Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic Heroes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2018 [1].

Sonic Heroes

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years after Sonic Adventure 2 brought Sega's days as a first-party publisher to an end, a new era began in 2003. Unlike previous Sonic the Hedgehog games, Sonic Team USA's Sonic Heroes was released for a large number of non-Sega platforms. It features a drastically different gameplay style from its predecessors—one that focuses on linear platforming and teamwork. Overall, it's simpler and more streamlined than its predecessors. Sonic Heroes divided the gaming press: reviewers wrote that it didn't address the major problems of its predecessors, even if its gameplay was closer to the classic Sega Genesis titles than ever. And yet it was the kind of success Sega hadn't seen in years, selling millions of copies and earning numerous sales awards.

I decided to work on this in December but didn't put in serious effort until March (here's where it was before I rewrote it) and got it promoted to GA in April. Since this was a pretty popular game, I had to go through a lot of articles, interviews, etc. and I now think this is the internet's most complete resource on the game. After doing a bit of copyediting and expansion, I think this meets the FA standards. JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part (Set six months after the events of Sonic Adventure 2, the story follows four individual groups of characters in their quests to find Doctor Eggman; meanwhile, Metal Sonic secretly manipulates these events.), I would avoid using “events” twice in such close proximity. I think you can just say (Set six months after Sonic Adventure 2) and convey the same meaning.
  • For this part (to complete levels, and collect the seven Chaos Emeralds in special stages.), I do not believe the comma is necessary.
  • For this sentence (Sonic Team USA handled development, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka.), something the placement seems off to me. Would it be better to revise it to the following (Sonic Team USA, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka, handled the development).
  • The image caption (Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles in the Seaside Hill stage.) should not be punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
  • Something about the wording for this phrase (In the Sonic series platform game tradition) seems a little awkward to me. I would revise it to read better.
  • For this part (There are four teams: Team Sonic (Sonic the Hedgehog, Miles "Tails" Prower, and Knuckles the Echidna); Team Dark (Shadow the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, and E-123 Omega); Team Rose (Amy Rose, Cream the Rabbit, and Big the Cat); and Team Chaotix (Espio the Chameleon, Charmy Bee, and Vector the Crocodile).), I think that the semicolons should be commas.
  • For this part (Each team has its own campaign, called a story.), is the “called a story” part necessary? It seems rather standard for games to refer to a campaign mode as something along the lines of a story mode.
  • For this sentence (With Shadow missing his memories and Omega seeking revenge against Eggman for sealing him away, Rouge, who wants to get a hold of Eggman's treasure, forms a team with them), do you think the last part would read better as this (Rouge forms a team with them to get a hold of Eggman’s treasure)?
  • For this part (someone is hiding behind the scenes, posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies), I think you can just simplify it as the following (someone is posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies).
  • Please make it clear what references are used to support this bit of information (to commemorate the Sonic series' 12th anniversary.).
  • For this sentence (Critical reception to Sonic Heroes was "mixed or average", according to the review aggregator Metacritic.), please put the references in numeric order.
  • For this part (IGN thought rest of the sound was high quality,), I think you mean “the rest of the sound”.
  • I am not sure if this statement (The presentation was generally well-received.) is entirely accurate as there are criticisms about the presentation (i.e. the graphics were not much of an improvement from previous games—comparing them to "a glorified Dreamcast game” and disliked the shiny models).
  • For this part (After working on a few more games, in 2008), the comma should be after “in 2008”.
  • The “G” in “AllGame” should be capitalized.
  • For reference 10, the word “interview” should not be in all caps. Make sure to avoid putting words in all caps for the reference titles. See references 37 and 38 for the same reasons.

