Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wisp (Sonic)/archive1

< 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 not promoted by Ian Rose 01:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Wisp (Sonic) edit

Wisp (Sonic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most obscure subjects for an FAC you're likely to have seen lately: Wisps are aliens that function as power-ups in three Sonic the Hedgehog games – and, in the second, just as a throwback to the first. However, critics have given copious opinions on these critters, and they're only going to get more relevant with time (if Takashi Iizuka can be trusted), so I began building the article from nothing late this March. I've been creating and working solidly on Sonic character articles lately – it's nice that we actually have articles now on some characters whose introductions I'm old enough to remember.

The article passed its GAN while it was on the front page with a DYK, and I've realized that if it passes FAC, I'll be in the running for a Four Award. (Awards aren't a big deal to me, but this one'd be nice to have.) I've addressed comments made at PR and done a few more edits for readability, and I now feel that this fits the FA criteria. Moreover, Pokémon Channel has been promoted so I'm now eligible to nominate. With that out of the way, I'm gonna reach for the star tonight! Tezero (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I've not properly reviewed the article, but the table is walkthrough level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE level material. It is a table of in-game power ups, what they do, and in which games they can be found. I can't see how knowing the Violet Void power up which "scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels" and is exclusive to the DS game is of any value whatsoever. I'm not sure that Sonic collapses into a singularity, but I've never played the game. - hahnchen 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be actionable. What should I do instead? Collapse? Reduce how much is stated for each Wisp type? Or merge it into the text entirely? (If so, how, given that numerous Wisps are referenced by name elsewhere?) Tezero (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be an intermediate solution but realistically per GAMEGUIDE Hannchen is right. For the purposes of the non-video game playing reader, there are three things to take away: 1) Wisps provide various powerups to Sonic, such as X, Y, or Z (you can give examples), 2) They have unique designs and color-coded to help identify what does what, and 3) they - in subsets or in whole - have appears in this list of Sonic games. That all can be said in about a single paragraph. But as said, this is the worst case scenario. There may be a middle ground for this. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the chart as well. I think it would be better to convert to prose, and/or scale back the chart some. (For example, less emphasis on wisps that aren't available in the games - less of all of those red x's. Sergecross73 msg me 10:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposing based on notability concerns which have been brought up by other editors below. While the table was the most egregious example of crufty fan-service, it wasn't the only one. Wisps have only appeared in Sonic Colors and Sonic Lost World, articles where they're already covered. The wisps are not the subject of any reliable source, and the article is made up of passing mentions from sources discussing parent subjects. The Kotaku review doesn't even mention the wisps by name, merely calling them power-ups. Given that each game uses the power-ups differently, I'm not sure there's any real coherence to the reception. So the reception to Colors-wisps may be completely different to LostWorld-wisps, which suggests they are better covered in the respective game articles. And the reception itself is just a collection of trivia, Tim Turi's favourite wisp? Steve Thomason's favourite wisp? What about his favourite car from Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed? Or favourite gun in Counter-Strike? - hahnchen 13:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Destructoid article ("eagle powers") is all about them, as is probably at least a full page in the Nintendo Power review. I recall there was at least one other as well that I removed because it only bolstered information in the table, but I can bring that back. Being used differently in the games is a stretch; it's really just that they're more essential in Colors. (There's plenty of overlap between the Wisps anyway.) Moreover, there are comments unrelated to the Wisps' gameplay (e.g. cuteness), and they're going to be in more Sonic games... Tezero (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going back over it, the article I was thinking of, by Famitsu, is still there. Also, the IGN preview has about 4 paragraphs just on the Wisps (about half its length), this has 4-5 paragraphs (about 2/3), and this is mostly about the Wisps and even references them in the