Talk:Sonic & Knuckles/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. I didn't play this one, but I did have a number of early Sonic games on my Master System. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I am mistaken, per WP:LEADLENGTH, three paragraphs seems excessive for an article this short. Two would probably be more appropriate. The first couple of lines, for starters, are very repetitive.

• I've cut down and compressed some parts of the lead, but bearing in mind I used Sonic 3 and Sonic 2's leads for reference ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• The rationale on File:Sonic and Knuckles Flying Battery.png is pretty weak- it shoul. really be strengthened.

• The caption? I've elaborated on the wording, but if you would like a new screenshot let me know? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, the non-free use rationale. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have uploaded and replaced it with a new image as I could not edit the non-free rationale of the previous photo. I hope nobody minds ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wait, why couldn't you edit the rationale of that one? I was actually the one who uploaded it, which I did because the Sonic series article's screenshots at the time created the misleading impression that Sonic himself is by far the only significant character in the series, when much to some critics' chagrin, the opposite is true. Was it that the full, editable page wasn't showing up? You have to remove everything between "wiki/" and "/File:" in the URL. Tezero (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I could see the tags on the file page but whenever I tried editing it nothing would show up. I know you uploaded it too, which is why I felt guilty replacing it with another because I didn't really know how to change the rationale on yours. If you would like to replace it again I would be happy. I prefer the Flying Battery to Mushroom Hill any day! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Presumably, the link to the installation of Japanese characters should go after the Japanese, not the transliteration?

• Sorry I don't understand, which link did you mean? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• The superscript question mark in the first line of the lead. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see, I don't know to change/remove it as the template goes {{nihongo|'''''Sonic & Knuckles'''''|ソニック&ナックルズ|Sonikku to Nakkuruzu|lead=yes}} - I tried moving both instances around but the question mark was still there? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) It can't be moved. It will be always after the romaji if it has one. See the "eigo" example on WP:HIJCS#Note about displaying Japanese on Wikipedia. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• " A direct sequel to Sonic the Hedgehog 3, which the game follows both Sonic the Hedgehog and Knuckles the Echidna in their quest to stop Dr. Robotnik's orbital weapon, the Death Egg, from destroying Angel Island." This doesn't make sense

• My mistake, I removed the "which" from the sentence which seemed to confuse everybody. Though the plot is a little more complex, I think this single sentence summarises the basics of the story/gameplay though I can expand if you like? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "During the development of Sonic 3, both games were originally planned to be a single story within the same cartridge, however, time constraints and costs of a large non-volatile RAM cartridge would have been considerably expensive, Sega made the decision was made to split the game into two separate installments." Unclear, and, again, doesn't seem to make grammatical sense

• Reworded ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "claiming that despite the similarities with that and its predecessor, it was still a great game" Unclear, informal

• I think I forgot to put quotes there. Reworded slightly ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps consider starting the plot section by explaining that there are two sides to the story? There's no harm in making things explicit.

• Done ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Sonic continues to track down Robotnik as he travels through each zone looking for the Chaos Emeralds, once again coming into conflict with Knuckles the Echidna, who believes he is trying to steal them." This is unclear- why is Sonic looking for the Emeralds? If he's not stealing them, what is he doing? Or is it Robotnik who is collecting Emeralds and in conflict with Knuckles?

• Sonic is trying to retrieve the emeralds (as he did in previous games) to stop Robotink from harvesting their power, but Knuckles (a native) thinks he is unlawfully stealing them. I understand it sets a confusing impression, so I reworded to hopefully make things clearer. Although Tezero is more well-versed in Sonic lore than I am, I hope I've done it well enough! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just so we're clear, could you specify where Egg Robo got the Master Emerald from? Did he steal it after Sonic had returned it to the island?

• I think that occurred during Sonic 3, but I'll be corrected if it's wrong. Reworded ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Who's Eggman? You mention him in the gameplay section, but not the plot section.

