![]() | Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 3, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2017. The result of the discussion was Move to draft. |
![]() | The contents of the Rabbid Peach page were merged into Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | A fact from Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 April 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Gameplay, weapons and abilities are very similar to Gladius Xbox game from 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:C1BB:F421:9FCD:EEDB ( talk) 16:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Stating "world-wide" as release area is not exactly correct as the Japanese version is still in progress. Currently just planned to release sometime in 2018.
The Opening paragraph contradicts itself: "The game was released worldwide on 29 August 2017 [...] Nintendo is publishing the game in Japan on January 18, 2018" 81.149.182.210 ( talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we get some citations to back up what is currently in the infobox, please? I just had to revert some additions to it, for being questionable on being verifiable. GUtt01 ( talk) 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Link says it all
https://news.ubisoft.com/article/nintendo-publishing-mario-rabbids-japan-korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:69F0:D928:161D:43C8 ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
A sequel has been leaked. It has been leaked on Nintendo's website and here is the link: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/mario-plus-rabbids-sparks-of-hope-switch/ . 107.146.244.150 ( talk) 18:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, an article has already been made. However, if there isn't info from this E3 it will most likely be deleted. Panini! 🥪 19:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
While I recognize the other article has a decent amount of reception, much of it seems to pertain more to the game or promotion of the game. There doesn't appear to be enough standalone information either to really warrant it being separate from this article. I'd suggest merging what reception can be into this article, as the Smash Bros. information is already covered in here.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
The references are largely WP:REFBOMB'd with a lot of trivial coverage, but no significant coverage of the Rabbid Peach character that would show she is individually notable. It shows that most of the reception quotes are less than a single sentence. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane ( talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Panini!: Hello, and I will review this article as promptly as possible, feel free to ask me anything! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
|page
parameter, as I did
here. This is important as otherwise the bot goes "ah!, there already is a GA1 subpage, so that means someone has started a review". —
Bilorv (
talk)
17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PerryPerryD ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I am PerryPerryD, I am the new reviewer for this article. Judging by what I can see, I do not have any immediate issues on this article. I will be analyzing this article thoroughly to the best of my ability, I do request the help of other editors to identify issues I may miss. Good Luck.
This article does not use words that only video game savvy people can understand, therefor I believe that this article can be understood by a broad audience. All terms that may be perceived as confusing are hyperlinked to other articles.
1. Words to Watch. After carefully reviewing the article, I cannot find any words that need to be replaced. All words seem to show equal bias.
2.Fiction. Analyzing this article, All sections that involve Fiction (Such as Plot) do not tie in with real world events or make them seem like real world events. Therefor, This article is good on Fiction.
3.Lead section. The lead section contains 3 equally long paragraphs that describe the game, publisher, games reception, and unveiling without making it too long for the reader. Capitalization and formatting appears to be correct.
4.Layout. The layout appears to match the manual of style perfectly, With everything in the proper order as far as I can tell. 1 Side note however, I would recommend adding a "See also" section that links the reader to rabbids or rayman for example.
5.Lists. This article does not contain any lists. therefor this section is not necessary.
Looking through this article, Each claim is cited with an appropriate source and I cannot see any evidence that original research was done here. As for the sources in question, I will be looking through them carefully. But as of right now, The names attached to them appear to be verifiable and all have Wikipedia articles of their own. I will continue to analyze each source carefully. ((This might take a while, Please be patient)).
After reviewing the citations, Other than the one stated above, They all come from reliable sources and none of the work appears to be plagerized. If possible, however, I would advise citing contents of the "Plot" section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This article gives great detail on the plot, gameplay, reception, awards, and legacy, All of which are similarly weighted in terms of length, while at the same time, not going too off topic. (the most off topic thing i could find was the beyonce mention in Legacy, however that was 1 sentence and because it was in the Legacy section, does not apply to off topic).
In the head itself we can see a mention of the game having initial poor reception, but it also immediately mentions that it was revered later. This trend continued throughout the article until the reception section, Which is not applicable to neutrality as the reception quotes are sourced and cited. The author(s) of the article do not express any of their own opinions on the game itself in the specific article in question. (>:( Thanks panini)
According to the history tab, As of this current time, this article has not been the victim of any edit warring. The edits appear to be made in collaboration and good faith. I see no sign of instability.
This article contains several contextual images. Some being from the game, The games cover art, or A person or people involved with the project. ALl images appear to be under fair use according to their Wikimedia tags with the exception of a photo of Shigeru Miyamoto which is tagged with CC By 4.0. The images are not out of place and align with the context of the specific sections of the article. All images are captioned with the captions being descriptive and professional.
After reviewing the citations, Along with the other things stated above. I see absolutely no reason to deny this article. 2 things of interest however. Im not one to jump the gun, so I'll wait for these to get fixed first. 1. Lack of citation in "Plot", This entire section does not have any citation on its contents or information. If possible, Please cite. 2. Inconsistency. Please determine if the name is "Beep-0" or "Beep-O". Thank you.