title (though it's unusually stingy with opinions about them). And this one is a full-length article about the Wisps. I didn't even add it because it was redundant to Famitsu; that's how well-documented these critters are. And that's not even counting the sources I just added talking about the Wisps' visual appearance (which is not necessarily tied to specific games and thus couldn't as easily be merged) and gameplay, or the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph... The fact is, there are now three solid paragraphs of real reception, with additional sources to spare; countless game character articles exist and pass GAN (some even FAC) with less than this, and they should. To FAC coordinators, I hope you'll consider this case for the Wisps' notability and note that hahnchen's other concerns have been addressed. Tezero (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: This candidate has two remaining oppose votes, but neither of their posters seems interested in coming back, one I think has long been fully fixed through other comments, and one that isn't related to quality I also feel I've addressed. It also has five supports, but three came about in a very short time and without any comments to back them. In other words, this article's in a weird position and I'm wondering what you'd recommend I do now. Tezero (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of this article is cited to the games themselves (such as Sonic Colors). Games are primary sources and to interpret them directly without a reliable secondary source is original research.—indopug (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are used all the time, including in plenty of FAs. The "cite video game" template allows for simply citing levels, as it's sometimes used here, and I know the article Sonic Adventure does that (yes, it was demoted from GA, but not for that reason). Regardless, if consensus determines that the table has got to go, period, then this citation style will no longer exist in the article. Tezero (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The table is less worrying for me than the Design section, where the Wisps' personalities and other attributes are gleaned from dialogue from the game. It's like writing the character section of the Juliet article based on your interpretations of the original Romeo and Juliet text!—indopug (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The personalities are taken from the manual, which directly states them. I agree that original synthesis of primary-sourced information is OR and not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that's not what this is. Tezero (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The manual is also a primary source. To make myself clear, I wouldn't mind if you quoted just a dialogue or two directly from the game. The issue here is that over two-thirds of the article is based on primary sources such as the games, their manuals, comic books and fans "who don't consider themselves video game journalists". Below you cited Cortana as a precedent for doing so, but that article passed FAC nearly seven years ago. Enforcement of our sourcing and synthesis rules has become significantly stricter since then.—indopug (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The over-two-thirds bit is misleading; only the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances are cited to primary sources. It's that over two-thirds of the sources used are primary, which is because you can generally get more out of an article by IGN or GameSpot than out of one quote from the game. As for SegaNerds, that's an interview; sources for interviews have significantly lower standards for reliability as they consist of the actual words of a related individual rather than paraphrasing. (Can someone in WP:VG back me up on this? I'm sure we have a policy written on it somewhere; I know I heard it in the GAN for Don't Starve.) As for Cortana being old, Arbiter (2009), Flood (2008), and MissingNo. (2009)—the most recent game character articles promoted to FA status—all use game quotes. And there are numerous FAs for comics characters that cite entire issues (e.g. Batman, Anarky). The thing with primary sources is that, while they're not ideal, they're useful for filling in information that's essential to an understanding of a character but that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning. (And this isn't necessarily because they think it's insignificant; they may think it's too obvious or it may just not relate to their points.) Tezero (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(←) "they're useful for filling in information ... that a secondary source isn't likely to think is worth mentioning"—I'm not sure I agree with such a liberal interpretation of WP:NOR et al, but even so, surely "filling-in information" doesn't mean you can base "the first paragraph of Creation and characteristics and part of the second, one sentence in Types, and most of Appearances", i.e. quite a chunk of the article, on your interpretation of primary sources?
