Talk:Sonic Triple Trouble 16-Bit

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Triple Trouble 16-Bit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LBWP (talk · contribs) 08:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 08:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks kind of interesting! I'll pick it up. Glad you were able to find the time to nominate- I saw the original GAN disappear and thought it failed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @LBWP:, apologies for the long delay in following up, I have had a few personal distractions this past month. Appreciate your patience, I will follow up this weekend. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @LBWP:, thanks for your patience. I think we've worked through most of the kinks and this article meets the GA. I know it's taken some time! Appreciate your help with the below feedback. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vrxces: Thank you for the review and feedback. I took a bit of time off the nom in May so don't worry about it haha. I've just fleshed out the development section some more and I think I've covered everything. Please let me know if there's any further changes I need to make following this edit, but you don't have to if you don't want to. I'm double checking everything. LBWP (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Review

Has the nominator significantly contributed to the article? Yes, by quite some margin!

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Yes, the article neatly follows the MOS.

Is the article generally well-written? Spell check comes up with nothing.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing?

• The development information is entirely made up of primary interview sources, which is not a problem for a small indie game of this type, but one should be mindful of the impacts that this can have on an article's perspective and tone - see below.

• I will follow up with a spot check soon.

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? Spot check TBA.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? The images within the article appear to be attributed and licensed correctly.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination? Some are below:

Lead

• The lead could be slightly condensed, but it reads well. I'd avoid repetition of the plot sentence which seems to be copy-pasted from below. Also see the below points around perspective and tone on the development information.

Done. I think it’s important to mention the game’s premise as a follow up to Sonic 3 & Knuckles so I left that portion in there. You can remove it if you want. LBWP (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Over how many different levels?

Rephrased to “a series of levels”. There isn’t a source that describes the number of levels but I’d still like to describe the game’s structure if possible. LBWP (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Development

• A more neutral tone would be useful here. Given that the sourcing for this section is entirely from primary interview sources, there's a lot of language of intent and emotion (he wanted, he realized, he appreciated, he thought) that fairly clearly indicate the information is coming from the developer. This isn't a big deal but trying to minimise this and focus the tone on facts about what the developer was inspired by, what they aimed to do, and what they did, rather than the thoughts and feelings of the developer, may help make the article more neutral.

Done. LBWP (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• The last sentences of P2 that perform a summary function could be more effectively assimilated into the first paragraph about the game's authenticity.

Done. LBWP (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Second pass of comments

Thanks for your patience. Just some minor comments from me to wrap up this review:

• A spot check of the sources doesn't come up with much: the review direct quotes seem to be largely correct when included in the article.

Reception

• The Meristation review describes the sound chip as the YM2012. Does this have any inconsistency with the article's identification of the YM2612?

Yeah, the article got it wrong, along with Triple Trouble's release year. I have no idea if it's still fine to have in the article since Meristation is considered a reliable source. I think the reviewer's opinions are still usable but I removed a ref in the gameplay section citing them, along with that sound chip bit. LBWP (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• The review section could be edited down slightly. For instance, review content about where the game ranks vis-a-vis other Sonic games feels a little superfluous; perhaps noting that critics felt the game was comparable to their quality.

Done. Let me know if it needs to be trimmed down some more. LBWP (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Citation of the game manuals could be improved to incorporate publisher and year. Links may be available for the manuals if scanned on the Internet Archive.

Done. I just linked to some of Sega's official online manuals for Sonic 2, 3&K, and 3D Blast. I wasn't quite sure how to handle the refs sourcing Triple Trouble 16-Bit's manual since you have to download the game to view it, but I tried to make it stylistically consistent with the other refs. LBWP (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

• In the gameplay section, whilst comparisons between the original and remake are important, reference to certain mechanics should be explained if not self-evident. Some of the gameplay could probably be described on its own terms here. For instance, what do we mean by gimmicks?

Rephrased all mentions of gimmicks. I think you mean explaining stuff like the drop dash, elemental shields, sea fox, and coins system, right? I was actually drafting a version of the section closer to what you're describing but went for a "explain the differences" approach after looking at the AM2R article. I'll try to make it more accessible soon. LBWP (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay section is done. LBWP (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• similar to some in the original, but have been completely redone is not terribly informative, because it doesn't clarify whether the stages are visually similar or different to the original. Isn't there a term for pseudo-3D - parallax?

Rephrased that sentence, hopefully it's more clear. I kept it as pseudo-3D, since that phrasing is used in the HG101 article and I'm not entirely familiar with parallax as a concept. Let me know if it needs to be rephrased further. LBWP (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.