoto stated 2 days ago that there are reasons for putting such cameos, to simply come up with a story. Now just because he was going to put Zelda and Ganon, it doesn't mean it's gonna be a Zelda game. Mostly because Mario is more famous, and he is the Nintendo mascot. Also Link does not feature on this game because of the Majora's Mask event. So these are just a litlle more proof of not just being a Zelda game. Now, could you accept that Mario and Zelda could be together in the same game fighting against Ganon?? Now, there is evidence of its production, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be possibly Mario 128. Remember, Mario Galaxy could mostly be a code-name. Mario 128 was actually shown as a Demo which shown 128 Marios as a experience of technology, but the Demo itself could be a video with small things that shown about the real game. It is that Miyamoto is just covering the game as a tech demo. Before you answer this time, read the past answers of our discussion, and remember who are you discussing with.--Mr. Mario 192 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't give a crap if know everything about Mario or Zelda. It doesn't change the fact that your argument sucks. The thing is, the evidence you brought forward isn't enough to merge this article with Mario 128, except now you say you don't care much about that article. So you just forgot that that was what you were arguing about at the very beginning.--ThomasO1989 02:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now, if you think my argument sucks, then don't answer any more. Alright, you were right in one thing. I was wrong in saying about the Mario 128 article. Yes, there were valuable information on the article that was taken off. Well, all the information I brought was enough to prove the existence of Mario 128 and what Mario Galaxy really is. Although, I think it's better to merge as one article which would be named "Super Mario 128". One more thing, I hope you could just explain to me why my information isn't enough...as your last response(because of your ridiculous thoughts about the argument)--Mr. Mario 192 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • mario 128redirects
    here, despite "In a roundtable discussion at E3 2007, it was made perfectly clear that Super Mario Galaxy was not Mario 128" - what's going on?

Why does the description have a spoiler warning? It does'nt reveal much and anyone interested in mario games could figure it out anyway.

Heh. That "spoiler warning" is comical. The premise of the game can't be a spoiler...--Claude 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which cannot be confirmed for the moment, thought your free to rumor the game's connection to 128. Any mention of 128 as the working title for galaxy is technically incorrect until Nintendo officially confirms it is 128.

Mario 128 info--roger6106 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are thy going to have shroobs and stuff like that? i highly doubt bowser or who ever is the villian would scatter there earthly minions all over ever astroid.

There's rumors that the villain is

Tatanga (from Super Mario Land).--Claude 08:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

These E3 videos[1] show that there will be at least 2 classic Mario enemies (Goombas and Bullet Bills). No official word on Tatanga, though. Maxistheman 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing to suggest Tatanga is the main villain in this game other than the fact that it takes place in space, aliens come from space, and Tatanga is an alien. This rumour is merely fan speculation, and as far as I know, Nintendo hasn't even hinted that Tatanga may return. Xubelox 08:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HOPE it has Shroobs. I liked the idea. Imagine. 3D, squishy Shroobs to jump on.

Remember, this is NOT A FORUM on Super Mario Galaxy --Pezzar 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when you were reffering the past mario games to be critically acclaimed, i'm sorry, but super mrio sun shine is not one of them, you wikipedians yourselves even said so, why just do a search for the game and you will read the flawed game.

lol, Sunshine was critically acclaimed you moron, lol. all games are flawed. LOL LOL LOL LOL!!111 Please, if you have something to say here, don't make a complete fool of yourself in the process. People are going to take you less seriously when you can't even spell the title character's name correctly.--Claude 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morons indeed. Total score of 9.0/10 and ranked #18 for Gamecube games. --

SeizureDog 10:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

92 average on Metacritic and 91 on GameRankings.com, I think that qualifies as critically acclaimed. TJ Spyke 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it qualifies as "Critically acclaimed", even though some people doubt it. I've played it and I think its great. --Pezzar 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the miscelleaneous section is pointless. Why do we need to know about all of Mario's space adventure from the past.