And yes, it is interpretation. For eg: "antagonist Doctor Eggman builds an amusement park spanning the planets the Wisps live on,[27] under the pretense of making up for past transgressions"—the bolded bit is a highly subjective claim, one that should be backed up by an independent reliable source. Even so, not even any of the quoted dialogues back this "making up for past transgressions" claim either.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found a quote that pretty much directly states it: "This amusement park has been constructed entirely out of a sense of remorse for my past." Please detail any further information you think is original research. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a suggestion, but I feel the "Reception" section might be more informative if it was cleanly divided by game. Colors and to a slightly lesser extent the 3DS version of Lost World were clearly designed around the Wisps, while the Wii U version of Lost World incorporates the Wisps as almost completely optional and sparsely used minigames, as Iizuka has directly stated. These design choices have influenced their mixed reception; for example, Chris Plante of Polygon opined that the Wisps "worked great" in Colors but "generally meant frustration or death" in Lost World Wii U. In general, the Wisps were well-received in Colors and poorly received in Lost World, although of course both games garnered varying degrees of praise and criticism. Finally, the Kotaku review only "praised" the 3DS version of Lost World, and it doesn't offer any positive or negative commentary on the Wisps in particular.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see how that looks when I'm done merging Wisp information into the text. I realize that this FAC is probably going to fail even if every complaint here is addressed, just because of the atmosphere around, but I'd like to get everyone's concerns taken care of anyway. Tezero (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: To all concerned about the chart: It has been massively eaten away and now only consists of a list of all of the Wisps by name; I've converted information about a few of the types to prose, ditched the rest, and moved a bit in from Appearances for consistency. How do you feel now? (There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that.) @Hahnchen: @Sergecross73: @Masem: @TheTimesAreAChanging: Tezero (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair middle ground.You might want to add a {{-}} (an HTML clear) before the section with the picture; this might add white space but it will clear the table from the picture. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Singora RE: "There's also a strange quirk with the text leaning into the table's personal bubble, but I don't know how to fix that." I've fixed the CSS for you. The table needed a left margin to create space between it and the text. I've used 25px, but you could reduce this to 20px if you want. Singora (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I figured it was the margins, but I couldn't look up any documentation as it's not a template. Tezero (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From CalvinK - Just some points to consider based on above comments.

  • The appearances section doesn't need references, if it is obvious from the game. It might be worthwhile seeing how Grand Theft Auto V has had its plot section written, as I feel this would apply to the "Appearances" section. It may also give you a bit of an insight as to how to write it as I'm a little unsure whether the correct tense is used through that section. Only use references where you have used sources outside of the game to analyse the meaning of text in the game. Calvin (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more in line with the recommendations for articles on actual games, although those too are allowed to cite quotes if they adhere fairly closely to exactly what the quotes say without original analysis. If you look at FAs for game characters (admittedly there are only a few) like Cortana, you'll notice a number of quote citations for plot information. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'd not come across that before. Calvin (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look into the tense issue. Tezero (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually don't see any inconsistencies in the tenses. How it's laid out now is that the present tense is used for what occurs during the game; the past tense is used for events that took place before the story, as well as real-life information concerning releases of various media. That said, perhaps I'm overlooking something. Tezero (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still disgree that we need to cite every single sentence in the first paragraph of the Creation section.
Types section - "while Violet Void, which scales up Sonic's density to black hole-like levels and causes him to absorb enemies, obstacles, and rings" - that could be described without needing to use the manual's description.
I don't get it; it doesn't use the manual's description. There's a secondary source attached. Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore me! It just sounded like something that would be described as such in a manual! Calvin (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances section - I would treat this as I would a plot section in a video game article. If it is not going to be contentious information, then I do not see the need to cite the source. WP:V clearly states "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A lot of information is unlikely to be challenged and to my knowledge has not been challenged yet. Should there be any challenges, you already have a source (albeit a primary source).
