Talk:Sonic Advance 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   I'd give a very brief description of what Chaos emeralds are in the lead for people not familiar with the series. I'd probably also clarify that Doctor Eggman is a reoccurring villain from the series.

   Done.

   "who can unlock Cream the Rabbit" - I'd clarify "unlock" means make them playable characters. Non-gamers will not understand this form the current wording.

   Done.

   "and Amy can swing a hammer throughout levels" - what purpose does swinging a hammer achieve?

   Clarified.

   "a sound test feature" - what does this mean?

   Clarified.

   "where toys for Cream's Chao, Cheese" - This is convoluted; I'd just say "for the character Cheese"

   Done.

   "transforms into Super Sonic" - can you describe what transforming into Super Sonic actual consists of?

   I've added a link and that you need Chaos Emeralds.

   "was developed by Dimps" - I'd introduce Dimps as a development studio; as it's currently written it could be the nickname of a single person or something else.

   Done.

   "Sonic Advance 2 received generally positive reviews upon release, according to review aggregator Metacritic" - I'd add what the ranking actually was to the prose

   I usually don't do that, since the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own (WP:VGG#Reception).

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   There's some inconsistency in date formats in references, I.e "Archived from the original on 2016-03-24. Retrieved 31 October 2017." Pick one date format and stick with it for every single source.

   I'd format reference 18 with Template:Cite magazine for consistency. It looks out of place with detail like "No.915 Pt.2. Pg.121."

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Well done overall. Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

   I'll address the references when I've got time. I've worked on the prose already. JOEBRO64 11:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

   @Freikorp:  Done JOEBRO64 20:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

   Happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)