Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic X/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 promoted by GrahamColm via Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Sonic X

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic, Conker, that animal you totally knew about already, your little sister, Manaphy, Overly Attached Girlfriend, Batgirl, Kirlia, Gerard Way, the kid I can't give a silly name to because he's already a joke, and a host of other fun friends go on adventures together. (Partially) IN SPACE! You'll probably recognize the intro theme if you were, or had, a kid in the mid-2000s.

Introduction aside, I've been building this article up since early April; it passed GA in early July and has had one (successful) peer review since. Uncommonly, I've added a large amount of content to the page after it passed GA (in the History and Reception areas, specifically), as the reviewer, who unfortunately has recently expressed little desire to stay on Wikipedia, suggested that there might not be enough content for FA. I really, really want to avoid that trap, so I've spent hours and hours gathering every usable source I could find on the Internet. It's been frustrating how little has been written about what I remember being (and, by the available evidence, seems to have been) a very popular show, but I now feel this is the most complete resource on the Internet for this series, even eclipsing the Sonic Wiki's page by having more out-of-universe content. I welcome all input, though I request you look at this with as open a mind as possible considering how few usable sources there are out there. Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by URDNEXT

[edit]

Support as per comments below. Will also be doing a review for the prose shortly. I'll also be adding my comments later today. URDNEXT (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URDNEXT, do you have any thoughts yet? Tezero (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, looking at it right now... URDNEXT (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think mentioning trailers is notable enough. Tezero
  • I've snipped it from the infobox as it doesn't reveal much information. I do, however, want to keep them in the body text as they make up pretty much the only information we have about the show's early development. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd paragraph, The plot follows a group of anthropomorphic animals originating in the games—such as Sonic the Hedgehog, Tails, Amy Rose, and Cream the Rabbit—and a human boy named Chris Thorndyke I think the "such as" should be removed. URDNEXT (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's not only them. They're the main ones who are with Chris most of the time in seasons one and two, but Rouge, Knuckles, Shadow, etc. are also important parts of the series. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review by czar

[edit]

While I don't feel prepared to do a prose review for this article, I'd like to contribute an image and source review:

  • Three fair use images, all with rationales. Cover art is too large (length times width > 100,000 pixels, so tagged for resize). Cover art rationale is good. Still image rationale could use an expansion on "These characters, the art, and the setting would be difficult to describe adequately in text only." Comic book rationale needs expansion on almost all criteria.
I think an image could be useful since it's a comic, but as we have a limit on fair use assets in an article, might I suggest adding a section of a strip as an example instead of the cover art? ♔
I'll take a look. I've also considered a different cover that shows more than just Sonic speeding at the screen. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can delve into the strips if you want, but they're full-page comics so I don't know how much a reduced image would give a reader. I kinda like these covers: 13 26 30 27 34 - they show the comics' relatively silly and non-canonical nature, and for what it's worth some of them show what Bokkun looks like. You can view them, right, czar? (I don't really want to log out of my account to check, because I'm not sure I remember my password.) Tezero (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see all but 26. Perhaps 34 or 13? I wonder what they'll be like at low-res, though. Even if the strip is full-page, that's a better case for the fair use rationale than cover art apropos of nothing. ♔
I think I'll go with 13, then, czar; it more explicitly shows something that corroborates the text and wouldn't happen in the actual show, and it doesn't have the minor illustration flaw of showing Amy with human feet (they're more like blobs). Any further comments? I assume this needs a few spotchecks? Tezero (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
czar: done. Tezero (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No free use images
It's not required at all—I was just noting that there weren't any. I imagine the only ones you could use here would be photos of the people involved in voicing or drawing or creating the series. ♔
  • The article associates this show with the "gotta go fast" catchphrase, but does a source actually mention that this was the first venue to initiate the catchphrase?
Then it would be original research to say that it was the first appearance. You can say it was an appearance, though. czar ♔ 00:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so hot on the interview sources, but the current norm is to allow them as long as they're not excessively sketchy
I thought that was a smart way to handle those, even if it departs somewhat from typical citation method ♔
  • Citations appear consistent, for the most part. Archie Comics citations need final punctuation. Books need publisher information as a minimum (ideally with city). Highbeam citation is incorrect.
Resolved Highbeam myself ♔
  • WP:VG/RS check: Games Asylum needs to be vetted—not sure author credibility is enough. GamesFirst has shaky notability—should also be vetted. Also not sure about the sources used for the "gotta go fast" final refs.
If the author was the sole expert on the subject (e.g., a professor), she wouldn't need an editorial staff checking her work. (Even still, that's a self-published source method—usually we rely on a publication for reliability.) If it's a journalist, even a known journalist, the idea is that the publication (the reliable source) provides the editorial integrity through an editorial policy, to keep the content accurate. Unless the journalist is a Sonic expert, she'd need editorial support. Sources can be vetted at WT:VG/RS—just follow the directions at the top and indicate why you find the source credible. Other editors will search for the backgrounds of the main writers, look for an editorial policy, and check how often the source is cited by other publications. ♔
I'll ask, with a tag of urgency as this is an FAC. I suppose it wouldn't be catastrophic if these were found unreliable - I deliberately squeezed the other reviewers' toothpaste tubes hard just in case - but I'd also like to have a larger opinion pool. We'll see what happens. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Impulse Gamer a source where we'd care about their review? Is there a vetted anime source list I should know about?
I'd remove Impulse unless there is an argument for its reliability. Otherwise it's just some guy's opinion on the Internet ♔
Done. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19: ✓
  • I'll pause here for now
  • Highly recommend archiving the unarchived sources
No need to sign up, just use http://webcitation.org/archive.php and enter the URL and an email. I can show you shortcuts for using it with Google Chrome if you end up using it enough ♔
czar, done. Tezero (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