This isn't the case in the video game character FAs I've mentioned here, nor is it much of a standard in game character GAs. I prefer to cite plots so that readers can look at where we get the information and view the events in the context of the game, rather than just take our word as law. However, this has been brought up at my FACs and GANs before (although never to an extent such that the citations ended up gone), and I'd like to actually form more of a project consensus on this. I'm taking this to WT:VG now. (No attack on you, of course; I genuinely want to know what the community thinks.) Tezero (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate what you're saying, I have little involvement with WP:VG to be fair. I'm only going by my interpretation of WP:V which states it very clearly. It might be worthwhile seeing what the Wiki Project's opinion is of it - it may end up being something that might need to be discussed further as the policy is pretty clear as to what should be cited. If a plot is fairly linear (like in this case about where the Wisps come from, or the citation for Mother Wisp's name) then there is unlikely to be any challenges to it. If there are, then the user can be directed to the source and if necessary a citation then added. I doubt that would be the case though. We do need to reach some consensus on this though, but I do believe it would be common sense to not require all those citations. Calvin (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e: An addedndum, really. I've looked at other FA to see how they have done their citations. A close article (in terms of them being minor characters with a featured article is Nikki and Paulo. Just something to bear in mind as Cortana is arguably a major character in the Halo series - especially now Microsoft plan to name their assistant Cortana too. While the Nikki and Paulo article was promoted in 2007, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't remain a featured article. If the rules regarding WP:V are being more heavily scrutinised, I'd quite like to read the discussion where this took place. Calvin (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, @Indopug:/@Hahnchen: have I improved on your oppose-level concerns? Can I go on to striking some of the quote citations per WP:WISP and then getting on to TheTimesAreAChanging's suggestions? Tezero (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've been holding off on this review because I'm not sure whether this article topic meets the notability criteria, and I wanted to see what others thought. (Sorry for bringing this up so late—I didn't know it would go from DYK to FAC so fast...) Shaving off the first-party sources leaves Sonic game reviews mentions, but no dedicated coverage, no articles solely about the topic. The article would be mostly unsourced, and the existing sourcing would be thin and cursory. (It would leave us in a situation like Bulbasaur, who is similarly mentioned a bunch of times but has no dedicated coverage.) I'm not as familiar with how notability conversations go for fictional characters, and you know I'm a fan of your work, Tezero, but I'm curious where the line is drawn on what Sonic characters have WP notability for their own articles before they cross into WT:VG/Archive_103#Espio the Chameleon and Blaze the Cat territory. czar ♔ 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mentioned that before, but IIRC you backed off after I brought up that not a lot of fictional character articles do contain sources that are solely about the topic. (Well, the interview is basically all about Wisps, and the Nintendo Power article's gotta have a good page just on them, but otherwise no.) I mean, really, which Sonic characters would, other than Sonic himself? Perhaps it's the criterion Wikipedia should require, but "other stuff exists" would be a massive understatement at present. Rather, I think this topic's notability is established through frequent significant mentions (though not at the level of the subject of an article) in numerous secondary sources. (I don't mean to sound gruff or to belittle your thoughts; I just wasn't expecting a response of this kind.) Tezero (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this article's notability is dodgy. WP:GNG is clear, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Further it states that " 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", which contradicts Tezero's above defence of using primary sources to "fill in information" not covered by reliable sources.
  • As stated above, I found a quote that verifies it. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the FA-worthiness of an article depends solely on its meeting the WP:FA? criteria, which in turn points to everything under WP:CONPOL. So older, poor-quality FAs that may have passed FAC because of lax reviewing, or have degraded in quality since passing FAC, cannot be used as precedent. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be more direct about what you want me to do. Tezero (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sigh... Is there anything I can do to get anyone to support this? Tezero (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Prototime: According to WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." I believe many of this article's use of primary sources support text falling into the "descriptive" category as opposed to the "interpretative" category; many of them are used to support material that is roughly analogous a novel plot summary. But there are some instances where primary sources may start to be interpreted. My concerns include:
    • In Creation and characteristics, first paragraph, second sentence: The descriptor "giant" is subjective; it's best left to the reader to decide whether Mother Wisp is big enough to be considered "giant". I suggest replacing it with "larger", because descriptively, the Mother Wisp is unquestionably larger than the other wisps.
    • In Creation and characteristics, first paragraph, last sentence: I don't recall how phonetic or non-phonetic Tails' translation is, but unless it's blatantly obvious that it's entirely non-phonetic, I'd drop the word "non-phonetic."
