Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 14:30, 31 July 2017 [1].

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) edit

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last FAC for this article was stalled, so it unfortunately had to be archived. However, out of the two comments posted, it did have one "support" and other comments which were addressed. I would like to thank those users, Aoba47 and Czar, for their comments. Now, two weeks later, I believe this article is ready for another FAC. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tom Morris edit

  • Numerous sources don't include a publication date, including #1, #10, #20, #71, #72, #73, #74, #77, #80 and #81.
  • In the Plot section, it might be sensible to include a reminder of what Soleanna is. The fact that it is the name of the world is mentioned in the lead but it's probably sensible to repeat it here. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tom Morris: Fixed; clarified Soleanna and added dates for the refs you pointed out. I'll start looking for more sources that need the publication dates. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs edit

At present, I would oppose promotion. There are a bunch of issues throughout the article:

  • Prose (1a) is sub-par; there's awkward or necessarily convoluted wording, run-on sentences, repetitious phrasing, weasel words, and the like. I got reverted starting to make these changes, so I suggest the copyeditor find someone else who is willing to work on this.
  • References should include publisher info, not just work. Some references are missing archive urls.
  • What makes WWG, DidYouKnowGaming, and DSOG high-quality reliable sources?
    • Why is there a citation to the game at the end of the plot, but nowhere else in that section?
    • Spotchecks revealed there are accuracy issues with regards to citations throughout the article. Ex. Shadow's sections are similarly speedy albeit more combat oriented, though some segments see him riding vehicles, such as a motorcycle. is cited to [2] but no mention of a motorcycle is made. Likewise, the following bit of the paragraph specifically ties secondary characters to each of the hedgehogs, when that assignment is not made in any of the cited links. {[xt|as well as give the series a more realistic setting. For this reason, human characters are given a photorealistic design, while Sonic, Doctor Eggman, and the series' robot antagonists were redesigned to better suit the game's environment.}} is cited to [3], where no specific mention is made of human characters and the robots. There's also WP:SYNTH issues regarding cut features (saying features were cut without having a source for them.) The entire article needs to be run through and these issues need to be addressed.
  • File:EggmanRedesign06.png has a very weak fair use rationale, as the character's design covers only a few sentences and there's no major critical commentary about it in the reception section. Either more needs to be added to justify it, or it should be cut.

--11:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Fixed most of your concerns. However, all the cut features were sourced, and the sources you're questioning weren't challenged during the GA review or the last FAC. DidYouKnowGaming was actually suggested during the last FAC, and WWG is a companion to ComicBook.com, which is considered reliable. Some of the URLs don't have archived versions, though. I'll start adding publishers to the refs. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm questioning the sources now. That they weren't before doesn't mean they are immune from being critiqued. The onus is on the nominator to defend how the article meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed the DSOG source. DidYouKnowGaming has actually been cited by multiple third-party, reliable sources such as HuffPost and Nintendo Life, and they also have their own article. The sources lacking archives have also been remedied. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I'm going to be stuck on mobile for around a week, so I'm not going to be able to add the publishers. Can I follow up on this by then? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've added publishers to the references. I'm still on mobile so I might have missed a few, can you go over the article to see if I did? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: David Fuchs has raised quite a few points here, all valid and based on the FA criteria. I'm afraid that "Fixed most of your concerns" doesn't quite work as he gave examples, not an exhaustive list. It really needs someone else to go through this closely to check the issues and possible fix them. I can't realistically see this being accomplished in the time frame of a FAC, and my inclination at the moment is to archive this. I'm prepared to give it a few more days to see if any (rapid) progress can be made, but if not, then we will have to close this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I think you can go ahead and close this. I now realize the article wasn't prepared for FAC. I had really worked hard on the page and was really anxious to see it promoted, but I think it'll need a few more weeks before it would fit the FA criteria. Thanks to everyone for their comments; I'll work hard to apply them to the article. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alucard 16 edit

In regards to the sources WWG is a reliable source as it is part of Comicbooks.com which is used on various articles including other GA articles and even some BLPs. For DidYouKnowGaming? which has useful information about the subject I would recommend the following:

  • When possible replace references to the video with articles that reference it from HuffPost and Nintendo Life.
  • Open this particular source up for discussion with the wider WP:VG so experienced editors more familiar with policies and guidelines can discuss its potential use in areas where there is no other alternative reliable source. This would prevent any issues later on down the road and help the article retain FA status when someone not familiar with YouTube sources either tries to remove it or contest its FA status due to this source.

I can't make no guarantee but I will try this week to help with the FA process and ensure some issues are fixed as there are still some sources that lack an archive link. @TheJoebro64: I think the article is very good and you have done great work in helping improve it. I would recommend using ProveIt as a handy tool to use for references. This tool has helped me a lot with sourcing articles and it also can let you easily flip through all the references to see which lacks an archive link and other important fields like publisher. It can also auto populate the fields for new sources as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:23, 31 July 2017 (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_the_Hedgehog_(2006_video_game)/archive2&oldid=1086102981"