Talk:Sonic Dreams Collection/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 19:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be doing this review. Nomader (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I usually try to find at least one thing to nitpick in this section, but I've got nothing. Really good writing and fascinating subject.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Listed 2b concerns below, should be easy fixes.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only screenshot is the title screen, and it has a sufficient summary.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold pending fixes to the 2b concerns listed below. Don't anticipate it being a challenge-- really great work on a super interesting game, glad that I decided to click on this one out of curiosity in the GAN list! Nomader (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

2b concerns

• "In Sonic Dreams Collection, the player selects one of four single-player parody minigames based on the Sega game franchise Sonic the Hedgehog." -- neither source backs this up (the first one lists four games but it doesn't explicitly say "there's four")
  • I've added a Kill Screen source that explicitly states there's four. JOEBRO64 10:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure what citation #4 is-- is there another source that's usable there?
  • It's the game itself. I used Template:Cite video game. JOEBRO64 10:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Didn't see the Tweet get talked about in the Polygon video (could you provide a timestamp if I somehow missed it?)
  • Replaced with a primary source. It showed the option in the video; I had assumed that was enough. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Didn't see the Seganet explanation in the cited Polygon video.
  • Replaced. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Source does not mention "motel" as one of the locations. Says they're all on a bed but isn't specific-- try to sub out or add an additional one.
  • Replaced with one that's mentioned in the source. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• The game states Sonic Movie Maker would have been a technological achievement but was canceled in 1998 when Sega management discovered its dark and sexual content -- Destructoid does not include this directly and the Polygon source shows it in the video but doesn't talk about it. This might be a good place to use Template:Cite video game.
  • Done. JOEBRO64 10:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• The Unity note doesn't seem to be cited to any article-- is it in the game at all though either?
  • I've removed it. It's in the game's files but not elsewhere. The only other place that mentioned it was Sonic Retro, which is just a fansite. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Any non-primary sources for the Archie stuff? Pastebin is kind of a weird place to have a citation for.
  • I did look for non-primary sources about it, but unfortunately couldn't find any. I was a bit hesitant to include the Pastebin ref, but reviewed the self-published sources policy and determined that it checked the boxes. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• The PC Gamer article added a tag for "Weird shit" to it, but it didn't necessarily summarize it that way.
  • You're right—replaced it with a VG247 summarization. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nomader: Thanks for the review! I've responded above and have hopefully cleared everything up. JOEBRO64 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I was going to go through and individually respond to these, but I think you addressed my points really well and the places where I asked questions, you explained your reasoning well. I made one more pass through the article and have no other changes-- I'm going to go ahead and pass. Great work! Nomader (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)