Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic X-treme/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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2018 [1].

Sonic X-treme

edit
Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X-treme is more than a canceled video game for the Sega Saturn - it's also in many ways a cautionary tale of corporate politics and the effects they have on a company. It's a captivating story of game development, I believe, whether you are a video game fan or not. I'm nominating this article because I feel it's a great read that meets the FA standards, and since its GA has undergone a major expansion to make it as comprehensive and well-sourced as it can be. It is the first article I've worked on since returning from a three-year absence on Wikipedia, however, so I welcome all the feedback I will receive and will do my best to address any concerns that arise. Red Phoenix talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

Woohoo, another Sonic FAC! I'll finish reviewing this within the next day. JOEBRO64 23:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just as a general note for the article, there seem to be a lot of quotations (excluding the quote boxes). While this isn't a bad thing, I'd recommend paraphrasing most of these.
    • It tends to be, mostly because Senn and Wallis provided so much insight into the game development. I've actually already paraphrased a lot before we ever got to FAC, but I'll take a look over it and paraphrase some more where I feel I can without taking away meaning.
  • Lead designer Chris Senn states that he modeled and textured four main characters, as well as designs for 50 different enemies and an hour of music.[2] Later builds had Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles as playable characters.[1]—were the four characters Senn modeled Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles? From the way this is written, it sounds like you're talking about different characters.
  • You mention STI in the premise section, but you don't explain what this stands for until the background section.
    • Oops. I restructured this article over and over so many times that I must've missed it. Fixed.
  • In 1991, they began development on several titles that would lead to the creation of Sonic the Hedgehog 2—several games were merged together into Sonic 2? Proposed change: In 1991, they began development on several titles, among them Sonic the Hedgehog 2
    • Used your wording, thanks.
  • David Houghton of GamesRadar described the prospect of "a good 3D Sonic game" on the Saturn as "a 'What if...' situation on a par with the dinosaurs not becoming extinct."[9] IGN's Travis Fahs called X-treme "the turning point not only for SEGA's mascot and their 32-bit console, but for the entire company", although he also noted that the game served as "an empty vessel for SEGA's ambitions and the hopes of their fans".[8] Dave Zdyrko, who operated a prominent website for Saturn fans during the system's lifespan, offered a more nuanced perspective: "I don't know if [X-treme] could've saved the Saturn, but ... Sonic helped make the Genesis and it made absolutely no sense why there wasn't a great new Sonic title ready at or near the launch of the [Saturn]".[30] In a 2007 retrospective, producer Mike Wallis maintained that X-treme "definitely would have been competitive" with Nintendo's Super Mario 64.[3] Senn has expressed his belief that a version of X-treme built by him with Alon's engine could have sold "quite well".[2]—this "A of B said C" structure should generally be avoided, since it's a bit dull and repetitive. See WP:RECEPTION.
    • I gave this a shot. Let me know what you think. I agree with WP:RECEPTION where it says, "even good writers have trouble with these sections".
  • I recommend archiving your sources.
    • Done. Wow, that was easy. I'd never heard of that bot before; definitely a tool I'll have to save for future article writing.

Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. I think this is an interesting story, and it's weird to think where Sonic would be if this game was released. Once my comments are addressed, I will support the promotion of this article. JOEBRO64 12:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've addressed my concerns, so I'm happy to support this article's promotion. I found this article outstandingly comprehensive and informative; I'm sort of wondering if Sonic Adventure (which might be at FAC soon, wink wink) would have ever existed had X-treme been released. JOEBRO64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a question: which version of the game engine is this? JOEBRO64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to this one on your talk page. No reason to clutter up an FAC with this :) Red Phoenix talk 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image. The other images in the body of the article should also have ALT text.
    • Done. Forgot this was a thing; it's been a while.
  • For this part (then eventually to the Saturn and PC,), I am not sure if the “eventually” part is necessary.
    • Fixed.
  • I would use Knuckles’ full title (i.e. Knuckles the Echidna) on the first use of the character’s name in the body of the article.
    • Done
  • For Reference 1, Destructoid should be linked.
    • Oops, not sure how I missed that. Fixed.
  • Game Players should be linked in References 5 and 6.
  • I have been given this note in the past, but all of the work/publisher should be linked in the citations format. For instance, IGN is not linked in several of the citations.
    • Grouping the last two together: That's actually not what I was ever taught to do in any of my previous FA's. Past direction I have been given and I've used in all of my articles since was to link the site and publisher for the first reference that uses it on the list of references, but not to repeatedly link it in references beyond the first use due to overlinking. If it's something you've been given as an FA note, however, maybe we can ask for a second opinion on this one? Red Phoenix talk 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Popcornduff

This is a pretty good article. Interesting subject (failures always are), thorough and well researched.