czar ♔ 23:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 13: alter "don't work for some reason." to match text, also punct on outside, actually better off removing the direct quote. Where is the quote that 13c is referencing? Same for 12c
  • The quote's "doesn't work for some reason"; fixed that - but I'd rather keep it if you don't mind, as it might be OR to interpret what "doesn't work" means. As for 12c, the specific quote is "I heard one of the game voices and based it loosely on that. I wasn't told sure which one." Tezero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to match the source so I'd remove the don't/doesn't. In retrospect, that doesn't matter as much. The extrapolation on 12c/13c should fit the original quote, though. We only know what one voice actor said, not whether that was their overall practice. czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tailored to Pollock specifically. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 59: "three stars" out of what? and what is "also assessing its appropriateness for children"? (rhetorical questions—just fix in text)
  • Out of five, and they were assessing how appropriate the show was for children; I'd left that out because it wasn't a comment on the show's quality, but I've decided to include a very brief summary of the review. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: "the first—and is currently the only"?
If it's not in the source, it's original research, so yep czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems trivial, but okay. Done. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16: "on December 1, 2003" not necessarily true—that's just when the source was published. This is also unclear—what do you mean it was the "second"? Source doesn't say that
  • I wasn't quite sure what to do there; 4Kids licensed it from the beginning - ShoPro couldn't have been the first, as Sonic X had already been running in the US for months by the time ShoPro was appointed. Am I confusing "license holder" with what 4Kids does? As for the date, I've changed it to "November 2003" - that might still be too OR-y, though; should I just leave it that the appointment of ShoPro was announced in December or something? Tezero (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know less about the licensing than you do! We can only say what the source explicitly says, which is that ShoPro became a licensee or whatever in late 2003. czar ♔ 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean about the terminology specifically, but I suppose you wouldn't in this case, either. Removed. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

czar ♔ 00:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jimmyblackwing would disagree that something like "Sonic X was extensively merchandised in various forms of media and other products." could be left unsourced, or even sourced to multiple items so as to make that claim
  • 56: ✓, though possibly (almost definitely) unreliable source
  • I would be remiss if I gave a check for the possibly unreliable sources before we heard back, so I'll have to wait on that. Also there were a bunch of corrections on the sources above, so that either means that I need to do more spot checks (after we hear back) or that I can have some kind of affirmation from somewhere else that the sources are okay
  • Support on images. Verdict on sources pending feedback from WT:VG/RS (or this FAC) on unreliable sources czar ♔ 02:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • czar, one user has given feedback: GamesAsylum and Inside Gaming Daily are reliable; GamesFirst! (which I've already removed) and GameBreaker are not. If no further objections are made anytime soon, should these two just be classified as, at the least, situationally reliable for here? No word on when any would be made. Tezero (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify that I support on sources too, trusting that any verdict from WT:VG/RS on those four sites in question will be implemented. While I, myself, doubt their reliability, I think it's fine to leave them for now seeing as they've had little public comment. Nice work czar ♔ 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DarthBotto

[edit]