• They're both the same, Eggman was Robotink's new name after the late '90s. Changed, I don't know how this one slipped through! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• The plot section gives the impression that you have a series of Sonic levels followed by a series of Knuckles levels, but the gameplay section implies that you can choose which you're using at any stage. This is confusing.

• You can choose either side at the beginning of the game, but there is no indication of which occurred first in-game so it's assumed that they are not chronological. The plot section is just written out so it puts Sonic and Knuckles in different paragraphs ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't clear from the article- in fact, it explicitly says "Knuckles' side of the story follows after Sonic's", which seems to go against what you just said. This should be clarified. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've boldly re-worded this sentence as I don't think it's true, as in the game there is no indication of which happened before or after; but I'll have to play it again just to be sure (GANs are sure great, they give me an excuse to play video games for 'research') ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is the bonus stage diagram really that important? It feels a bit gameguide-y.

• A diagram is used in Sonic 3, and a similar one in Shadow the Hedgehog but I understand how it would feel like a gameguide. Should I remove it? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd lean towards removing it. It's not particularly clear, it's gameguide-y and it would probably make the article look a bit tidier. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Special stages are entered by finding giant rings hidden in secret passageways and works similarly to its counterpart in Sonic 3" Unclear. Also, does the instruction manual really say that it works similarily to the Sonic 3 counterpart, or is that OR?

• It's true that the special stages are virtually identical to its predecessor, mechanic-wise, but I've had a look through the North American manual (I don't have the original physical game) but that itself doesn't mention anything about Sonic 3. Since the manual itself didn't mention it, I've boldly removed the "and works similarly to its counterpart in Sonic 3" part. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's a second mention of Sonic 3 in that paragraph which should probably also be removed. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Removed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Early development screenshots suggest Knuckles was planned to be playable in the first Sonic the Hedgehog via Sonic & Knuckles '​ lock-on technology, but this feature was removed prior to release." Does the cited source say this explicitly?

• I assume it does since the source is only citationed there, but since I don't have a copy of it I've added another source along side it just to be safe ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "A special on the game showing the tournament finale, "MTV's Rock the Rock", was aired shortly before the game's release" Unclear

• Reworded ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The game was released on October 18, 1994." Where? Worldwide?

• Clarified ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Most compilations feature the game largely unchanged." This sounds like OR

• Re-worded and referenced ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I feel the reception section could be expanded further- at the very least, you have some more reviews in the ratings box? (Also, check your italics.)

• I don't think names from the review box can be italicised, but you're right, it does need an expansion. I was going to expand it yesterday if I didn't get caught up with things outside Wikipedia. I'll start expanding it now ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just a little thing, but avoid personification. IGN didn't praise the game, Lucas Thomas, writing for IGN, did.

• Addressed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the infobox, is there any way to separate the platforms on which it was originally released and on which it was rereleased? (Also, you're missing Steam).

• I don't think so, and I think Steam are usually discouraged from infoboxes, but I'm actually not sure on that, so I'll check and if it's used I'll add it ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a bad article at all- with a bit of tweaking (especially smoothing out of prose) this will likely be ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Some other points- please check my edits and make sure I haven't introduced any issues. The development section is rather light, but we can let this slide for GAC. I note that you include a number of people involved in the production in the infobox, but they're not mentioned in the prose- where's the source? Why are they not mentioned in the article? You've also got loads of release dates in the infobox- where are the sources for these? J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: thanks for your helpful review! I think I have addressed all your points, with Tezero addressing Axem's notes. I have referenced the infobox people from the online manual, as the staff credits are mentioned there. Expanding the reception section proved tricky with only a couple of print sources we could find, but I managed to squeeze an extra paragraph and a half out of it. If you feel like it needs more of an expansion, I could go onto search for more online sources if possible, but it's puzzling why the mainstream critics did not provide online reviews for this game. I know you said the development is fine for this GAN, but I think the reason why it is looking bare is because this game was developed as Sonic 3, so both sections would be more or less identical. I've also added references for the release dates. I don't know if it's necessary or essential to include whoever worked on the game into the prose, but I'd add it into the development section if we ever plan on FACing this. Please let me know what you think of it so far? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok- I've seen this comment, and another look through this article is on my to-do list. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I think me and Tezero have everything addressed here and I've took another look through. Please let us know what you think? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes from Sergecross

• "Eggman" is the Japanese name for Robotnik. It should probably just be Robotnik the whole way through for consistency.
• Isn't the Reception section a bit weak/short for such a major release? Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes from Axem Titanium

Not part of the official GA review, just some thoughts I had while copyediting.