I've done some extensive copyediting, mainly to trim unnecessary words and simplify prose, but also, hopefully, to clarify in a few places. You'll want to carefully check my work to make sure I haven't accidentally removed useful information or altered meanings. (I'd like to keep going, but I'm getting major Visual Editor bugs - what the hell's going on?)

However, imo, there remain a few problems. These are significant but definitely fixable. (The quotes below are based on my copy-edited version of the article.)

  • The Premise section should cover the game's content - so the first two paragraphs, with info about plot, levels, camera etc is good. But then you start going into development - information about developers and engines and development problems - which isn't appropriate for this section.
    • Reformatted this quite a bit. The idea here was to filter through aspects of the game design that was more about the game's premise than the development, which is more of the project's history. Some of it was a bit redundant, though, so I rephrased the third paragraph to talk about gameplay elements, and moved the fourth into the development section.
  • The Background section has too much information about the creation of the Sonic franchise. I don't think this is relevant here - who cares that Sonic 1 was released as a Genesis pack-in game? I'm here to learn about X-treme. I think you need, at most, two sentences about the first Sonic game and its success etc, then move directly onto Cerny setting up STI to develop Sonic 2.
    • Reworked. This seems to be a perennial weakness of mine, knowing how much background is enough and how much is too much, just because I've worked with similar material so long. Hopefully this is better.
  • Likewise, the Background section ends with: According to Hector, after the release of the PlayStation, the corporate atmosphere at Sega became political, with "lots of finger-pointing". Tensions between Sega of Japan and Sega of America pervaded development. Development of what? General Sega development? Or X-Treme specifically? If it's the latter, this doesn't seem to be what this section is about. Maybe you can just delete this last sentence.
    • I think you actually might have caused this one by mistake. In my last revision, the sentence read "Tensions between Sega of Japan and Sega of America would continue to pervade the development of the game." I restored this sentence for now.
      • Struck out. Decided we were taking too many liberties with the source, which was about X-treme specifically and this statement was placed elsewhere before.
  • Lead programmer Don Goddard was replaced by Alon, a decision the team members disagreed about. Is there more information about what, specifically, they disagreed about?
    • There's a bit more in the source here that I tapped; it's really unclear what they "disagreed about" but I would presume from reading it that they didn't agree with Alon being made lead programmer. I added a bit about how Alon was perceived to be difficult to work with.
  • One team, led by Senn and Alon, developed the main game for PC, with the intent of porting it to Saturn; the other team, led by STI tech director Robert Morgan and including programmer Coffin, developed the boss levels on the Saturn. This two-team thing seems critical to understanding the development, but I think, right now, it isn't clear. What is "the main game"? This could be taken to mean there were two games. One solution might be to reverse the order, like this: One team, led by STI tech director Robert Morgan and including programmer Coffin, developed the boss levels. The other team, led by Senn and Alon, developed the other content, working on PC with the intent of porting it to Saturn. That's not perfect phrasing, I just jotted it off to illustrate the idea.
    • I used your phrasing for now. That being said, I don't like the phrase "other content". What else would you call a game's levels that are not its boss levels? That is what is meant by "main game". There's not a good term for it.
      • I think the key to this is this quote from the Edge article: "By this time, the team had split into two distinct groups, both working on Sonic X-treme but not on the same version." In other words, the two teams developed separate versions of X-Treme (though possibly with a view of combining them, right?). If we can talk about these as different versions, explaining them becomes much easier. Popcornduff (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of that PC thing: I think it's unclear whether there was ever a plan to release the game on Windows, or if it was just developed on Windows in anticipation of porting to Saturn.
    • It's unclear if that's initially the case in the sources too, but we do know Senn and Alon tried to develop a PC version of Sonic X-treme using Alon's engine at the same time as Coffin and his team were trying to redo X-treme in his engine. So essentially, it starts as one game being built in two different pieces, to an official project an an unofficial project being developed simultaneously, to no games being released at all.
  • The most problematic part is the explanation about the executive being unimpressed with the demo. It's very difficult to follow - there are too many concepts, with the "main game" (again, this is an unclear term) being ported from PC by a subcontractor, etc. This little section needs to be simplified and probably needs to be totally rewritten. If you need help with this I can try rewriting it myself - I may come back to it later this evening, but no promises.
  • OK, I've trimmed this bit. Hope I didn't remove any information you consider critical. Popcornduff (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything I did consider critical, I placed elsewhere in the article, so this should be good now.
  • Senn and Alon's project was rejected for the second time, causing Alon to leave Sega.[9] Sega's PC division was not prepared to pay for development of this version, and may have been hesitant to approve the game based on its earlier rejection for the Saturn.[8] I don't understand this. It comes out of nowhere and I don't know what it refers to. What project? What is "this version"? The game was canned, so what were they working on? We need more information.
    • This was referring back to the sentence that had stated that Senn and Alon continued working on their version of the game after the March 1996 visit that resulted in its rejection, with a hope of pitching it as a game for the PC. I pulled this out of the paragraph it was originally in and recombined it to try and make it make more sense.
  • STI was officially disbanded in 1996 as a result of changes in management at Sega of America. According to STI's Roger Hector, the success of Sony and the PlayStation console led to corporate turmoil within Sega that resulted in STI being dissolved. Wallis has stated that STI was not actually disbanded, but rather became Sega of America's product development department while the previous department had branched off to form SegaSoft. This is confusing. You say it was disbanded, but then say Wallis said it was not disbanded. If sources disagree, we should say that explicitly, rather than making a claim in Wikipedia's voice and then quoting a source that contradicts it.
    • Rephrased to remove contradiction in statement.
  • *Senn, along with the community, announced intentions to recreate the game. Is Senn working with the community to do this? Are these separate endeavors?
    • They're quite separate, actually. I could use your input on this one: in my GA version in 2013 when I worked on this article before a three year retirement, Senn had recently announced he was not going to finish the remake. The problem is, he announced it on his own website, and whereas the video game media covered him working on the recreation, they didn't cover his cancellation. The only evidence we have is the post he made on his own forum site, Senntient.com. I did cite that then and used WP:SPS as my reasoning, but the reviewer told me he'd let it slide for GA but that it should be removed or re-sourced for FAC, which I can't find a reliable source. The fanbase actually did finish levels of the game in 2015, while I was temporarily retired. How do you think it should be handled?
      • I think I might have this fixed, actually. While I didn't note Senn's cancellation, I noted that the fans who built the game were affiliated with the website SonicRetro, which is in the source listed. Red Phoenix talk 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've attempted to simplify this - I don't think we need to namecheck SonicRetro in the prose. I'm a little confused, though; the prose here suggests this was said in 2007, but the source is dated to 2008. This source is also used for the Yasuhara claim, but I can't find that. Is this source correct? Popcornduff (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Struck out. This last section was by far and away the best written part when I first picked up the article in 2013 and I was relatively familiar with it based on the Retro Gamer article so I pretty much left it alone, but I just reviewed this myself based on your spot-check and yeah, it's not there. So I struck it and rephrased it; I don't think we're really losing any meaning here. Red Phoenix talk 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a lot to chew on. But I think this article can get there. Popcornduff (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry about having a lot to chew on. Since this is a FAC, I'm glad to have a lot because it can only mean I can make the article better :). On the Visual Editor bug, I did submit a bug report for it. It's been speculated that a "nowiki" tag may be the cause, but it isn't the case all the time. I noticed the same issue myself and for now just edit the Cancellation section in edit source until they will get it fixed. Red Phoenix talk 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There should be responses ready for review now. Red Phoenix talk 03:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornduff: can you have another look and tell me what we have left to address? Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 15:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for slowing this down. I'll be getting back to it again soon. Popcornduff (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments from Popcornduff

