Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article. @TheJoebro64: I have a preliminary comment about something I noticed as I skimmed the article. A significant paragraph of the "Development" section (the one beginning with After its debut, the game's development team ...
) is currently sourced entirely to this entry on Giant Bomb, which appears to be a user-generated wiki. Since anyone can create an account and change its content with little editorial oversight, it most likely falls below the standards of reliability we expect on Wikipedia, especially for a good article candidate. I'm not sure whether the Giant Bomb page cites its sources (it doesn't look like it), but I would try to replace all references to Giant Bomb with more reliable sources as soon as possible. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- To help some, Giant Bomb has two separate section - some of it is a wiki, and some of it is written by actual journalists and writers with credentials. The consensus, per WP:VG/S, is that the wiki is unusable, but the stuff written by the actual writing team is acceptable to use. So yeah, stuff sourced to the link mentioned above, would need to be replaced. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've fixed this. I replaced the Giant Bomb sourcing with Kotaku, and the rushing of the game was in an already sourced interview, which I have moved up a bit in order to keep the sourcing smooth. TheJoebro64 talk 09:07 PM, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thank you for your quick response and to Sergecross for his input.
Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thank you for your quick response and to Sergecross for his input.
- I've fixed this. I replaced the Giant Bomb sourcing with Kotaku, and the rushing of the game was in an already sourced interview, which I have moved up a bit in order to keep the sourcing smooth. TheJoebro64 talk 09:07 PM, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just to note, in case you are thinking about doing an featured article candidacy after this, the Russian version of this article contains a lot of details and sources that you could potentially use to expand the article and get it to meet the "comprehensive" criterion of the featured article criteria. I don't think I will require this much detail for this good article review, but I think it's helpful to note this in case you are interested in expanding the article further. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Review
[edit]Good Article review progress box
|
Overall, I think you have done good work towards improving the article. There are a few things I found that I think we should take a look at before promoting to GA. Please view these notes as points of discussion, not as requirements that need to be fulfilled. If you need any clarification or disagree with me on anything, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss.
I'm placing this review On hold. Feel free to ignore that 7 day deadline; it's better to get this right than to rush it.
Lead
[edit]
|
Gameplay section
[edit]
|
Plot section
[edit]
|
Development section
[edit]Issues addressed. I will have to trust you on the offline sources, like the Nintendo Power article, as I don't have access to them. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Critical reception section
[edit]
|
Ping me if you need anything. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Mz7:: I've fixed a lot of the issues you made note of. I'm going to see what I can do with the gameplay picture's non-free use rational. TheJoebro64 talk 7:26 PM, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64: Awesome! Thanks for being so quick to respond! I'll give the article a second look tonight. I went through the ratings in the critical reception table, and I'm looking at the GamePro review and it unfortunately looks like the 3 stars out of 5 got cut off from the archived version (the live version is now dead). I can't find where it says 3 stars out of 5 – instead, there's a blank space right next to the text "GamePro Score". Maybe it's just my computer – do you think you could take a look? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Re-review
[edit]In progress. I've collapsed the issues I've checked are completed and am still in the process of looking through the improvements. Feel free to bring an issue out of the collapsed box at any time. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64:
(WP:NOR)The conclusion thatMost characters introduced in the game have made no further appearances in the Sonic series
is supported only by primary sources (i.e. the games themselves). This may be a violation of WP:SYNTH if the games are used together to support a conclusion that none of the games explicitly make on their own. Is there a secondary source like a review that also makes the observation thatMost characters introduced in the game have made no further appearances in the Sonic series
? Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)- @TheJoebro64: I've been thinking this over some, and while I still think it would be preferable to have a secondary source here, I don't think it's a huge deal, because only a handful of characters were introduced in the game, and it is more-or-less easy to verify that these characters didn't have reappearances. For this reason, it may not be so egregious an WP:NOR violation to remove, unless another editor objects and says "actually, most of the characters introduced did have reappearances", in which case, we would have to find secondary sources and reevaluate. Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- And with that being resolved, I'm happy to promote this to GA. Thank you for your responsiveness and hard work throughout this process! Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)