# Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle

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.

Per WP:VG/DATE, release dates in the infobox should be provided for primarily English-speaking regions, including North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. Since it won't be released in Japan until next year, nor was it made by a Japanese developer (it was fully developed by Ubisoft's studios), then by the guideline, a Japanese date shouldn't be added. However, one could argue that due to Mario and Nintendo's Japanese cultural influence, it could possibly be added as an exception. We did a similar thing for Pokemon Go last year, and we could do the same here if enough people agree on it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I would support this if enough people did as well, but until then, it should remain status quo and not include it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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)

Fixed. Obviously using the word "worldwide" doesn't make sense here. Removed WW template from infobox as well. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I disapprove of this. Nothing and I mean NOTHING has been changed because some pages have Japanese dates on them with a reliable source. Can we include a Japan source to back up this dilemma? Wikipedia needs a change! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2019 (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)

Publisher's website: "Developer(s): Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft Milan". The editor probably related to the game's credits, where they mistook: Ubisoft Montpellier (a secondary role) for a primary studio [it is given there in a way the implies the prior, and only minor Montpellier staff is present in the creits themselves]; Boido, Scambia and Breda as credible designers, although lead designer Moro was already listed; external producer Nonaka from Nintendo as internal producer. Crazybob's additions weren't de-facto wrong, but do not comply with our guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 19:42, 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) 

Lead says "It was released in Europe and North America in August 2017, whilst Nintendo published the game for East Asian countries in January 2018." Lordtobi (✉) 06:04, 3 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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)

(Uninvolved comment.) @CactiStaccingCrane: is it still your plan to review this article, and if so when do you expect to be able to do this? — Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Panini!:, @Bilorv!: I don't think I enjoy working in Wikipedia as I used to be. Sorry, but I don't think I can review this article anymore. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane:EDIT 2: Nevermind, I found the instructions page on the GAN Nominations page, Change status to Status= PerryPerryD (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: I'm sorry to hear that. @PerryPerryD: thanks for your help in making sure this gets back in the queue in the right place, so Panini! is not kept waiting much further after this abandoned review. Checking the instructions you allude to (not sure I would have found them otherwise), I think you forgot to increment the |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)
Thanks for the help. Everything looks good now! PerryPerryD (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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.

Manual of Style

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. 

Citations and Sources

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)). 

1 Citation removed due to it not mentioning the detail it was citing. (previously citation 6.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
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) 

Coverage

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).

Neutrality

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) 

Eh, it was alright. Panini! • 🥪 00:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Stability

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. 

Illustration

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.

Conclusion

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.

Although I'm not stopping you (source reviews are always lovely), you can do something instead called a "spotcheck"; instead of looking at all of the sources, you can review a percentage of them picked at random, say, 10 to 25 percent. If the majority of them check out and are valid to sourcing the claim, it gives a good assumption that the sources are reliable. If not, the process is repeated until it does. Panini! • 🥪 00:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Perfect timing, Thats exactly what I did PerryPerryD (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
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)