• Too many composers listed in infobox, especially considering that there's no "music" section. Pick the top 1 or 2 contributors, cull the rest.

• I'm almost positive the rest will be added back by an IP or rarely active user if I take them out altogether, so as a stopgap I've put them all but Senoue in a collapsible list. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive" really the accepted convention for that? Gross.
• "During the development of Sonic 3, both games" - which games? Are you referring to Sonic 2 or S&K?

• The latter; clarified. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "installment" - personal pet peeve, reminds me of monthly payments for QVC products; I've taken all of these out
• "This version of these stages feature yellow spheres" - as opposed to what other versions?

• The ones in Sonic 3. Fixed. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's a PlayStation 3 listing for release dates in the infobox but I don't know what release it's supposed to refer to. The only PS3 release I can find mention of is Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection which was also released on 360.

• Fixed. The idea must've been to mention the PS3 as the only platform then since the game got another 360 release, as a kind of "most definitive" release for each platform. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I thought EGM used numbers not stars for their ratings?

• I think it was stars earlier on. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps! Axem Titanium (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The usual convention is to mention Sega Genesis/Mega Drive the first time, with a Wiki-link, to avoid any confusion, and then just use "Sega Genesis" after that, to keep it consistent with its article name,and not use that wordy name hybrid all over the place. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to say the usual rationale is to mention Sega Genesis/Mega Drive as it is featured the majority of articles. This is also a 'worldwide' game, so the use of both is more acceptable. On 'installments', I prefer to mention them if it's a part of a game franchise. But I'll address your other points after I've expanded the reception, thanks for your input! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you've added more reviews to the review box. Since they cover multiple platforms, I think you need to label all of them now to prevent confusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Regarding the bizarre Mushroom Hill caption, that probably came from me copying and pasting the thumbnail format (why'd I need to do that again?) from the article on Sonic 3, whose second zone is used there. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

JM's second review

• "hailed it as "an exceptional game" despite its similarity to its predecessor" Quotes, even in the lead, need citations.

• Added ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• You still don't mention the Steam release in the lead or infobox

• Added to the lead, but Steam releases are discouraged from the infoboxes of articles, I'm not sure why ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "where Dr. Robotnik's orbital weapon, the Death Egg, is damaged in a battle with Sonic and crash-lands back onto Angel Island" Does this happen in 3 or this game? Ambiguous.

• I think it's already there - "after the events of Sonic the Hedgehog 3, where Dr. Robotnik's orbital weapon, the Death Egg, is damaged". The events happened at the end of Sonic 3, should I reword it anyway? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's unclear to me whether the location referred to in the "where" is the "Sonic 3" referred to in the previous clause or the "after Sonic 3" referred to in the previous clause. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "and once again" Unclear- when has he before?

• Through Sonic 3 ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "who believes Sonic is trying to steal the Emeralds." Still unclear- if he's not trying to steal them, what is he trying to do?

• He is trying to collect them, but the confusion is more over his intention. Fixed. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Knuckles attempts to Robotnik" ??

• Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• What is a "mech"?

• Don't actually know! I think it's another word for robot? Mech = mechanical? I didn't get this either, so I've changed it to "mechanical fighter". If memory serves me well he was sitting inside a giant robot of himself, so I think that's what it is referring to. If I'm ever wrong I hope somebody will reword it ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Mecha should work. Schwa sounds are just too much work for laypeople to include, huh? Tezero (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Concerning EggRobo- is it an EggRobo or is it just EggRobo? Also, could we have an explanation of what precisely it is?

• Done. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "he uses the power of the Master" MechaSonic or Knuckles?