OK, I've done one final pass. (Make sure to check that I haven't broken anything.) I'm almost ready to support this. I hope only a handful of small points left to address:

  • Websites such as Destructoid and GamesRadar have speculated that X-treme may have inspired games such as Super Mario Galaxy (2007) - If possible it would be nice to say exactly what elements these are. Same goes for the point about Lost World - no need to go into long detail but one or two concrete examples would be nice.
    • There's not a lot of detail here except comparisons. Destructoid contrasts Mario Galaxy's movement with Sonic X-treme's, and the GamesRadar article calls the fisheye lens system "a spell-bindingly hypnotic, spherical look, long before Mario ever thought of going off-world." I'll leave it up to you, but I'm feeling more and more it's not a lot of support and would not mind striking if we need.
      • I removed the GamesRadar thing because it's too vague to be really useful - I think it borders on WP:SYNTH, so safest to omit. But the Destructoid article does go into detail about the similarities between X-treme and Galaxy, so I've added it. Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you double-check the source for the "cool" activities is correct? I shuffled this section around and the previous sourcing wasn't clear, and I can't check it.
    • Source is confirmed correct.
  • Sonic X-treme was conceived for the Sega Genesis as a side-scrolling platform game like previous Sonic games. The design changed early in development due to the difficulty of adapting platform games to 3D. I don't understand the second sentence - at this point it doesn't sound like they were developing a 3D game. If it's not possible to clarify this, maybe just delete the second sentence.
    • Struck. I agree; the second sentence doesn't really add up. On rereading it I'm not fully sure where it came from; I don't actually recall putting that in.
  • Remnants of the project can be seen in the Saturn compilation game Sonic Jam.[1][2][3][4] Are four citations for this claim really necessary? Popcornduff (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not really. It just happens to be cited in that many. I took one out for now, and if we need, we can remove the one to the NiGHTS article.