"Super Mario Galaxy (working title) is the final installment in the Mario series." What? Final? Final?!? I refuse to believe it. Nintendo would never purposefully kill of the Mario franchise. Maybe the newest installment. But final? Can't be. Impossible. Never. Supermariorobot 21:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo never said it would be the final installment, and I doubt they would ever stop since Mario is one of their biggest franchises. TJ Spyke 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they meant 'latest'?--Claude 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited the article to say "final" instead of "latest" (it was changed back of course but not before someone commented on it). SNS 05:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Nintendo would make it the final one. That would be a massive disappointment to gamers everywhere.--Kondrayus 22:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering...why is Super Mario Galaxy considered the spiritual successor to Super Mario 64? Wasn't Super Mario Sunshine based heavily on Mario 64? --206.8.10.4 05:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Miyamoto once stated in an article (that can likely be found on IGN) that Super Mario 128 is the "true" sequel to Super Mario 64 & this game is believed to be Super Mario 128 under a new name. SNS 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Super Mario 128 was just a demo of innovations that mario can do in future games and some features are used here in Galaxy. See Super Mario 128 for more details.-Frankyboy5

Super Mario Sunshine wasn't THAT original, except for the fact that Mario had a water pack and the levels had a different theme. Galaxy, just like SM64, is a fresh idea never implemented before. --Japan became a first-world country after a bomb wiped out everyone. We Argentinians only managed to get two dictatorships and 10 million of poor people since WWII. 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

According to

This game was known as Super Mario 128 when it was going to be for the Gamecube (or elements from the cancelled Super Mario 128 were included in this game, it's unclear). As for Nintendo 64, some people believe that Super Mario 64 2 later became Super Mario 128. SNS 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Super Mario 128 was what became Sunshine. Does anybody have sources? At any rate, I'm deleting this from the N64 list as it already lists Super Mario 64 2. Ace of Sevens 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 128 was announced on December 2002 & Nintendo continued making comments on it for years. Video game sites like IGN have the articles on this. SNS 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Super Mario 128 is an experiment of innovations that they could put into future games.-Frankyboy5

Mario 128 info--roger6106 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game would problaby be a Wii project because of its revolutionary gameplay and graphics which was planned for Mario Galaxy (Mario 128) to be like Mario 64, a revolutionary game in a new platform with new graphics and gameplay. --Mr. Mario 192 19:09, 2 April 2007

the Shigeru Miyamoto Game List says he is, but I don't know if i can trust this, can someone confirm this?

He is. --Pezzar 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGN said they interviewed Takahashi Tezuka but it should be Takashi Tezuka. Frankyboy5 00:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that various sites are listing Mario Galaxies as no longer for launch. Near as I can figure, this is taken from a small quote from Miyamoto where he basically said he wasn't 100% sure he would have it ready by launch. I think it should still be listed as a launch title, but with the notation that its a tentative release date. See the IGN link in the article for the quote.--Juron Pilo 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that the text could be improved to indicate that a launch-date release is quite possible, it certainly wasn't confirmed. Perhaps it'd be okay to consider it a probable "launch window" title, though I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this.

Dancter 18:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It's been confirmed to come out "within six months of Wii's lanuch", which means it is not very likely, however possible, to be a lanuch title. I don't like the last sentence - what Miyamoto said doesn't suggest Q1 2007, it suggests Q4 2006 OR Q1 2007. I think that last sentence should be taken out. Jjam189 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is correct - so I've reworded it to make it clearer. Dpmarshall 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it some more, matching the quotation to what was given in the source.

Dancter 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Though I'm not sure how this could be incorporated into the article, Reggie recently said in an interview with gamespot that Super Mario Galaxy would be the "coffee" if Wii were a meal.

