Talk:Sonic Colors/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not back in a few days with a review, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Review

Gameplay

• "third-person perspectives.[4][2]" - Citations need switching round.
  • Done.
• "An alternate version of Sonic Colors was developed by Dimps and published by Sega for the Nintendo DS. Unlike the Wii version, the DS version uses the same engine used in Sonic Rush (2005) and its sequel,[7] and is a side-scroller that takes advantage of the system's dual-screen.[12]" - I think the piece about its developer and engine should be moved down to the development section. Perhaps rephrase it as "Unlike the Wii version, the DS verion is a side-scroller that takes advantage of the system's dual-screen." Also, is there any source anywhere that compares the DS version to Genesis-era Sonic titles?
  • Yep. I've moved the Dimps/engine info to development.

Plot

• "sending him hurtling helplessly off into space." - I'd cut "helplessly off".
  • Done.

Development

• "One of the first ideas was the decision that the setting should be an amusement park" - A little long-winded. Maybe rephrase this as "One of the first ideas was the setting should be an amusement park".
  • Done.
• "Another goal was to encourage players to revisit already-played levels" - I think rephrase this as "completed levels".
  • Done.
• "The game also makes use of the PhysX physics engine,[21] previously used with Sonic and the Secret Rings (2007).[22]" - Cut the "also". As the sentence stands, it feels like it's been lifted from the previous paragraph or something.
  • I've removed "also" and added it to the previous paragraph.

Reception

• "jazzy, high-energy" soundtrack as fitting for all levels.[3][2][3]" - Repetition.
  • Fixed.
• "Keast criticized the game's high difficulty level,[1][3][4][46][11]" - Shift the last citation across one.
  • Done.

Legacy

• All good.

Images

• All okay, no issues with the licensing.

Sources

• All links check out A-Okay.
• Could you link to websites/journals in the citations? Not essencial.
  • Also not essential, but I'd advise archiving all links you can archive ASAP, so they're not lost forever (happening way too often these days).
    • Archived the URLs; I'll get to the website links another time.

Other

• Sonic Unleashed is only linked once in the lead. It should also be linked in the development prose.
  • It's linked in the "controls" section of gameplay; linking it in development would be WP:OLINK.
• Minor note. Having read the previous GA review, I must confess to feeling slightly iffy about including bracketed dates next to game titles. It's a minor quibble that I won't let influence the quality of the rest of the article, but it's still there.
  • I'm only leaving the ones in "legacy", since this tells the reader that those games came out after Colors.

Comments

@ProtoDrake: You asked for this. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 08:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@P*h3i: Thanks for the reminder. Having gone through the article, I've left my thoughts and comments above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Whoops, slight mistake on my part. I didn't see who'd nominated it. The message above was meant for you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding onto the whole years in brackets thing, I would be for it if it were a widespread thing, but one of the major things in Wikipedia is consistency in language, and I can't find a single featured article that has this rule. It's a gripe that is pretty minor, but it exists nonetheless. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 09:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonic '06 just became an FA, and one of the first things the reviewers made me do was put the years in brackets. I'm still keeping the years, I just reworked most of them into prose.

@ProtoDrake: I think I've resolved everything. Responded above. JOEBRO64 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Alright. I don't see any reason to hold this up now. It's an official Pass! --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)