Responses submitted. Red Phoenix talk 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I forgot to include the clarification-needed tag in my list of things to address here. Regarding your edit summary, I added it knowing you'd address it promptly, so thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. That was a lot of work. Thanks for being patient, and good job on the article. I'm happy to Support this for FA. Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ProtoDrake
edit
  • Support; Anything I might've pointed out's already been pointed out above. It's a wonderful read. I didn't think an article about a cancelled game could be so good. Congrats, and hope it passes! --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - they haven’t happened yet. As a side note, I will be unavailable until April 12 while I leave for a vacation and to get married. I have asked TheJoebro64 to watch over this FAC while I am gone, and I can answer any lingering questions when I return. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 07:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely common and precedent for video game articles to include one screenshot of the game itself to illustrate the gameplay. My rationales used for this article and on the image pages are in line with this precedent. This one includes two because there were two distinct game engines with two different styles of animation and gameplay during development. The GA review three years ago was done by an experienced video game article writer and his opinion was that the use of both would meet WP:NFCC. Those images have not changed since then. Red Phoenix talk 09:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something has been done before doesn't make it right. We need to show, in this review, how WP:NFCC#8 is met. And I'm not ticking off this as an image review as done until the point is cleared up. Sarastro (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone and updated the rationales. Do they meet NFCC#8 now? JOEBRO64 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first one does, now. I am not convinced on the second since it looks like the same rationale as the first, and that is a bit worrying from a WP:NFCC#3 perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: How about now? JOEBRO64 19:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'd like a second opinion on whether the second image satisfies WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. On other videogame FAC I've accepted one non-free screenshot of the game with the understanding that graphics are an important part of videogames and that the understanding of the article topic is improved by one non-free screenshot. Here we have two screenshots, and I am not convinced we can't do with less. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put in a request for comment at WT:VG. JOEBRO64 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A second screenshot demonstrating an in-development version of the game is acceptable, since it would be emphasizing the production process rather than a general demonstration of the gameplay. See the article for StarCraft, which has a general gameplay screen, a development screen, and a story screen (not that this article needs one of those.) I support the inclusion of the second screenshot here. Phediuk (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article and going over both WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 to me both images meet the requirements. One image alone can't convey the approach used in developing the game. The first image shows the game engine that was intended to be used for regular levels and is significantly different from the second image. The second image shows the second game engine for boss battles that would later be the main engine for the entire game after an executive was not pleased with the first engine. In this regard both meet WP:NFCC#8 as they both increase the contextual significance of the article. The two images also meet the first part of WP:NFCC#3 because they show two different points in development that can't be expressed by a single image. The second part of WP:NFCC#3 is also meet here because both images are of low resolution. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts. Phediuk (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I think both images could be included - more non-free media makes justifying each more difficult, but not impossible. However, I have some concerns. First, I'm not sure the second image meets the guidance of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Sourcing. Second, while the article mentions the two engines, I don't see that it does a very good job of contrasting their design elements - is there sourcing to support development of that point? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've updated the article to make it clearer that they were two separate engines. Is it better? As for sourcing, WPVG does allow users to provide our own screenshots, as long as they are not modified. JOEBRO64 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - it already said there were two engines, what's not really clear (at least to someone who isn't up on video game development terminology) is what the differences between the two are. As to sourcing: that policy makes sense for an official game that anyone could verify by picking up a copy at their local shop - less so for a leaked version on an emulator. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Apologies that I have not been here to respond; I was on a weeklong wikibreak while on vacation somewhere with no internet. Details on these differences were moved into the Premise section during the copyedit and did originally pin each element to which version of the engine it was at the time; the articles from Game Players during development do a good job handling sourcing on this. For reference, I've quoted the section it is now below; the original version was more clear on whose engine it was for each, but was moved due to relevance to either Premise or Development. That being said, before we do handle this, let's figure out the image sourcing issue or else it's all redundant anyway. If we're in dispute about the emulator shot (and there's not an actual release to get a screenshot from), an IGN article used as a source actually has a very similar screenshot, as do scans from the Game Players issues of the boss engine. Let me know what you think here; surely we can sort this out, and if not, we could cut the image but I think the article will lose some meaning from the loss of that visual. Red Phoenix talk 00:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where those articles got the screenshots? Were they released by the team, photographed at E3, also taken from an emulator? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IGN received its from Chris Senn, a developer on the game. He provided them courtesy of his website he formerly ran, the Sonic X-treme Compendium. Game Players most likely received the images from the development team themselves; they sent writer Patrick Baggatta to STI to interview the developers - that source is from 1996, before the release of the game. Red Phoenix talk 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Addendum for clarity: as in, it was presented as a "pre-release" set of interviews, since the game was obviously never released. Red Phoenix talk 02:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that seems reasonable for sourcing. I would like to see more sourced content contrasting the two engines, if possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll replace it this afternoon. @Popcornduff: When I do this later, I'll be adding back in some bits about whose engines were what. Could you help copyedit this in in a professional and easy to read manner? Suffice it to say I don't 100% trust myself to do it in a manner consistent with a fully professional style, in the right location with the right amount of detail without repeating myself. Red Phoenix talk 14:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take a look. Just ping me here once you've done it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornduff: Ready. Red Phoenix talk 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I'm afraid I can't understand the final two sentences.
  • Alon and Senn focused on building an editor that would set in place the gameplay and environment of the main levels. Does this mean they built an editor to construct the main levels? If so, I suggest "Alon and Senn built an editor to construct the main levels", or something like that - ie simple and direct.
  • Enemies were created as rendered sprites, while music and backgrounds were added later. I don't understand what these claims have to do with one another. "Added later"? Added later than what? The enemies? Why? What is the relevance of music and backgrounds here? Popcornduff (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Red Phoenix talk 15:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The game featured a fisheye camera system, the "Reflex Lens", that gave players a wide-angle view,[2] making levels appear to move around Sonic.[3] Levels would rotate around a fixed center of gravity, meaning Sonic could run up walls,[4] arriving at what was previously the ceiling. Sonic was also able to enter and exit the screen as he moved.[5] For boss battles, levels were "free-roaming" and "arena-style'",[3] and rendered bosses as polygonal characters as opposed to sprites. These levels used shading, transparency and lighting effects to showcase the Saturn's technical potential.[6]