Wii is the main course, Metroid Prime 3 is the "dessert", SMG is the "coffee" and SSBB is the "afterdinner drink" 199.126.137.209 13:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Since when did the U.S. release date become February 2007? DarthJango42 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC). game.co.uk is saying that it will be released in Q1, but it's over so this is obviously not true.[reply]

In IGN it says the release date for japan is December 31 2007 and in Europe it will be released August 2007. Uchiha23 (talk/Contr.) 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am far too excited. I have wanted a game like Galaxy since the "non water-pack" mini levels in Super Mario Sunshine, which I think were the best part of Sunshine. Why couldn't we have had a [GameCube] 128 stars’ game of that? I can't believe that Super Mario Galaxy is going to come out in August over here (UK/Europe). So can someone please confirm; or is IGN being a little over zealous?

It seems that Galaxy is basically an evolved 128, so this is part of Galaxy's history, I think.PureLegend 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hell? Do people not see the merge discussion above that ended in opposition? Why are people STILL trying to have this merged?--Claude 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario 128 is not Super Mario Galaxy. It's that simple! Mario 128 influenced the Galaxy project, but they are not the same. And look at the discussion above. --myselfalso 05:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 128 became Super Mario Galaxy, I would support a merger. TJ Spyke 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 128 didn't become any specific game. This has already been concluded. The article will not be merged.--Claude 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been merged. I searched for Mario 128, and it redirected me here. (rct2guy 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It says here http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=512 in the section "Manipulating Mario" that the d-pad can be used to control the camera, and the c-button can be used to center it. Could somebody add this? It also says that the Z-button is used for crouching, but I don't see that in the article. Masternimbus 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=fzkNhTUuK-w demonstrates some of the moves that you can perform. I'm putting them in. Masternimbus 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are compaining about this game even before it's released because it seems to stray too much to the classic mario games and even Super Mario 64. Frankyboy5 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who? This game is really returning to classic moves and stuff. And to tell you the truth, if you stay the same, things can really get boring. I guess that's sort of what Wii is doing, straying away from the classic formula. Masternimbus 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Super Mario Sunshine. It was criticized for having too many gimmicks, flawed camera system and everything in one setting. The setting also strayed too much from the classic formula. The same thing may happen to Super Mario Galaxy. Frankyboy5 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it might not. --myselfalso 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Besides, I'm sure people were skeptical about Super Mario 64 ("it's 3d! it's strying too far away from the classic 2d formula!") but SM64 turned out great. -Power Slave 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not straying from classic Mario, it's just trying to get a new side of Mario. Past games made it look like Mario lived during a time like 1958, I guess this game's just trying to bring Mario to the 21st century.--Kondrayus 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But too much of the nostalgic classic formula gets repetitive. That's what happened to NSMB. Frankyboy5 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I hate this section. The game isn't even out yet. Can we take this out? Masternimbus 17:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. The original contributor has not provided any evidence for the statements in the section.

Dancter 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

http://www.nintendo.com/sites/supermariogalaxy/swf/shell.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I will review this article over the weekend. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section review

Images

• Are in well-placed locations and abide by the criteria.

Lead

• Everything's fine here, although the in-line cites may not be needed if sourced later in the article.

Infobox

• Good.

Gameplay-Premise and Setting

• First paragraph completely lacking of cites.
• Again, second paragraph lacking of cites.
• A bit confused here - do all the special stars play the level on a time limit?

Gameplay-Controls

• Explain if any of these controls are new.
• Cites!

Gameplay-Power ups and lives

• "He can also jump higher and run faster" - incorporate this into a previous sentence
• Some of the details seem a bit repetitive and a bit unclear. Try removing extraneous material as the article sometimes goes off on a tangent.

Gameplay-multiplayer

• I suppose its ok.

Plot

• puffery
  .
• Cites.

....

Concluding Thoughts

• I am not going to go through the remaining paragraphs/sections until the citation issues with the first half are resolved. Because of this problem, inflated by overarching issues I describe below, I am going to have to quick-fail this nomination.
  • Issues of prose -- at many points the article seems written in the perspective of a gamer and not a more...universal view.
  • Lack of clarity -- many instances where small details are inflated
  • Citations

If you have any questions about this, please direct them to my talk page. I am moving to fail the nomination, as explained above.

Result: Not listed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]