Talk:Sonic Mania/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mz7 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- I can do this one, though I would warmly welcome additional feedback from other editors, particularly ones more involved with video game articles than I am. Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Lead edit
- Generally, the year of publication is important enough for the reader's context to be included in the first sentence. Perhaps:
Sonic Mania is a 2017 2D platform game published by Sega.
or alternativelySonic Mania is a 2D platform game published in 2017 by Sega.
Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)- I've used your first suggestion. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64 and Dissident93: I was about to pass this, but I noticed that there is a dispute ongoing regarding this point. I searched the archives of WT:VG, and I presume you guys are referring to this discussion. I can't confess to being overly familiar with the intricacies of video game article style, but what I do know is that many good/featured quality video game articles do conform to this practice of including the year of release in the first sentence even when a fuller release date is described in a later paragraph. I read the discussion, and I'm not sure there is a consensus either way beyond a "case-by-case" approach. I can understand the views on both sides of the aisle: on the one hand, it feels a little redundant to include when a fuller release date is repeated later on in the lead, but on the other hand, time is an important piece of contextual information that we should solidify with the reader as soon as possible. I would accept a compromise solution of removing the year while simultaneously shifting the sentence that reads, "Sonic Mania was released [on various platforms ...] in August 2017.", closer to the start of the lead. Ultimately, however, I feel that the way it is presented right now is the most most natural way of doing it and the way that reflects how most other video game articles do it. Mz7 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- the way that reflects how most other video game articles do it. Yet I would tend to disagree, as most game articles that I watch or have seen generally just include the exact date/month of release rather than the year in the opening sentence. And not to sound elitist, but shouldn't we confirm more to MOS:VG/WT:VG consensus rather than a single GA reviewer's opinion, one who is admittedly unfamiliar with VG specific guidelines? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I do tend to write my articles with the generic year in the first sentence, and most GA/FA articles I see do the same. JOEBRO64 01:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Dissident93 and TheJoebro64: If there were truly an explicit guideline on this, then I would be happy to follow it, but the WT:VG discussion recommended a case-by-case approach with few parameters other than avoiding redundancy. In this case, I can definitely see your point that the release year in the first sentence is redundant to the release year in the third paragraph of the lead. However, I still think the time of release is important enough context that it should be first mentioned further up in the lead. I think the time context is especially significant in this case because this particular game attempts to recreate the style of an earlier era of its franchise. My argument here is backed in part by the general MOS:BEGIN, which states that identifying contextual information such as time should be included in the opening paragraph. An alternative solution is to change the first sentence to read,
Sonic Mania is a 2D platform game published by Sega in August 2017.
, and then remove thein August 2017
in the third paragraph. This would resolve the redundancy issue. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)- I've gone and used your suggestion. JOEBRO64 11:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem here outside of personal preference was redundancy, which was taken care of with this edit. However, there was still room for improvement. Saying it was just "published in August 2017" makes it seem like it has been out of print since (this matters more the older the game gets). So, I changed the wording from that to "Sonic Mania is a 2D platform game published by Sega, which released worldwide in August 2017", which I think everybody can agree on. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've gone and used your suggestion. JOEBRO64 11:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Dissident93 and TheJoebro64: If there were truly an explicit guideline on this, then I would be happy to follow it, but the WT:VG discussion recommended a case-by-case approach with few parameters other than avoiding redundancy. In this case, I can definitely see your point that the release year in the first sentence is redundant to the release year in the third paragraph of the lead. However, I still think the time of release is important enough context that it should be first mentioned further up in the lead. I think the time context is especially significant in this case because this particular game attempts to recreate the style of an earlier era of its franchise. My argument here is backed in part by the general MOS:BEGIN, which states that identifying contextual information such as time should be included in the opening paragraph. An alternative solution is to change the first sentence to read,
- Well, I do tend to write my articles with the generic year in the first sentence, and most GA/FA articles I see do the same. JOEBRO64 01:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- the way that reflects how most other video game articles do it. Yet I would tend to disagree, as most game articles that I watch or have seen generally just include the exact date/month of release rather than the year in the opening sentence. And not to sound elitist, but shouldn't we confirm more to MOS:VG/WT:VG consensus rather than a single GA reviewer's opinion, one who is admittedly unfamiliar with VG specific guidelines? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64 and Dissident93: I was about to pass this, but I noticed that there is a dispute ongoing regarding this point. I searched the archives of WT:VG, and I presume you guys are referring to this discussion. I can't confess to being overly familiar with the intricacies of video game article style, but what I do know is that many good/featured quality video game articles do conform to this practice of including the year of release in the first sentence even when a fuller release date is described in a later paragraph. I read the discussion, and I'm not sure there is a consensus either way beyond a "case-by-case" approach. I can understand the views on both sides of the aisle: on the one hand, it feels a little redundant to include when a fuller release date is repeated later on in the lead, but on the other hand, time is an important piece of contextual information that we should solidify with the reader as soon as possible. I would accept a compromise solution of removing the year while simultaneously shifting the sentence that reads, "Sonic Mania was released [on various platforms ...] in August 2017.", closer to the start of the lead. Ultimately, however, I feel that the way it is presented right now is the most most natural way of doing it and the way that reflects how most other video game articles do it. Mz7 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've used your first suggestion. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Gameplay edit
- "As with Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (1992), players can play as Sonic and Tails simultaneously, or a second player can control Tails independently" - source does not mention Sonic 2 and focuses specifically on the ability of Tails to carry Sonic in the air in single-player mode, rather than a general explanation of Tails' role.