• Knuckles. Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• The rationale on the new screenshot is still pretty poor. It could do with being cleaned/expanded.

• I admit I'm no good with images nor am I well versed in different copyright laws, but I state on the file that it will be used in one article alone (as with numerous other gameplay still images). Is this what you are referring to? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• The non-free content criteria require that each use of each non-free image requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale. This rationale explains why the image meets the NFCC, including expanding on its source, what it adds to the article in question and why it cannot be replaced by free content (including text). The templates are useful to help us format rationales, but leaving "NA" and vague comments is not useful. If you are struggling to write a rationale, you have to ask if the image is really adding anything at all. (This was intended as a general comment- right now, I have no opinion on the use of the image, other than the fact that its rationale is pretty lacking.) J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• How about this? I've also shrunk the image after cropping out those pesky black bars. Tezero (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, I get it now. All of the rationales I upload are pretty weak, and I've uploaded a lot of game screenshots, but truth be told I wasn't aware that people would actually look at the file pages ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• "However, the player chooses either Sonic or Knuckles at the title screen." This needs more- how about "However, in Sonic & Knuckles, unlike in Sonic the Hedgehog 3, the player chooses either Sonic or Knuckles at the title screen."

• Changed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Unlike their equivalents in Sonic 3," As I said above, if this is not explicitly in the cited source, it's OR.

• Since it's not included in the manual, I removed the sentence ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Along with its predecessor, both games were originally planned to be a single story built within the same cartridge" This needs to be rewritten

• Done. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "A special episode was produced on the game showing the tournament finale, "MTV's Rock the Rock", was aired shortly before the game's release." This doesn't make sense. Also, a special episode of what?

• Reworded. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Most compilations feature the game largely unchanged from its original release.[3]" I hate to be a pain, but where does the source say this?

• Hm, you're right. I must've clung to the sentence "The vast majority of retro re-releases through the Wii's Virtual Console are straight emulations, given no extra effort or features", but that's about Virtual Console releases, not all releases of this game. I've just removed the statement. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• ""Normal" mode altered the layout of rings and hazards and "Easy" mode removes" Tense shift

• Fixed. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still seeing a lot of personification in the reception section- it's lazy writing

• Fixed. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "adding that Sonic & Knuckles '​ new hidden stages and re-designed bosses would strongly add to its replay value." What's being referred to here?

• What do you mean? Tezero (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• These are "new" hidden stages and the bosses are "redesigned" compared to what? I'm just not really sure what's being claimed. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, gotcha. Clarified. Tezero (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. Edit conflict. I was rewording it too but looks like you beat me to it ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article's still not really at a GA level. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably was nominated a little hastily, yeah. But I think we can get this done in short order. Tezero (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest the article was nominated too early- just that some more fixes need to be made before production! J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that was my fault. I shouldn't have nominated this with a half-finished reception section... but nevertheless, this review has helped the article through leaps and bounds, thanks all ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

J Milburn, are we ready to go? Tezero (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Promotion

Ok, at this stage, I'm willing to promote this article to GA status. Here are some comments to think about moving forward, especially if you've got your eye on FAC:

• Expansion: Both the "Development" and "Reception" sections are a little light.
• Sources: The sources you cite look OK, but I wonder whether there might be more out there- especially in languages other than English.
• Stability: This article seems to attract a lot of edits- be sure that the current version reflects consensus, but that it doesn't deteriorate.
• Images: Be aware that some may challenge the use of the screenshot- there's no "automatic" green light on screenshots of video games.

Other than that, copyediting will never heard. Good work so far, though- the article's looking pretty good. Apologies for the delays! J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article have a short section dealing with the zones? Hawaiifive0 (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds a little like WP:FANCRUFT- information which is of interest to fans, but doesn't really have much real-world significance. Do you have reliable, third party sources which discuss the zones? J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do. I will add them shortly. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Try not to get too detailed, though. Unless there are multiple sources saying different things about all the zones or something, it leans UNDUE to cover them in much depth. Tezero (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)