    • Also, saying that "most" characters in the game refer to Wisps as aliens is a bit interpretive, because it's a decision to discount Wisps themselves as characters. If Wisps are included as characters, they clearly outnumber all others. Whether each individual Wisp should count as a character isn't something Wikipedia should decide, so to make the sentence descriptive, I suggest dropping the word "most". As an aside, it's not entirely clear in that sentence who "other" is being compared to (Tails?), and "the game" isn't defined so it's ambiguous what game is being referred to (though I presume it's Sonic Colors, given the reference.)
      • "Other" is being compared to the Wisps, not Tails; they don't call themselves aliens. I don't really like using "other" alone, but in this case I suppose it works alright, so I've just stricken "most". Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Types, last sentence: Saying that Wisps "have general personalities that match their powers" is an original interpretation of the Sonic Colors Manual. The manual somewhat implies that such a match exists, but it doesn't state so directly, and if a primary source is to be used, the sentence should be reworded to drop the personality-to-power connection.
      • A quick skim of the sources and relevant Google search turns up nothing secondary about the Wisps' personalities. How would you recommend I rephrase this to escape the dangerous generalization? Tezero (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Generally following the manual's structure should work; the manual describes the personality traits of individual wisps and then their powers together, and I think you could do the same without saying explicitly that the Wisps "have general personalities that match their powers." So maybe something like this (doesn't need to be exact): "The various types of Wisps have different personalities and powers. For example, Cyan Laser Wisps are energetic and scatterbrained, and they allow Sonic to bounce off surfaces." This better describes what the manual says without interpreting it, and it allows readers to decide whether they think the Wisps' personalities and powers match. The only concern this approach may pose is close paraphrasing, because the adjectives describing the Wisps' powers/personalities and the structure of the sentences would be quite similar to the Sonic Color manual's phrasing and structure. To remedy that concern (per WP:INTEXT), I'd tack on the words "According to the Sonic Colors Manual..." near the beginning of the first sentence that begins to describes the Wisps' powers and personalities. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • One other point: I noticed that the Sonic Colors Manual describes the Wisps' names as "Cyan Wisp" and "Orange Wisp", not as "Cyan Laser Wisp" or "Orange Rocket Wisp". I wouldn't change their names from what is cited in the Manual; instead, I'd recommend that when describing these Wisps' powers, it be mentioned that they transform Sonic into a laser or rocket. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a weird situation: the Wisps are typically referred to by just their colors (though not always, per the Red Burst quote), while their abilities are often written out longhand. I've combed through the entire article and made changes accordingly. Tezero (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this all together, the text would look something this (doesn't need to be exact): "The various types of Wisps have different personalities and powers. For example, according to the Sonic Colors Manual, Cyan Wisps are energetic and scatterbrained, and they allow Sonic transform into a laser that bounces off surfaces. In contrast, Orange Wisps have fluctuating and explosive emotions, and they allow Sonic to transform into a rocket and rapidly blast into the air." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded similarly. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as an aside, here's a link to the Sonic Colors Wii Manual from the Sega website to include in the source citation: https://help.sega.com/entries/20893367-Sonic-Colors-Manual-Wii
    • In Appearances, first sentence: The text says that the amusement park "span[s] the planets the Wisps live on" and cites to a Doctor Eggman quote from Sonic Colors. But the citation does not support this part of the sentence, and in fact, I had a different interpretation of Sonic Colors entirely: that the Wisps lived only on Planet Wisp, and only through Doctor Eggman were they transported to other places. I'm not sure which interpretation is correct, but either way it's an interpretation, and it should be cited to a secondary source (or dropped).
      • This quote from Mother Wisp (through Tails) is used later on: "I was so worried when our planets were pulled apart from one another." Should I cite that earlier as well? Tezero (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm... "our planets" a bit ambiguous, but I think that Mother Wisp's comment in context is clear enough to mostly support the sentence. To make it more descriptive though, I suggest rewriting it to say "spanning the Wisps' planets". I would definitely cite to the Mother Wisp quote to support the sentence. Also, as an aside, I believe that grammatically there shouldn't be comma in the middle of the sentence. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Appearances, fourth sentence: None of the sources cited describe the mind-controlled Wisps using the term "Nega-Wisps", and I'd include one that does.