- "players survive hits as long as they have at least one ring, but their rings scatter and disappear after a short time." - the rings scatter only when you are hit, right? currently, this might be a little ambiguous and may imply to a completely lay reader that rings scatter and disappear regardless of whether you are hit. it may be helpful to change the last part to
"… but if hit, their rings scatter and disappear after a short time"
- "Giant rings hidden in each act … lead to pseudo-3D special stages similar to those in Sonic CD" - what is different about these special stages that make them "pseudo-3D" as opposed to just "3D"? Mz7 (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Development edit
- Ref 25, the "(Unofficial) Live Sonic Mania Developer Playthrough" by Simon "Stealth" Thomley, is a very long video (7 hours). It may be helpful to provide the location in the video when Thomley verifies the information in question. I'm also leery of linking to unofficial walkthrough videos per WP:COPYLINK, but this case is a gray area because the walkthrough is done by someone who worked for SEGA
- "The desert-themed Mirage Saloon Zone was inspired by the unfinished Sonic 2 level Dust Hill" - This might be nitpicky, but the source observes that Mirage Saloon Zone resembles Dust Hill, but I'm not sure it states specifically that the developers were directly inspired by Dust Hill (it's likely, but make sure we're not presenting speculation as fact). Perhaps change to:
The desert-themed Mirage Saloon Zone resembles the unfinished Sonic 2 level Dust Hill Zone and was inspired by the Monument Valley region of the United States
- Here's a quote from the source that verifies the information: "Hidden Palace and Dust Hill, were resurrected officially in the iOS remasters and Sonic Mania."
- "It also features an optional CRT graphical filter" - I may have missed it, but although this statement has 4 citations supporting it, only ref 28 (Polygon) mentions it. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed; that's because it had some other information in it that was later put in another part of the article. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64: Apologies for my slight inactivity on this. Something came up in real life and I have been without a stable Internet connection for a few days now. I’ll definitely finish this by the end of this week, though. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed; that's because it had some other information in it that was later put in another part of the article. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Release edit
- "... the twenty-fifth anniversary Sonic event at the San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) event in July 2016" - it sounds a little awkward to repeat the word "event" here. maybe instead of "event" change to "the San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) convention" Mz7 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Reception edit
- Not 100% sure whether Cubed3 is reliable - listed as "situational" at WP:VG/RS. I also hadn't heard of Comic Book before now, but it looks like it has sufficient editorial oversight, so for me it's not a blocker for GA. Mz7 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Polygon cited frustrations with controls and enemy placement as examples of Sonic Mania's dedication to the original games to a fault." - I think this sentence could be reworded to more clearly capture the main idea of the article. It's a little confusing to a reader who hasn't read the article how "controls and enemy placement" relates to "dedication to the original games". Maybe something like "Polygon commented that frustrations with controls and enemy placement which were present in the original Sonic games continued to be present in Sonic Mania". Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Overall edit
@TheJoebro64: Overall, I think you and the others involved with this article have crafted a good resource for anyone interested in this game. Great work! I reviewed the rest of the article, and I don't think there are any glaring issues remaining that would bar promotion to GA. Since I published my notes as I went, and you've already responded to most of them, I don't think there's any need to put this one "on hold". I raised a note about the Polygon review above; once that's resolved, I would be happy to pass this review.
One small punctuation nitpick that isn't that important: when a sentence has two predicates/verbs, the article tends to split them with a comma. My understanding is that most style guides consider this incorrect. For example, the following sentence in the lead section does not actually need a comma: "The team built the game using Whitehead's Retro Engine, and aimed for a graphical quality between that of Genesis and Sega Saturn games." Here's a blog post on the APA style website that has more information. —Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Mz7: Thank you for the review! I've reworded the Polygon sentence and added the event time in the video. I'll keep an eye out for the commas; I removed the one you pointed out. JOEBRO64 13:21, 30 March 2018 (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.