I will be beginning my review shortly. Stand by. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto, do you have any initial thoughts? Perhaps on the sources at WT:VG/RS? (Sorry if this is annoying; I just don't understand why readers of that talk page seem to be jumping right past the two discussions I opened.) Tezero (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably because you lumped a whole bunch of them together, and didn't appear to make any sort of attempt to evaluate them at all yourself... Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be allowed to evaluate them myself, Sergecross73? I'd clearly be biased in favor of them being reliable, because a current FAC and an upcoming one use them. I assumed that would be somewhat of a conflict of interest. Tezero (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could still create more of a case for them though. Like do some research on them, present some facts, and then let others determine it. (You could find/link to whether or not they have an editorial policy, an "about us" section, have been used as a reference point by other reliable sources, has writers who have previously written for other reliable sources, etc etc. And if you can't find a lot of these types of things, that may answer the question for you as well... Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll look into them now. Tezero (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. I wasn't able to find any evidence of GamesFirst!'s reliability, so I had to strike it altogether. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • "...however, a further twenty-six were aired elsewhere from 2005 to 2006". Maybe a mention of where else it was broadcast? I mean, if it's largely international, then a more appropriate use of words would do well here.
  • The rest of the first paragraph is sound.
  • The proper word usage for originating is "originating from", rather than "originating in".
  • Hmm, it would seem like the rest of the second paragraph is rather sound, as well. I would prefer more comma usage in place of the dashes while describing the main characters we've seen previously, but what you have admittedly does the job.
  • I'd like to keep the first set of dashes as swapping them for commas would result in saying "and Cream the Rabbit, and a human boy named Chris", which I think would sound awkward out loud without the increased pauses brought by em-dashes. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have issues with the tense of the third paragraph, as it uses "has" and "have" for describing the reviewers' consensus, while also referencing it as a past occurrence. The correct form would be to consistently speak of it in past tense, even if utilizing reviews from a day prior, (which you're not).
Stand by for more. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a complaint, but consider just making the copyediting changes you think are needed yourself rather than notifying me. That's what I usually do during FACs and GANs, except for changes that are more open-ended or where I'm presenting multiple options for the writer to choose from. Tezero (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBotto, since you're back, I'm wai-ting. (I'm not mad; I just couldn't resist.) Tezero (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero, apologies. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
[edit]
  • I have watched this show somewhat, but it's been years since I last did do. Do they clarify what kind of planet the characters are from? I'm asking because not only do I not know, but because this section doesn't really discuss this, aside from a mention that Earth is a parallel world. Could this be included for ignorant readers such as yours truly?
That's unfortunate. Alrighty, let it be. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this section could be trimmed down significantly, while also maintaining the key elements. As it stands, it seems a little too detailed. I bet a third of this could be removed and it would be more direct and not overly detailed.
  • Well, it's long for an anime. That said, I've tried trimming before and while there's been some success (it actually used to be about 150% its current size, if you can believe that), some changes have created ambiguity by not explaining the context enough, these having been fixed during PresN's review. If you've watched it, are there any parts you think go into too much detail specifically given how much time they take up or how important they are to the series' overall continuity? (For example, I removed a lot of Amy being aggravated at her chronic friendzoning because it didn't affect the overall plot much.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm looking over it again and the length doesn't seem to be too terrible of an issue. I'll think it over. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]
  • "The show was created by TMS Entertainment." - Do you have a better source other than the credits?
  • "but the second season is mostly based on the plots of Sonic Adventure 1 and 2". I think this could be rewritten as "but the second season is mostly based on the plots of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2". I would copyedit it, but I think you should be given the discretion to apply the suggestion in this particular case, as it's not the most prevalent in my mind.
  • No, you're right; Sonic Adventure 1 isn't the official title, though "SA1" and "SA2" are well-understood by the Sonic fanbase. (Personally, I prefer "Adve. 1" and "Adve. 2" to disambiguate from the Advance games.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as the portion about the two trailers, do you have a better source than YouTube? Are there any reliable sources that describe the conditions of the trailer/intro you have included?
  • The report on the World Hobby Fair does that - normally I don't think it'd need a secondary source, but technically the fact that it was exhibited there doesn't appear in the video itself, only in the uploader's title. Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the most part, the "Creation and development" section is in ship shape, with the exception of what I described.
  • In the "Broadcast and localization" subsection, I really like the use of links- it really feels connected to other materials.
  • Er, thanks, but are there really that many, or are the ones there really that profound? I don't really see what you're describing. Is there an example such that I might take your advice for future projects? Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I liked the mention of Editing of anime in American distribution. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm doing a bit of copyediting here and there.
  • Overall, this section is very well sourced and the references seem to be reliable. One question for an ignorant fool: What is THEM Anime? I see it popping up over and over and I was curious about what it is and if it's reliable.
  • It appears fairly often in anime articles, such as the FA School Rumble. (Actually, I was perusing that very page to see what sites I might hit up for reviews and that's where I found THEM. I can't emphasize enough how frustrating my search for secondary sources for this was; this one was a copacetic find.) Tezero (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Word. I think it will suffice as a source. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
[edit]
Verdict
[edit]