Thank you Panini for your quick response and fixes. With all of the issues I provided now fixed, I now see absolutely no reason to deny this article. Review Concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Panini! ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Fine for DYK. I admit to seeing many grammar issues that make me wonder about its GA status, though, as that's a much higher bar. Examples:
This is just from a single pass, I worry I did not get them all. Any chance you can ask for a grammar review, maybe from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? GRuban ( talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 3, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2017. The result of the discussion was Move to draft. |
![]() | The contents of the Rabbid Peach page were merged into Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | A fact from Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 April 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Gameplay, weapons and abilities are very similar to Gladius Xbox game from 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:C1BB:F421:9FCD:EEDB ( talk) 16:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Stating "world-wide" as release area is not exactly correct as the Japanese version is still in progress. Currently just planned to release sometime in 2018.
The Opening paragraph contradicts itself: "The game was released worldwide on 29 August 2017 [...] Nintendo is publishing the game in Japan on January 18, 2018" 81.149.182.210 ( talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we get some citations to back up what is currently in the infobox, please? I just had to revert some additions to it, for being questionable on being verifiable. GUtt01 ( talk) 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Link says it all
https://news.ubisoft.com/article/nintendo-publishing-mario-rabbids-japan-korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:69F0:D928:161D:43C8 ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
A sequel has been leaked. It has been leaked on Nintendo's website and here is the link: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/mario-plus-rabbids-sparks-of-hope-switch/ . 107.146.244.150 ( talk) 18:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, an article has already been made. However, if there isn't info from this E3 it will most likely be deleted. Panini! 🥪 19:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
While I recognize the other article has a decent amount of reception, much of it seems to pertain more to the game or promotion of the game. There doesn't appear to be enough standalone information either to really warrant it being separate from this article. I'd suggest merging what reception can be into this article, as the Smash Bros. information is already covered in here.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
The references are largely WP:REFBOMB'd with a lot of trivial coverage, but no significant coverage of the Rabbid Peach character that would show she is individually notable. It shows that most of the reception quotes are less than a single sentence. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane ( talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Panini!: Hello, and I will review this article as promptly as possible, feel free to ask me anything! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
|page
parameter, as I did
here. This is important as otherwise the bot goes "ah!, there already is a GA1 subpage, so that means someone has started a review". —
Bilorv (
talk)
17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PerryPerryD ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I am PerryPerryD, I am the new reviewer for this article. Judging by what I can see, I do not have any immediate issues on this article. I will be analyzing this article thoroughly to the best of my ability, I do request the help of other editors to identify issues I may miss. Good Luck.
This article does not use words that only video game savvy people can understand, therefor I believe that this article can be understood by a broad audience. All terms that may be perceived as confusing are hyperlinked to other articles.
1. Words to Watch. After carefully reviewing the article, I cannot find any words that need to be replaced. All words seem to show equal bias.
2.Fiction. Analyzing this article, All sections that involve Fiction (Such as Plot) do not tie in with real world events or make them seem like real world events. Therefor, This article is good on Fiction.
3.Lead section. The lead section contains 3 equally long paragraphs that describe the game, publisher, games reception, and unveiling without making it too long for the reader. Capitalization and formatting appears to be correct.
4.Layout. The layout appears to match the manual of style perfectly, With everything in the proper order as far as I can tell. 1 Side note however, I would recommend adding a "See also" section that links the reader to rabbids or rayman for example.
5.Lists. This article does not contain any lists. therefor this section is not necessary.
Looking through this article, Each claim is cited with an appropriate source and I cannot see any evidence that original research was done here. As for the sources in question, I will be looking through them carefully. But as of right now, The names attached to them appear to be verifiable and all have Wikipedia articles of their own. I will continue to analyze each source carefully. ((This might take a while, Please be patient)).
After reviewing the citations, Other than the one stated above, They all come from reliable sources and none of the work appears to be plagerized. If possible, however, I would advise citing contents of the "Plot" section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This article gives great detail on the plot, gameplay, reception, awards, and legacy, All of which are similarly weighted in terms of length, while at the same time, not going too off topic. (the most off topic thing i could find was the beyonce mention in Legacy, however that was 1 sentence and because it was in the Legacy section, does not apply to off topic).
In the head itself we can see a mention of the game having initial poor reception, but it also immediately mentions that it was revered later. This trend continued throughout the article until the reception section, Which is not applicable to neutrality as the reception quotes are sourced and cited. The author(s) of the article do not express any of their own opinions on the game itself in the specific article in question. (>:( Thanks panini)
According to the history tab, As of this current time, this article has not been the victim of any edit warring. The edits appear to be made in collaboration and good faith. I see no sign of instability.
This article contains several contextual images. Some being from the game, The games cover art, or A person or people involved with the project. ALl images appear to be under fair use according to their Wikimedia tags with the exception of a photo of Shigeru Miyamoto which is tagged with CC By 4.0. The images are not out of place and align with the context of the specific sections of the article. All images are captioned with the captions being descriptive and professional.
After reviewing the citations, Along with the other things stated above. I see absolutely no reason to deny this article. 2 things of interest however. Im not one to jump the gun, so I'll wait for these to get fixed first. 1. Lack of citation in "Plot", This entire section does not have any citation on its contents or information. If possible, Please cite. 2. Inconsistency. Please determine if the name is "Beep-0" or "Beep-O". Thank you.
Thank you Panini for your quick response and fixes. With all of the issues I provided now fixed, I now see absolutely no reason to deny this article. Review Concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Panini! ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Fine for DYK. I admit to seeing many grammar issues that make me wonder about its GA status, though, as that's a much higher bar. Examples:
This is just from a single pass, I worry I did not get them all. Any chance you can ask for a grammar review, maybe from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? GRuban ( talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)