Talk:Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Hi, just right off the bat I'm going to say that I see multiple significant issues with the article. Now, I haven't looked deep into the article yet, but I noticed some glaring issues on a quick look through. These include:

1. Uses at least one unreliable source (Go Nintendo, that should be replaced with the Famitsu source)
2. The Famitsu source (and possibly others) is in the table, but the review contents aren't mentioned in the Reception section
3. At first glance, the Reception section seems very small. Now, that doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be that much bigger, but the fact that there are reliable reviews not incorporated suggests to me that it's incomplete.
4. The story seems very large; I'm not necessarily saying to trim it, as I have to read it first, but if there are any extraneous details that could be lost without losing coherency, I'd suggest cutting it.
5. At least one dead link (1Up source)
6. The article text could be tweaked to more accurately reflect what sources are saying (for example, the GameSpot source citing that it incorporates rhythm elements actually says that it has timing elements, which is not inherently rhythmic).
7. In the infobox, every person listed, save for Richard Jacques, is not mentioned in the article. They should either be removed or, through reliable sources discussing their role, be included in the article.
8. The files have minor issues; they should link to the pages they're used on rather than the file itself, and the gameplay screenshot links to a dead link. I recommend either archiving the link or finding a new image or source.

Now, I'm not trying to be harsh, just trying to lay down my concerns about this article. I won't quickfail because that's super disheartening and wastes time if you can address the issues, but as it is, there are significant issues with the article that need to be addressed. In time, I'll review the text more closely. I'd say... two weeks? Just to give you some extra time to work on it. If you need any help, you can ping me and I'll help where I can. I'll also ping @TheJoebro64: to see if he's interested in helping, since I understand that he has experience with Sonic articles. :) - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I have shortened the story and replaced the gameplay screenshot with one from GamesRadar+'s review of the game; once I return home, I'll be sure to apply all of the other changes. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Back at home, meaning I was able to do the following:

- Saved the 1UP.com reference from being dead.

- Expanded reception to include more reviews, thoughts on presentation, as well as the frequent combat comparisons to Elite Beat Agents; I also changed the Gameplay description to state "rhythm and timing" elements, as a sort of compromise.

- Replaced the GoNintendo reference for Famitsu with one for Nintendo Everything. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't get the ping but happened to see this on the GA docket, I can take a further look within a couple of days. (I've been busy so my wiki-time has been limited recently.) I can say right off the bat, based on a quick look, that I think this nomination was premature but I'll give a more thorough analysis later. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was premature; the gameplay and reception are still fairly incomplete, I've no clue why this article was marked as B class. It definitely needs expansion. And apparently there are multiple documentaries, interviews, etc. - I'm surprised that was all that could be extrapolated from those and would guess far more development info can be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Judging by how much info appears to be missing from the article, I think it'd be best to close the nomination. Do you think you can expand it adequately to fix these issues in a timely manner? @Shadowboxer2005: If not, it may be better to resubmit down the road once you've improved the article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I think we should close it. I'll add info from the documentaries once I find them (preferably not on YouTube, unless as a last resort). If I had to guess why it was ranked B-class, probably just old Wikipedia criteria being less strict. Perhaps it would be a good idea to re-review other old Sonic articles one day? Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, according to the history somebody rated it as B in 2022, so the criteria weren't any different. It was just a mis-assessment on their part. I will also say videos are considered usable sources if they're from somewhere reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)