      • Actually, I didn't remember hearing them called that in the game; I added it because they're referred to that way in various places on the Internet and I figured I'd missed something. Looking over it, though, I can't find any cutscenes that refer to them that way, so I've reworded all of that. (There are no other such cases.) Tezero (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources cited in the Appearances section are pieces of character dialogue that don't describe any of what the article says occurs on screen (for example, the whole bit about the black hole is supported by Sonic saying "This might not end well.") Can you cite to a scene in the game directly, as opposed to the associated character dialogue?
      • How can I? I guess I could link to a YouTube video, but that could constitute a copyright violation. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is to reference a scene by its "name", not necessarily to link the reference to the timecode czar ♔ 19:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of name? Tezero (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does Sonic Colors have a scene selection feature? If so, I'd go with which number in the sequence the scene in question appears as (unless the scene has an actual name). If there is no such feature, I'd suggest clearly describing the scene in relation to its timing in the game--e.g., "Opening cutscene to level [level name/number]". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such feature as far as I know, and I'm not sure I trust myself to count them accurately. I'll just describe it qualitatively, since it doesn't tie into a specific level. Tezero (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I think you should add scene citations where the dialogue doesn't describe onscreen events that are being described in the article text; where the dialogue does sufficiently support the article text, dialogue citations are fine. (Though come to think of it, it'd be helpful if each dialogue citation had the associated scene mentioned in the citation too, so that readers know which scene the dialogue occurred in. I don't think that's necessary for FA, but it couldn't hurt!) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it for the scenes where the events weren't totally clear from the quotes. Tezero (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. There are a couple additional sentences that could benefit from scene citations:
  • "Suspicious, Sonic and Tails investigate and rescue two Wisps from Eggman's henchmen Orbot and Cubot." - The cited dialogue doesn't describe the rescue.
  • No dialogue in the game really does. I'm still planning to cull citations that are uncontroversial, per WP:WISP (a conglomeration of opinions from WT:VG), once I'm done with everything else, but this seems controversial to you and I don't know what to put. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yacker frees the remaining Wisps, reverts them from their corrupted form," - These two phrases aren't supported by the cited dialogue.
Right, I understand that there isn't any dialogue to support these two phrases; to be clear, I'm suggesting a citation to the scene itself without a dialogue citation.
As for culling citations... I wouldn't recommend it. You're completely correct that not everything requires a citation, but where statements in the article are supported by one or more primary sources, those statements are likely to be challenged in the future on the basis of WP:OR; indeed, many people have already challenged a good number of statements in this review on that basis. By providing a higher number of citations, you can demonstrate more convincingly that the text is descriptive of the primary source rather than interpretive and thus ward off such challenges. (Additionally, the citations are already there, and it looks better to go above and beyond the bare minimum of WP:MINREF anyway.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they ought to be used. This is not the general consensus of WP:VG, though, so I'm not sure what to think. Nevertheless, I've added locations to both of those you mentioned, as the game has no scene numbering or selecting system or, as far as I know, ways to identify them beyond their locations. Tezero (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at the discussion on WT:VG, and I must say that I'm dismayed that a couple of the editors believe there is utility in removing source citations, especially primary source citations--which aren't just likely to be challenged, they are virtually guaranteed to be challenged, and many already have been challenged. WP:PRIMARY SOURCE itself says "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot" -- not "an article about a novel need not cite passages to describe the plot, because the book's plot is so darn obvious that citations are unnecessary". You've put in a lot of hard work in this article, and I appreciate that you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place: some editors think that practically any reliance on primary sources isn't appropriate under WP:V, and others think that reliance on primary sources is so uncontroversial that citations aren't required and in fact shouldn't be included. I don't see how either of those interpretations square with WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, but one thing that is absolutely, positively crystal clear that no policy encourages, much less requires, someone to remove citations, even if the citations aren't required by WP:MINREF. I'll post something to this effect on WT:VG in a bit. Thanks for addressing the scene citation issue. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this may be just me, but I think simply saying "Area:" instead of "Area/level:" in the citation allows for greater precision. For instance, when you cite to a cutscene, it would read "Area: Cutscene [description]", and if you cite to a level itself instead of a cutscene, the citation would read "Area: Level [level #]" or "Area: [level name] level". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Area/level" is what's in the citation template. I'm not sure I agree either, although I might be able to get around it by, say, setting the quote to something like this:
(quoted text) ". Area: "Tropical Resort.
