Jump to content

Talk:Sonic Team/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I know Tec Toy has languished (I was out of town last week; I will wrap it up this week). I'll get this one together much faster. Indrian (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might pick this one up, but I will admit I was surprised to see you got it so quickly. I definitely appreciate how quickly you seem to get to my reviews (minus Tectoy, lol). An FYI for you: I got a new job this week, so I'm not 100% sure how it will impact my available time to edit just yet, but I don't foresee it being an obstacle at this time. Red Phoenix talk 00:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

 Done*"With Sega's diversification of its studios into separate companies" - I don't think "diversification" is the word we are looking for here. Divestiture? Spin out? I'm not quite sure what would sound best.

    • Went with "divestiture". I had a lot of trouble trying to pick a good word for this.

History

[edit]

 Done*"According to Ohshima, Sega was looking for a game that would sell well in the United States simultaneously, and that he and Naka already had the game and character design idea ready, with Ohshima having worked with Sega's toy and stationery department, and that the progress they had already made encouraged the company to select their proposal." - That's a pretty long and tortured sentence. It should be broken up into slightly smaller chunks.

    • Ouch... how I missed that, I don't know. I broke it up.

 Done*I guess I am a little unclear as to why the "Move to the United States and Sonic sequels" section is in the article at all. The original Sonic the Hedgehog was created by an entity that identified itself as Sonic Team, so going into depth a little bit as to how they came together makes sense because it sets the stage for the formation of the development division later. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD, on the other hand, are not identified as productions of a "Sonic Team" anywhere in the credits and were created separately in two different countries by different members of the original team. I don't think the history of these games really has anything to do with Sonic Team other than as a bridge from the original group on the first Sonic game to the real beginning of the division when Naka returned to Japan around 1995. This can be dealt with in just a couple of sentences rather than having so many development details of the games.

    • It exists because it did exist before I spun out Sega Technical Institute into its own article. To be honest, you have a good point, and I didn't even think twice about Ohshima's work on Sonic CD being out of scope, but on reading your comment I think you're absolutely right. I'll do some reduction.
      • And done. Reduced this to one paragraph in the next section.

 Done*"Following the release of Sonic & Knuckles, Yasuhara quit, citing differences with Naka. Naka returned to Japan, having been offered a role as a producer. He was placed in charge of Sega's Consumer Development Department 3, also known as CS3. In the mid-1990s, Sonic Team started work on new intellectual property, leading to the creation of Nights into Dreams (1996) and Burning Rangers (1998) for the Sega Saturn. Naka was reunited with Ohshima and brought with him Takashi Iizuka, who had also worked with Naka's team at STI. Naka stated that the release of Nights is when Sonic Team was truly formed as a brand." - This paragraph feels a little out of order. The sequence of events is: Yashuhara quits Sega due to disagreements with Naka; Naka returns to Japan in a producer role with his own division; Ohshima and Iizuka join Naka to form a new core for the division; work begins on Nights; the "Sonic Team" name takes hold as a brand; the team follows Nights with Burning Rangers. The paragraph does not convey this sequence of events in a way that flows well.

    • Addressed. I can see how that was confusing.

 Done*"During the development of Nights, STI was working on Sonic X-treme. After Naka threatened to leave Sega if the Nights engine were used for X-treme, the team's access to the engine was revoked; when it became clear the team would not meet its deadline, the game was canceled." - While certainly true, is this really relevant to the history of Sonic Team as opposed to Sega in general or STI?

    • Removed. It made sense to me in connecting Naka's history with STI, but it really is more relevant to STI than it is to Sonic Team.

 Done*"Naka was installed as the CEO, and Sonic Team USA was set as a subsidiary of Sonic Team in Japan." - We have a sequence issue here again. Sonic Team USA is not properly introduced until the next paragraph.

 Done*"After a series of difficult Sonic releases" - I assume you mean they were poorly received? "Difficult" can mean many things and does not necessarily convey that thought.

    • I did. "Difficult" was the word used by the source, but I think we can safely say poorly received without taking the source out of context.

Sega Studios USA

[edit]

I assume this section was a merge of another article? It certainly reads like one. There is some duplication with material presented in the earlier history section and some awkward sequence breaks. It makes more sense, for instance, to have the ChuChu Rocket and Sonic Adventure 2 stuff in the appropriate historical chronology. Also, I am assuming that during the period it was called Sega Studios USA it was not connected to Sonic Team until the later merger? If so, then the material from that period is really out of the scope of this article other than a sentence or so just bridging the different eras.  Done*Actually, it's not, but I did write it as one mostly to try and clear up what is Sonic Team/Sega Studios USA, especially since that won't warrant its own article in all likelihood. I'll try to restructure this more properly; it was admittedly a late addition to the article I could have handled more thoroughly. There's nothing, though, that says Sega Studios USA on the rename was not connected to Sonic Team; in fact, I've found interviews Iizuka did with Naka on the Shadow the Hedgehog game, which was under the "Sega Studios USA" banner that suggest Sonic Team still supervised like they did with the Sonic Team USA releases; I'll get you a link if you wish to see.

And there we go. I think this article has a few structural issues that may require a little work to straighten out. I don't think any of these are insurmountable, however, so I will put this nomination  On hold while these concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get working on this over the next day and get it all together. Thank you for the review and the repair work so far; this was one of the more difficult articles I've ever written and it's nice to have some critical commentary to put it into focus, something I really feel I struggled with doing this article. As a side note, a lot of the focus issues I think come from what all redirected here before I put my hands on it: Sega Technical Institute, United Game Artists, Sonic Team USA were all examples of articles simply redirected here, so it's good to get more opinions on this to straighten out the focus. Red Phoenix talk 00:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian: I'd like to ask for your input on how to best handle a few points in the Sega Studios USA section. I put this in as a separate section mainly to handle the fact that Sonic Team USA and Sega Studios USA redirected here and I felt they were unworthy of a separate article, as well as to ensure there was no confusion with the similarly named Sega Studios San Francisco, since that was not Sega Studios USA. Here's what I'd like to seek your opinion on:
  • Is the separate section even worth it, or is it best integrated? I would rather not delete it entirely because I don't see it ever becoming an article in the same way Sega Technical Institute is, due to a lack of coverage.
  • If it is worth keeping as a subsection, and I can see you value chronological order as a logical choice in the history, how much of their history is worth mentioning in the main prose?
Other than that, I believe I've got all your concerns addressed. Let me know what you think; I think we're very close to a good article here. Red Phoenix talk 01:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have removed some of the duplication to try and frame the article correctly as it is, only really mentioning the separation, change to being a subsidiary, and rename in the History section. I would still personally be in favor of keeping the subsection. Red Phoenix talk 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian: I understand you have been busy, and I apologize if I am bothering you, but are we good to go here, or are there more concerns you feel I should address first? Red Phoenix talk 16:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_Team/GA1&oldid=859227095"