Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. @TheJoebro64: I have a preliminary comment about something I noticed as I skimmed the article. A significant paragraph of the "Development" section (the one beginning with After its debut, the game's development team ...) is currently sourced entirely to this entry on Giant Bomb, which appears to be a user-generated wiki. Since anyone can create an account and change its content with little editorial oversight, it most likely falls below the standards of reliability we expect on Wikipedia, especially for a good article candidate. I'm not sure whether the Giant Bomb page cites its sources (it doesn't look like it), but I would try to replace all references to Giant Bomb with more reliable sources as soon as possible. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

To help some, Giant Bomb has two separate section - some of it is a wiki, and some of it is written by actual journalists and writers with credentials. The consensus, per WP:VG/S, is that the wiki is unusable, but the stuff written by the actual writing team is acceptable to use. So yeah, stuff sourced to the link mentioned above, would need to be replaced. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed this. I replaced the Giant Bomb sourcing with Kotaku, and the rushing of the game was in an already sourced interview, which I have moved up a bit in order to keep the sourcing smooth. TheJoebro64 talk 09:07 PM, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for your quick response and to Sergecross for his input. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note, in case you are thinking about doing an featured article candidacy after this, the Russian version of this article contains a lot of details and sources that you could potentially use to expand the article and get it to meet the "comprehensive" criterion of the featured article criteria. I don't think I will require this much detail for this good article review, but I think it's helpful to note this in case you are interested in expanding the article further. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Overall, I think you have done good work towards improving the article. There are a few things I found that I think we should take a look at before promoting to GA. Please view these notes as points of discussion, not as requirements that need to be fulfilled. If you need any clarification or disagree with me on anything, please let me know and I would be happy to discuss.

I'm placing this review  On hold. Feel free to ignore that 7 day deadline; it's better to get this right than to rush it.

Lead

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(prose) the game faced multiple issues during development, which resulted in rushing the product despite existing bugs – this reads as if the issues in development caused the product to be rushed. As I understand from the "Development" section, the game was rushed because Sonic Team wanted to "release the game in time for the Christmas season". Hmm, I'm reading this over again, and this may be a non-issue. There were issues in development (e.g. the team split) that may have indeed caused the product to be rushed. Mz7 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC) (WP:NPOV) gained infamy – "infamy" is stronger and might be subjective. I suppose it's alright, but I would consider replacing this with "notable for gaining negative reception", which appears later in the "Reception" section. (reflayout) The citation for the de-list in the lead (to this MCV article may be unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE, since it is already verified in the body of the article. Regarding this edit, I meant that only the citation was unnecessary – the actual sentence about the de-listing is still okay to keep in the lead, we just don't need a citation for it since it is already cited in the body of the article. Unless your intention was to also remove that sentence. Mz7 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay section

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(free or tagged images) File:Sonic 06 gameplay.jpg – the file description page's non-free use rationale should be improved. It should explain in greater clarity the image's purpose in the article and why it satisfies the non-free content criteria. (WP:RS/WP:NOR) The sources in the Gameplay section verify the broad strokes, but some of the more specific details of the gameplay remain unverified. For example, IGN source doesn't mention Princess Elise, nor does it call Shadow's gameplay more "combat focused", nor does it mentioned that control can be switched to a friend character. The GameSpot source doesn't specifically verify that players start with five lives or that the goal of the game is to unlock the "Last Story". I would refactor this section to more closely follow the sources, or alternatively find sources that verify the missing details.

Plot section

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(prose) Shadow and Rouge find a shutdown E-123 Omega – Do the characters power on the E-123 Omega of the future? In the following sentence, it somewhat confusingly states Omega is sent from the past to assist Shadow. It took me a few read-overs to understand that there may be two Omegas here: one from the past and a shutdown one that Shadow and Rouge found in the future. If the shutdown Omega of the future isn't particularly relevant to the plot, I would omit it to avoid confusion. Also, who sends Omega from the past?

Development section

Issues addressed. I will have to trust you on the offline sources, like the Nintendo Power article, as I don't have access to them. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(RS/NOR) The replacement source for that paragraph of the Development actually cites (includes a link to) the Giant Bomb article. That may be fine, since Kotaku is on WP:VG/S, but while it verifies the broad strokes, there are a few details that aren't verified, such as the fact that Yojiro Ogawa headed the Wii team. Like the Gameplay section, I would refactor this paragraph to more closely follow the sources, or alternatively find sources that verify the missing details. (RS) Dctjoy, cited in the "Soundtrack" section, looks to me like a Dreams Come True fan's personal website/blog, which is most likely unreliable. I think the Sega of Japan website verifies the information, though, so it may be fine to just remove that source without further action. (RS) http://test.sega.jp/topics/060915_2/ should be removed or replaced, as it appears to be permanently dead. (RS/NOR) "The game was also made available on Xbox Live's Games on Demand service on August 11, 2009. is unsourced, and we should preferably have citations for the release dates in the infobox too, but I don't think that'll be absolutely necessary for GA.