That way it'd treat the area as a quoted name. I'm not sure this much is really necessary, though; it seems like a minor stylistic issue best taken up with the template maintainers. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not a big deal. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With these comments in mind, I want to say that overall, it's clear you've put in great effort into making this article work given the available sources, and your effort is certainly appreciated! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to these tomorrow, as I'm going to bed soon. "Non-phonetic" stuck out to me among them. In the game, Yacker quips something that sounds nothing like "Wisps"; all of the Wisps' speech sounds like typical alien garble. I'm not sure if that's enough justification. Tezero (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depends on the context; was Tails attempting to translate what Yacker said into English, or was Tails attempting to pronounce the name in the Wisps' own language and butchering it? If it's the latter scenario, and the game makes that scenario crystal clear, "non-phonetic" probably should work. But if there's any doubt, I'd err on the side of caution. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... the first one, I guess. Actually, I'll just get rid of the word. Tezero (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tezero, I took a stab at copyediting the article; the prose was mostly fine already, but there were a couple instances where a comma inappropriately preceded a dependent clause, and a couple places where I trimmed a word or two. Feel free to disagree with the edits. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to disagree, huh? That wouldn't change much. Ha! No, it looks much better this way. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I just was trying to convey that my edits aren't law :p Glad you agree with them though. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The article is well-written and comprehensive without including unnecessary gamecruft. The parts of it supported by primary sources are descriptive of those sources, not interpretive, and thus their use satisfies WP:PRIMARY. Great work Tezero, and thanks for so diligently responding to the feedback in this FAC! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Please note that my support is based on the current thoroughly-cited version of the article; as I have explained more thoroughly above, if primary source citations are removed like some editors have suggested, I fear the article would violate WP:V because the parts of the article currently supported by those sources are highly likely to be challenged in the future on the basis that they interpret, rather than describe, those sources. Having the source citations allows future editors to see the descriptive nature of the article text.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although I might have organized "Reception" a bit differently, I can certainly appreciate Tezero's approach, particularly as the Wisps are likely to make future appearances (not that that won't complicate things anyway, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it). As things now stand, Tezero and Prototime have worked diligently to address all complaints, and I believe this article is about as well-sourced and comprehensive as it could possibly be.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Hahnchen: the table's been cut for a while now, and a bit trimming has been done of overly specific material while I addressed other comments. Likewise, @Indopug: per Prototime's comments (which led to his support), mainly those involving specificity with citing scenes, I believe the possible OR aspects have been addressed. Does this information change either of your minds? Tezero (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The prose looks convincing. The lede also looks fine and the writing can be a good example for others. Good work, Tezero! Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Support - Maybe it would be a waste of time for me to go on about the prose, as everything remains excellent ever since I reviewed the GAN. The article is very comprehensive as it is and every reference is in a suitable place. From a copy editor's view I can't see any problems, well done Tezero! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Far as I can tell, this article covers the subjects as best as it can, and with plenty of reliable sources and no excessive cruft or anything else like that. It's shorter than most FA's, but I don't think that's a problem given the relatively minor subject matter here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above linked merger proposal has closed in favor of merging this article into the list of Sonic characters. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving aside the outstanding opposition to promotion, if the article under review is to be merged into another then this FAC is nullified and will be archived. A new nomination (at FLC, not here) would be required if someone wants to try and get the list of characters to Featured Status. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 25 May 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/Wisp_(Sonic)/archive1&oldid=1144361912"