Great job with the article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, thanks for the review! I've implemented most of your proposed changes, and if I didn't I explained why. I'll comment on your FAC sometime tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! It was an interesting read. The only thing that needs to be addressed is the numerical order of the references in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. However, since that is a minor issue that I am sure you will address, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

Very good alt text for all. Might recommend adding there is a shark and a whale island in Sonic Heros.jpg, but it is fine if you do not. Kees08 (Talk) 06:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: thank you for reviewing! I believe I've addressed your point above. I also did add the island details to the alt text; I do think it's worth noting. JOEBRO64 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this article passes the media review. Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not pass the media review - File:Sonic Heros.jpg has an IGN watermark. It's also just an awful screenshot that shows a blur where the characters should be. The alt text says they're pushing a car? What? - hahnchen 07:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08 and Hahnchen, I've replaced File:Sonic Heros.jpg with File:Sonic Heroes Grand Metropolis.png. I think it passes again now. JOEBRO64 13:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the published date supposed to be the game release date, or the date the screenshot was published? I beefed up the alt text a bit, please modify if I got it wrong. Could mention that sprites of the characters are in the upper right corner as well, if you want. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: the day the game was released, but I've added the screenshot date as well. JOEBRO64 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Passes media review from me, others may have further input. Kees08 (Talk) 23:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MX

[edit]

Great article! I checked the lead to make sure the info there was cited elsewhere and everything checks out. Sources look strong and complete. Prose is good too. Like we brought up in the WikiProject, I'm wondering what to do with the infobox, particularly now with the release dates. The Gamecube (Japan) version is cited in the body, but there is an inconsistency with the NA version (January 5 in infobox; January 6 in text). Windows release has only the month-year in the prose, but not in the infobox. PAL region is unsourced entirely, as well as Windows JP release. Shiro Maekawa is also unsourced. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to say that I don't think sources should be added to the infobox. Prose is fine. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MX thanks for the review! I've sourced the Windows release dates and corrected the inconsistencies. Removed the unsourced staff because they weren't really important (writer isn't important because this isn't a plot driven game, and Hoshino has been a main Sonic artist for a while). The PAL release dates aren't unsourced—the European release dates are the PAL ones JOEBRO64 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I support this nomination. Nice job again! MX (✉ • ✎) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

Saw your bat-signal at WT:VG. Overall, the article is solid, but I think it needs some additional work. Thoughts as follows:

  • Images: File:Sonic Heros.jpg could use a beefed up rationale for its inclusion; as is it doesn't do a great job showing gameplay and I can't tell what teamwork aspects are being featured. There's also an IGN watermark. I think a different, clearer image with a stronger rationale would be best. (On a minor technical side, I'd also recommend uploading the gameplay images as PNG. Wikipedia's JPEG scaler is really not great and it tends to make gameplay screenshots not at full size look more jaggy and less clear than they could be. But that's just a preference.) Other images are fine.
  • Prose:
    • Six months after the battle aboard the Space Colony ARK—what is space colony ARK? Who is Doctor Eggman? In general there's spots throughout where I think a brief introduction is in order for some plot details. I don't know much about Sonic, but many readers might know even less. Other spots include no mention of who Metal Sonic is (the fact that he's apparently a robot Eggman created feels relevant) and a little more on what the Chaos Emeralds are.
      • I've gone and added some clarification. Axed the "battle aboard the Space Colony ARK" and replaced it with "the events of Sonic Adventure 2.
    • How many players can participate in multiplayer?
      • IGN says two to four.
    • all-powerful Metal Overlord I dunno what this means.
      • Clarified.
    • I went through and performed some minor copyedits as well as added nonbreaking spaces for the figures.
      • Yeah, thanks for that, really made the prose cleaner.
    • I'm not entirely sure about the legacy section. USgamer's retrospective alone doesn't feel like it deserves a paragraph, and the details about later appearances of the levels and subsequent games feel a little excessive for the scope of this article.
      • I've gone and entirely reshuffled the section. USgamer retrospective is now part of the first paragraph, and footnoted the level reappearances to better be digested by a general reader. However, I don't think it should be removed entirely—it is relevant to the game and shows it did have an impact on the series. And I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument but many other FAs, like Super Mario World and Final Fantasy VII, have information like this.
    • IGN considered Sonic Heroes a major improvement from Sonic Adventure, writing "Sonic Heroes does an absolutely sensational job of re-creating the intensely fast and unpredictable looping, corkscrewing stages from the classic games in 3D".[4] 1UP.com and GameSpy agreed.[2][32]—It's not really clear what 1UP and Gamespy are agreeing to here. That it does a great job of recreating the old games in 3D? That it's a major improvement on Sonic Adventure?
      • That it was an improvement from Adventure. Clarified.
  • References:
    • I would suggest axing the notes section. Knowing how many reviews went into an aggregate is mildly interesting, but if we're not calling them out I don't think it's necessary. Likewise, the detail about an event taking place in the previous game is better placed in the text for context. Readers shouldn't need to scroll to figure out that piece of information. The Japanese translation stuff I know is contentious and I defer to whatever the heck the project has hammered together in terms of what the proper usage should be.
      • I've removed the notes. General vibe in recent months is that the Japanese translation is sorta unnecessary for the general reader, and I totally agree with your other concerns.
    • I did a spot check of sourcing and statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 24, and 40, and found some issues that need to be addressed. (Based on this revision)
      • Sonic Heroes is a 3D platformer similar to previous Sonic the Hedgehog games.[1] cited to 1, but the source doesn't mention Sonic as a 3D platform and doesn't directly compare it to previous Sonic games besides saying "it is a Sonic game".
      • Team Rose, Team Sonic, and Team Dark represent easy, medium, and hard difficulties, respectively, with harder difficulties featuring longer stages and tougher enemies.—the associated source can be used for the easy/medium/hard distinction, but doesn't cover harder enemies or longer stages, just says harder objectives.
      • Unlike previous games, which had been made using custom tools,—the source only covers the previous Sonic Adventure games, not all Sonic games.
        • I believe I've fixed all these.
    • I would suggest doing a runthrough of other references to make sure there aren't similar issues.
      • I took a look and didn't see anything.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: (insert this here) thanks for reviewing! I've responded above. I might not have addressed all the issues but did my best. JOEBRO64 23:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, no pressure to declare a position, just checking if you have anything to add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As my concerns have been addressed, support the nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv

[edit]

Excellent article, and I've not much to add.

  • "Teams contain three character types: Speed, Power, and Flight, which the player toggles between" – So, there's one character for each type? Have you listed them in that order above (e.g. Sonic is Speed; Miles is Power; Knuckles is Flight)? Perhaps a table of some kind would be a good way to present the information, since each character has two important qualities, Team and Type (and each team has a difficulty).
    • Didn't list them in the right order; fixed that. However, I don't think creating a table would be a good idea because I think it'd read like walkthrough-level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE-level material. It's better covered in prose. As a compromise, I've listed an example character for each. Since they're all in the Speed-Power-Flight order, I think readers will be able to figure it out themselves.
  • Is it worth describing the controls used to manage the characters? If this isn't a standard in VG articles, ignore me, but I would have expected a very concise summary of basic controls. Though I understand there's four platforms.
    • The video game MOS actually discourages explaining strategies like this because it also falls under GAMEGUIDE. I feel like saying "..which the player toggles between using the gamepad's buttons" would sound redundant, because practically every console game is controlled using buttons.
  • Were there any reviewers who commented on the difficulty of the game, or said that particular parts were too easy or too hard?
    • Yeah, there were. I've added it to the reception section.

— Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: thank you for reviewing! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, and I'm now happy with all of these. Support promotion to FA. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Red Phoenix talk

[edit]

@TheJoebro64: I know I told you I would look over this a while ago, and I apologize. I've been active as much as I can but it's been a busy month. That being said, I've finally made it over. Here's what I have for you:

  • Be mindful of reference consistency. As you know, I prefer you list the publisher with every reference, although it's not an FA requirement and I won't enforce it here. However, we have examples in the references of Eurogamer both without and with its publisher listed. Either include it every time or don't include it at all; it could imply to readers that the references are actually from two different publications.
  • On the matter of Sonic Retro - I understand they're being used to show interviews, but I don't see a notice that their interviews are re-published with permission. Can you show where they are? If not, my concern is that we're linking to a copyright violation and would be better off tracking down the original publications and citing those.
    • I removed them. I wasn't able to find the original interviews (the pages did have links to them but they're dead and none of the archives had the pages saved), and they were kinda minor. I did manage to find a small little detail from another source, which I've added. JOEBRO64 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from that, let the record show that all references should be reliable. Most are listed at WP:VG/S, and I have vetted the remainder.