Due to the diligence and attentiveness of the primary editor, in addition to the enhanced quality of this page, despite difficulty in finding secondary sources, I am giving this my vote of Support. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review X by PresN

[edit]
  • The X stands for "eXtremely standard". That means it's cool! Jumping ahead of DarthBotto's review, since I've delayed this enough:
  • "Chris tries to hide the animals from them until Cream accidentally reveals them" - uses "them" twice in a row to mean different things
  • The sentences starting with "At first only Knuckles" and "With the help of an echidna girl" get really snakey- try to chop them up.
  • The idea that Tikal is "from the past" and that Chaos "goes to sleep" with her is clear as mud. I know you're trying to keep the plot section from getting overlong, but that bit's just confusing.
  • "Shortly, Eggman" - shortly thereafter? or is this just a Tom Swifty?
  • "Eggman rebuilds the Moon but its position shifts" - this whole sentence is awkwardly constructed
  • "Eggman is arrested" - I know this is a kids cartoon, but... for what? Did he move the moon on purpose?
  • "Six months later" - snakey sentence
  • "six years have passed" - no need for italics for emphasis
  • "They board Tails' new spaceship" - this sentence is really, really long
  • "Later, Rouge finds Shadow" - another snakey sentence
  • "void her sight and hearing" - void is a strange word to use unless you are talking about a warranty; try destroy since you don't want to use "remove" again in the same sentence.
  • "Knuckles pushes for" - snakey comma-splice in this sentence
  • "The heroes find the Chaotix" - who are the Chaotix?
  • "it includes non-outlined CGI elements" - what's a "non-outlined" CGI element?
  • You talk about how the producers "hoped" the show would increase the popularity of the games; is there any proof it did/did not?
  • "as 4Kids is infamous among anime fans for doing" - editorializing
  • 'work for some reason."' - period goes outside the quote unless you quote a full sentence (and the quoted sentence is also the end of your sentence, as it is here). WP:MOSQUOTE
  • You say when/what dates it was aired in Japan; do you have that information for the US?
  • Oddly, no. That information used to be in the article, but no reliable source could be found so it was removed. I would like to add it, though; do you have a suggestion for where English (or French) anime airdates might be hosted? Tezero (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SONIC X ~ORIGINAL SOUND TRACKS~" - drop the all-caps
  • "but they destroy the robots" - is they the humans or the animals?
  • "but he (along with Eggman) is locked up for supposedly working with Eggman" - Eggman is locked up for working with Eggman?
  • "After more malicious" - this sentence wanders on forever
  • "also came in for some criticism" - odd phrasing
  • "Among critics" - drop this
  • "which he summarized thus" - thus? really?
  • The paragraph starting with "Common Sense Media" seems out of place- neither sentence has anything to do with each other.
  • "despite never airing in Japan" - I thought the first 2 seasons did air in Japan?
  • Your 1Up sources are dead; if you move quickly you might be able to find an archive.org backup, and then archive that in turn with webcitation.org.
  • Allmusic and Allgame are AllMusic and AllGame, respectively
--PresN 20:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the "infamous" and "thus" bits; I don't have any good source for non-Japanese anime airdates (I've tried before). Ready to Support, assuming the DarthBotto review above doesn't end up mocking my attempt at a prose review. --PresN 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support by NathanWubs

[edit]

Support , I have been following this review for a while now. Now that problem with the sources have been fixed I can give my support. I cannot comment on the prose as I am not the most stellar writer. With all the work that has gone into it, and all the fixes now too I cannot give anything else but my support for this article to be FA.. NathanWubs (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dank's comments

[edit]
  • Ian asked me to have a look, this is what I see in the lead:
  • "18", "26", "fifty-two": consistency.
  • "non-Japanese regions": does that mean "outside Japan"?
  • "American localization", "English-language localization": an ambiguous technical term (it can mean a range of things, generally including translation)
  • "warping": ambiguous (teleporting, traveling fast, traveling faster than the speed of light, etc.)
  • "adjusting to their recognition as celebrities": "recognition" isn't quite right here.

Dank, I'm done with these; have you watchlisted this? Also, how should I mentally pronounce your name: "Dan K." or the colloquial adjective for potent weed? Tezero (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any pronunciation is fine. I'm sick today, so I'll leave this one for the FAC coords. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, they haven't come by. Are you feeling better yet? Tezero (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine thanks. I've talked with Ian about this, he'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose's comments

[edit]

Tks Dank for starting off a copyedit. I think we needed more so on this occasion I decided to recuse myself from delegate duties and skim through the prose myself -- pls check that I haven't misunderstood anything. Assuming no issues there, I won't support outright but will have no objections if Graham decides to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2014 (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_X/archive1&oldid=627595629"