Talk:Sonic Adventure/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my current peer review if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"and the evil entity Chaos, and his robot army" - to clarify, does the robot army he's looking for belong to Chaos? I'd drop the comma if that is the case.
It's Robotnik's army, not Chaos's. I've re-written it.

"Big the Cat is slow and carries a fishing rod" - to clarify, does the fishing rod do anything before the action stage?
No, it doesn't do anything until you cast it. Re-written.

"to transform into his super form and fight Chaos" - as I recall there's an appropriate article/sub-section for you to link 'super form' to
Linked.

"After Chaos is quelled, Sonic chases a fleeing Robotnik" - to clarify, the game ends with him chasing Robotnik and the player does not find out if he catches him? That's the message I'm getting from this sentence anyway.
Yeah, pretty much. I've added that the story ends on a cliffhanger.

"and the series was attributed to the success of the Genesis" - I think this point could be worded less awkwardly. Perhaps "Saturn's commercial failure. Without it, the system had no original Sonic platformer, whereas the series was attributed to the success of the Genesis."
Done.

"they placed it in Sonic Jam" - I'd give a brief description of this title and specify the year it was released
It's mentioned what Sonic Jam was in the prior paragraph.

"and add replay value" - wikilink Replay value
Done.

"The soundtrack is also slated for release as a vinyl LP in late 2017" - It's late 2017; has this materialised yet?
Not as far as I know. Reworded.

"shoddy collision detection" - wikilink Collision detection
Done.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
I'd format the 'sonic.sega.jp' into the name of the website to be consistent with all your other sources
Done.

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, Cheat Code Central is not a reliable source
There's never really been a full-blown consensus on whether or not CCC is reliable, it's mostly just been those who say it's reliable providing terrible arguments compared to those who think it's unreliable. This article, however, was written by Angelo D'Argenio, an author who has written for numerous sources we do consider reliable. He is (or was, in the case of the Escapist) a staff member at the Escapist, Arcade Sushi, and GameCrate, all of which are considered usable. It's only being used for attributed opinion too, not for fact.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Looks pretty good. Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. P.S. I just wasted 20 minutes of my life playing Big's Big Fishing Adventure 3. :p Freikorp (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: I think I resolved everything. Responded above. Also were those 20 minutes worth it? JOE BRO 64 13:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't as of now - Cheat Code Central is not a reliable source. It definitely doesn't belong in a GA, and 2 editors object to its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I've already explained above that I think this article is usable. I'll remove it for now, but I'll re-add it if we can get to an agreement and stop edit warring with each other. JOE BRO 64 00:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you explained, though not a single person has said they agree with you. It's a very weak rationale, a relatively unknown writer who wrote for borderline usable sources wrote an article for an unreliable source. Not a great argument. And don't preach about edit warring - you've reverted more than anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to "preach", I'm trying to build an encyclopedia. Stop acting like I'm a vandal or something. JOE BRO 64 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop breaking WP:BRD during your own GA review. That's ridiculous. If you don't like being criticized, follow the basics. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you should stop acting hostile when I try to reason with you. JOE BRO 64 01:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's how I'd describe the scenario, which was you continuously reverting 2 separate editors and ignoring a community consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the source has been removed so as it stands right now I'm satisfied the article meets GA requirements. Happy to pass it. I guess you can continue to debate about the source at the talk page. Also yes, playing Big's Fishing Adventure was worth it, but I won't exactly be playing it a second time haha :) Freikorp (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]