Talk:Knuckles' Chaotix/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this shortly, but can state now that plagiarism is not a concern in this case. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

@TheJoebro64: My apologies for any confusion caused by this, I have been asked by the video games WikiProject (here) to re-review this GA nomination as some errors were made in my last review. Momentarily I shall re-review. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been brought to my attention that the plot section has the same amount of weight as the entire gameplay section, which could be considered undue. I'd consider that weight undue. "It's also a good example of why the instruction manual is a subpar source, as it gives license to add undue detail whereas a secondary source (e.g., a review) naturally limits the article's scope by space constraints: the publication only publishes the most important details, whether about the plot or the gameplay elements."

So what are you suggesting, that the plot be trimmed? TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there TarkusAB, that was mainly a quote from Czar on the WP Video games discussion, I think that is what they are suggesting, but I have tagged them to hopefully get us some clarification on this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources, the plot is out of weight with the rest of the article. Either the plot should be trimmed or everything else should be expanded. I think the former is the better idea. I recommend using secondary sources wherever possible for the plot, which sets expectations for the plot's overall importance in the game. On balance, note that plot is usually an incidental element in 2D platformers... normally expressed as a sentence or two within the Gameplay section. Separate plot sections are more appropriate when plot is a key element cited in reviews, like in a Final Fantasy RPG

czar 22:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed plot. If Joe plans on taking this to FA, it should probably be sourced using secondary sources where possible and merged into gameplay. TarkusAB^talk 15:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think that this is now good to go GA wise, what do you think Czar? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Size is much better. Already noted that secondary sourcing is recommended, but it becomes necessary if the plot section is going to make original claims (as it does). Comparing two primary sources is original research. If it's going to be based in primary sources, it should not have original claims. Now if the claims were only simple plot, WP doesn't even require citations for those. czar 21:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed OR claims TarkusAB^talk 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me now, what do you say Czar? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some grammar fixes I'd make but nothing glaring for the GA criteria ;) Thanks for the edits czar 04:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The "rubber band" multiplayer mechanic was largely panned despite being acknowledged as an effort to innovate." - generalized statement without direct reference

References added TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you! 😊--TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Negative attention was brought to the game's level design and low difficulty." - generalized statement without direct reference

References added TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The gameplay received mixed reviews." - generalized statement without direct reference~~

This phrase doesn't exist in the article...? TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, was part of the quote more or less but since it isn't in the article now, I have struck it out. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The group appears in Sonic Heroes (2003),[54] Shadow the Hedgehog (2005),[55] Sonic Rivals 2 (2007),[56] the Nintendo DS version of Sonic Colors (2010), Sonic Generations,[57] and Sonic Forces (2017);[58]" - statements like this should probably be either condensed or turned into a footnote, as it will be easier to read/digest for the general/average reader.

This was already done before you started the review. TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, struck it out of review, again, was just part of the discussion on the WP project so thought I would add it here and thought I had double checked it was still present, but apparently not.

Due to the above, I have placed this GA nomination On hold while these issues are addressed.

In conclusion, the article overall is well written and, with those corrections, would make a great good article. Sorry once again for the confusion TheJoebro64. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some significant contributions to this article leading up to the GAN so I'll make some of these fixes on JoeBro's behalf (I'm sure he won't mind) TarkusAB^talk 19:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! I don't want the re-review process to interfere with the DYK they have nominated due to it being approved if at all possible, so the quicker the issues can be addressed, the better. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I definitely support the trimming of the plot/story section. I've trimmed it down countless times in the past, only for someone to bloat it back out again. It's not a plot heavy game; it shouldn't be a big focus of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trimming it Sergecross73. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Okay, looks good now. Well done everybody and thanks for the edits! My pleasure to re-promote this article to Good Article status! :D @TheJoebro64: @TarkusAB: (for anyone concerned that I did not get a second opinion before re-promoting, I did get the opinion from Czar above) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]