— Premise section of Sonic X-treme article on Wikipedia as of April 12, 2018

@Nikkimaria: Have we addressed your concerns fully with the better-sourced image and more detail added with copyediting? Red Phoenix talk 13:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ian

edit

Not having any interest in video games, I thought it might be worthwhile recusing as coord and reading/copyediting from a wholly dispassionate perspective. I tweaked a few things, so pls let me know if I got the wrong idea anywhere, but generally it read well to me and was easy to follow. I'll take a breath and then re-read without editing before I sign off on the prose, though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Ian. Of course, I have to give credit to Popcornduff and several others for helping to really give the prose some polish. Red Phoenix talk 00:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: It has been a few weeks and this is now at the bottom of the queue; have you re-read this yet? Kees08 (Talk) 08:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/spot check by Jackdude101

edit
  • References formatted consistently. web pages archived appropriately.
  • There are possible copyright violations related to three sources according to this link: [2]. Observe the highlighted text in the link and correct accordingly.
  • FN 3 - used 17 times. material cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 13 - used once. material cited and faithful to source. Link should be changed to page 7 of the source instead of page 1, though.
  • FN 23 - used twice. why is there a huge caption for this one? Also, on which page is that caption from in the article?
  • FN 33 - used once. it talks about one playable build and not "several playable builds". This should be corrected in the article.

Resolve the items before I can offer support. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. To clarify what I've done:
  • All of the "possible copyright violations" are direct quotes from developers that are cited in the article as direct quotes attributed to that person, and therefore not a copyright violation. There was one minor exception, which I reworded a bit to resolve.
  • Link changed on FN 13 and archive also updated.
  • Dropped quote out of FN 23 - this was a remnant from before I started work on the article and I just hadn't bothered to remove it. It's a short enough interview that I don't think it's necessary to have. Shouldn't be a paging issue there on the caption; the article itself is only one page.
  • FN 33 quote fixed.
Thank you for your review. Red Phoenix talk 21:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Sorry to bother you, but are we ready to go here? Red Phoenix talk 20:26, 7 May 2018 (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_X-treme/archive1&oldid=840453999"