Critical reception section

Issues addressed. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(question) Why is the "Legacy" section a part of "Critical reception"? It seems like it should be its own section apart from the reception, since it isn't really about critical reception towards this game specifically. (RS/NOR) The game's more realistic tone and graphics were highlights for praise – the source doesn't seem to verify specifically that these were highlights for praise pre-release; rather, it only states in an observational manner that the setting was more realistic than previous Sonic games. I think we should remove this part of the sentence or find a better source. (prose) We could briefly elaborate on why Halverson thought this was a good game to get a better understanding of his 9.5/10 (later 8.5) review. (RS/NOR) The introduction of the characters Silver and Elise was not well received by critics. - I know there is a discussion section about this on the talk page, but I'd like to bring it up again now to be sure. The Destructoid article seems to be more about Silver's inclusion in Sonic Generations than this game. That "10 worst Sonic friends" article may not be enough on its own to verify that Silver and Elise were poorly received. Note that Tails is listed on the second page; it would seem that we would have to concede that Tails' introduction was also poorly received if we are to trust this source on its own. I would recommend finding additional sources that contain more direct criticism about Silver and Elise in the specific context of Sonic '06, or, barring that, removing the sentence. (RS) GameTrailers also ranked the game #9 in their countdown of the "Top Ten Most Disappointing Games of the Decade." – source for this one is now dead (redirects to a YouTube channel) and appears to have been a video, so I don't think the Wayback Machine can help. I would try to find the original video or remove the sentence. There is another GameTrailers video source in the "Legacy" subsection for The decision to include Sonic the Hedgehog stages and bosses in Sonic Generations was controversial (RS/NOR) Some even accused Sega for supporting bestiality, during an interview with actress Lacey Chabert, where Chabert stated – The source merely asks Chabert whether anyone might accuse the game of supporting bestiality, much less outright accusing Sega of supporting bestiality. I would change this sentence to: "When asked during an interview whether anyone might accuse the game of supporting bestiality, actress Lacey Chabert stated," (RS/NOR) Silver, however, has appeared as a playable character in the Sonic Rivals, Sonic Riders, and Mario & Sonic sub-series, and was a minor supporting character in the Nintendo DS version of Sonic Colors. – this is probably accurate, but the cited sources only verify appearances in Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations, as far as I can tell

Ping me if you need anything. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7:: I've fixed a lot of the issues you made note of. I'm going to see what I can do with the gameplay picture's non-free use rational. TheJoebro64 talk 7:26 PM, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Awesome! Thanks for being so quick to respond! I'll give the article a second look tonight. I went through the ratings in the critical reception table, and I'm looking at the GamePro review and it unfortunately looks like the 3 stars out of 5 got cut off from the archived version (the live version is now dead). I can't find where it says 3 stars out of 5 – instead, there's a blank space right next to the text "GamePro Score". Maybe it's just my computer – do you think you could take a look? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-review

•  In progress. I've collapsed the issues I've checked are completed and am still in the process of looking through the improvements. Feel free to bring an issue out of the collapsed box at any time. Mz7 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• @TheJoebro64: (WP:NOR) The conclusion that Most characters introduced in the game have made no further appearances in the Sonic series is supported only by primary sources (i.e. the games themselves). This may be a violation of WP:SYNTH if the games are used together to support a conclusion that none of the games explicitly make on their own. Is there a secondary source like a review that also makes the observation that Most characters introduced in the game have made no further appearances in the Sonic series? Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheJoebro64: I've been thinking this over some, and while I still think it would be preferable to have a secondary source here, I don't think it's a huge deal, because only a handful of characters were introduced in the game, and it is more-or-less easy to verify that these characters didn't have reappearances. For this reason, it may not be so egregious an WP:NOR violation to remove, unless another editor objects and says "actually, most of the characters introduced did have reappearances", in which case, we would have to find secondary sources and reevaluate. Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• And with that being resolved, I'm happy to promote this to GA. Thank you for your responsiveness and hard work throughout this process! Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2017 (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.