Overall, generally a well-written article about one of my personal favorite video games. I would have done some structural elements differently, but I would still call those FA quality as it is. Let me know your thoughts on the two points I have raised above. Red Phoenix talk 14:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix, thank you for reviewing! I've responded above and I think I've corrected the problems. JOEBRO64 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

misc

[edit]
  • The lede doesn't explain what the player does in the game
  • "under the Player's Choice, Platinum Hits, and Greatest Hits lines for GameCube, Xbox, and PlayStation 2, respectively." Is this an accolade worthy of inclusion in the lede? It's sourced to primary source screenshots—not even sure it merits inclusion in the prose, nevertheless the lede. Doesn't this simply mean that the game sold over a certain amount? (Its sales were already noted.)
    • I've generalized it for the lead. The primary sources actually weren't needed, the GameSpy source about sales actually had all the budget line rereleases listed. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the plot of this game important? If so, why don't reviewers say anything about it? If not important, why does it need its own section and why does it need to be summarized in the lede? Very hard to understand what's going on with the teams and characters in the lede, and it's the most precious part of the whole article: the first paragraph. How would you explain the plot to a general audience?
    • I've merged it. I had left the plot in when I rewrote the article because I felt like it was pretty barebones enough to keep (not like Sonic Adventure's, which needed some heavy trimming). The plot now is just what reliable sources say. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gameplay introduces teams without explaining why they exist. Why teams? If that's a plot element, worth baking into this Gameplay section (again rather than splitting it out). In platform games, the "plot" tends to be a component of the gameplay.
  • Retrospective article in the Legacy section: what should a reader do with "19 of 27"? Say "I guess that's mediocre"? Would be more useful to make this qualitative. "As of 200X, USgamer ranked the game as below the franchise's average quality" or "among the franchise's bottom half of games" (begs the question, what is the actual purpose of the ranking? If none, then the "19 of 27" really signifies nothing, right?)

(just passing through, not watching, please {{ping}} if feedback requested) czar 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar, thanks for taking a look! I've gone through and given the article some changes based on your suggestions. Do you think it looks better now? JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
lede edits: feel free to change czar 21:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

[edit]

Recusing from coordinator duties to look at this.

  • I think it's late in the game for a reorganization that introduced errors: "Sonic Heroes was the first multi-platform Sonic game: it was developed the GameCube, PlayStation 2 (PS2), and Xbox." Reviewers who supported based on the version prior to this should be pinged and asked to re-review, in my opinion, as the text has changed substantially.
  • Further, a comprehensive comparison of sources to the text is going to be needed. David Fuchs uncovered issues that were seemingly fixed but the first one I checked fails verification. "IGN lauded detailed, varied, and realistic character models, and wrote that the environments were colorfully and crisply textured. They also praised the realistic and 'gorgeous' shading and lighting effects." The citation given is to an IGN review that doesn't accurately reflect what you've written. In the process of moving words around to avoid close paraphrasing, we're actually losing the intended meaning. For example, the reviewer wrote, "Textures are usually crisp and clean, not to mention detailed, but up close they don't always maintain detail." You paraphrased that into "the environments were colorfully and crisply textured" which is actually pretty close paraphrasing but at the same time you changed the meaning. The reviewer wrote that the water effects were "gorgeous" but the lighting and shading are not discussed as such. I find that too often the "Reception" sections for VG and other media are sloppy paraphrases of what the reviewers write. The reviews should be read for comprehension of meaning and then the Reception section written as fresh prose in our own voice without being a series of "IGN said (close paraphrasing)" statements.

Oppose as this needs considerable work. --Laser brain (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: the IGN issue you noticed was the only problem, which I've fixed. I've read through all the reviews and all the paraphrasing is correct. The reorganization was really just merging the plot section and tightening the lead, so the text wasn't really altered much. Regardless, I'll ping the supporters: @Aoba47, Bilorv, David Fuchs, and MX. JOEBRO64 14:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll understand when I say that the hit rate for problems is sufficiently high that the sources need examination by an independent editor. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain, I understand but I still feel like you sorta jumped the gun on opposing this. In most of the FACs I've seen/been a part of it's not uncommon for an article to go through some substantial changes more than halfway through the cycle. You say "the text has changed substantially", but it hasn't—a section got merged and the lead got copyedited, that's all. JOEBRO64 20:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN summary still says "the textures were colorful" and I'm unclear where in the review this comes from. My previous review did a couple of source spotchecks but I didn't find anything amiss. I've come back to it and done a couple of spotchecks on reviews specifically. The Eurogamer source does not use the word "vivid", and I don't think it's a good idea to use the word unless a reviewer has. The GameSpy review is summarised accurately, as is the 1UP review. Overall, I think another rewrite would be helpful.
As for the prose changes:

I don't understand Czar's comments about the plot not being requiring its own section (is this not VG standard?) but I'm willing to accept that they are more experienced in this topic area and defer to their judgement. I agree that the substantial changes made mean that we need a couple of people to go over this article again, and I'm neutral until this occurs. I don't think the nominator should be punished for making changes based on a review, so I hope a couple of other people can take a look over the new version of the article. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv, thanks for coming back. I've replaced "colorful" with "detailed". I've removed "vivid"; although the review didn't use it, I was trying to express that they thought the colors really made the game stand out. MOS:VG recommends merging the plot section if it's not major or independent from the gameplay. I felt like it was sorta separate here considering it's told entirely through FMV cutscenes and voice acting, but as czar pointed out it's mostly part of the gameplay here. I haven't responded to your second bullet point because I want to see if czar's going to say something first. JOEBRO64 20:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
re: teams, I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. Did the sources make a point of enumerating the composition of each team? If so, fine, list it out. If it's trivia—and the 12 fictional character names apropros of nothing tends to be trivia—then don't list them. All in all, my suggestion to generalize that info (rather than barrage a general audience with with unnecessary detail) is hardly immoderate. Also I agree with what Joebro said above re: splitting the character functions into a table: more befitting of a game guide than an encyclopedia article for general readership. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Listing the names of the characters in the game is hardly trivia; quite clearly I'm not understanding how things work in VG, but if this was a TV article then we wouldn't consider plot to require discussion in the sources—it's just a standard section which is implicitly sourced to the work itself. The current article lists 9 of 12 characters and 1 of 4 team names, which is a bizarre, incomplete compromise. I would even prefer as an option just listing one team (name and characters), to serve as an example. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects like this are of differing opinion in the Video games project. I do get what czar is getting at; if it's that important, why isn't it reliably sourced? TV articles tend to have sources that discuss the plot, while that's not always the same in video game reviews. I'm personally of an opinion that plot sections in video games are usually unnecessary as a result — ergo, one of the reasons for my comment on how I would have structured the article differently myself. The point is, to someone who's not familiar with video games or has never played anything in the Sonic series, does it matter who of the series' pantheon of characters is involved or who you can play as? By the same token, MOS:VG I feel is a little ambiguous as to what is enough material to constitute having a plot or a legacy section; some editors interpret it more broadly than others. Red Phoenix talk 02:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that plot must be sourced but that the detail should be proportional to its coverage in the sources. If plot/story is not a significant component of this game, why should it get its own section? I also didn't say that character names are automatically trivia. However, a table/chart of the characters, their types, and team names, as originally proposed, like some kind of sports team roster, would be disproportionate if the sources did not do the same. Put another way, that's trivia. czar 13:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested alternatives; it seems like I didn't make my main concern clear enough—the current article lists 9 of 12 characters and 1 of 4 team names. That's simply incoherent and incomplete whichever way you slice it. I don't care if you add more information or take some away, but the current prose is not following a consistent pattern. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 14:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv, cut the team name; now it's just the character names. You think it flows better now? JOEBRO64 15:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy with that. Thank you. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, would you have a chance to revisit for a status check? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • Not a lot seems to have been done since I asked for an article-wide source audit, and problems are still easily spotted. For example, you wrote about the team-based gameplay "GameSpy argued it was well-balanced and thought it greatly increased the replay value." The source actually reads "adds to the replay value" which is far from "greatly increased" and fails verification.
  • The writing overall I find to be below the standard called for in 1a. For example, "The aesthetics and sound were generally well-received." What does it mean for sound to be well-received? And what do you mean by sound? You should delineate discussion of the music and the sound effects as they are quite different elements of the game. You later say that IGN called the music "laughable" which is an incorrect interpretation of what the source reads: "Heroes returns with cheesy 80s-style guitar riffs and all." You also say they called the sound effects high quality, which they didn't really...

I'm very sorry and not trying to be harsh but I find this to be written at around a B-class level at best. Where I've looked, you seem to have misinterpreted sources and in the process of trying to paraphrase them, expressed the wrong meaning. I do feel like this will require significant reworking and checking against each cited source before it's ready for FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sonic_Heroes/archive1&oldid=1138471788"