Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2020 [1].

Sonic the Hedgehog

edit
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sonic. Sonic the Hedgehog! – Sonic
Not that irritating hedgehog again! ATTACK!! – Doctor Eggman

— Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)

Even if you don't follow video games, there's no way you've never heard of Sonic the Hedgehog. It's the series that single-handedly ended Nintendo's monopoly on the market, the franchise that turned Sega into a corporate behemoth and industry leader, and the brand that proved how effective youth marketing can be. Maybe you played the games in the '90s, when Sonic was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. Or the 3D games of the early 2000s. Or maybe you or your kids watched the TV shows. Or you know about the memes and bizarre fanbase. Sonic's been a huge part of pop culture for almost 30 years, and I think it'll be staying around for a lot longer. This article chronicles the entire history of the series, through all of its greatest accomplishments and most devastating embarrassments.

I began working on this page around October 2019 and finally finished up the bulk of the work in early March. It was not an easy task—I essentially had to blow up the whole thing and start from scratch. Compare October to now: there are almost 500 references, a testament to how I had to cover essentially every aspect of a franchise that's seen so many ups and downs. These references ranged from old magazines to books to recent online retrospectives. It took a lot of time. But it was a labor of love and I'm extremely satisfied with how it's turned out. I hope you'll enjoy the article. Before starting, I'd like to thank Indrian for giving the article a thorough GA review, and Red Phoenix and Darkwarriorblake for participating in a peer review. My goal is to get this on the main page for the 30th anniversary on June 23, 2021. Now, I've got to go—I need to find the computer room. JOEBRO64 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - at 286,991 bytes, this is way larger than the longest article I think I've reviewed, Maya civilization, which was on the border of being too long. I wonder why this article has to be so long when most of the info should alreayd be covered in the spin of articles. See WP:article size. Especially the intro seems bloated, could be summarised much further. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FunkMonk: the vast majority of the bytes are taken up by the references. The actual article itself is "only" 62kB, whereas the article you linked is 95kB. As this is one of the largest Japanese media franchises, I think it's sort of expected that it'll be a big article, but I'm willing to trim some of it down. Is there anything in particular you think should be trimmed? (I'm not opposed to trimming the intro as well, though I do think it's proportional to the content of the article.) JOEBRO64 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the intro should be shorted, see WP:lead length. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: how does it look now? JOEBRO64 17:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. I'm not exactly an expert on this kind of article, but I'd like to review once someone more familiar has had their say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GamerPro64

edit

Going to try my best at reviewing this nearly 500 referenced article so this will be a slow process. Will start by saying that Ref 12 has a date error with it. GamerPro64 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After going over the article, I feel comfortable in giving this nomination a Support. GamerPro64 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TarkusAB

edit

I'll do a review. If I don't get to it by October 6, ping me. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the first paragraph in Saturn era, you go from mentioning Sonic Team's reform in Japan, to 3D Blast, then back to Sonic Team with Nights, then back to 3D Blast. I think it would be better to introduce 3D Blast after all the Sonic Team/Nights info.
  • The Development section might be better titled History. That's how it felt to me. It's not just development, as it does talk about critical and commercial reception too. I suppose it doesn't touch on the history of the franchise, only the games. So maybe Games history or something like that. But even just History would be OK. Readers will know where to look in the article for info on other franchise elements.
  • OK, the Story section. Before I went into this section, the heading made me think it would be an explanation of the overall series story elements. I finally got that in the last paragraph. The first two paragraphs about abandoned story drafts for Sonic 1 dragged on and feel like they belong in the Sonic 1 article and not this franchise article. Those abandoned drafts have really no relation to the franchise as it's known now. I think the one last paragraph for Story would be OK, though if you feel differently, it could be combined with Characters.
  • Crossovers section. Take out the Rad Mobile and Flicky pieces and put it into the Development/History section if wanted there, then I think the rest would be better served as a Legacy subsection. It feels weird in the middle here, like you didn't know where to put it.
  • Music section. I feel there's a problem with undue weight here. The first three paragraphs go into incredible detail on the music production for the first three games. Despite the hatnote and picture for Crush 40, Jun or his band are not mentioned until paragraph 4. The final two paragraphs glaze over the music compositions for the remaining games. If the music for the first three games were that important, it needs to be demonstrated why. Maybe they were better received and more well known, maybe they built a foundation upon which later soundtracks built upon.
    • I actually moved most of the information to a separate article called Music of Sonic the Hedgehog, which is certainly a notable topic on its own. The main reason there was an imbalance was that the franchise didn't have a consistent musical direction until Senoue came with 3D Blast and Adventure. JOEBRO64 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of the article looks good.
  • (Edit): One other thing. Regarding the video of the Macy's day parade. It would be better to screecap the moment Sonic transverses the screen and use it as an image. Requiring the reader to play the video and wait 40 seconds for him to zip by is not very helpful.
    • I did what FunkMonk suggested below. As for copyright concerns, Sonic is not the subject of the video (the parade is) and the file was kept in a 2017 deletion discussion, so while I'm not well-versed in Commons rules I think it's alright. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the thumbtime parameter, as for example here:[2] I wonder if there might be copyright issues with the file, though, the uploader of course doesn't own Sonic's likeness. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: responded above. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article is looking really great, I support promotion. As someone who has edited extensively in the Sonic sphere (and written 6 GAs on Sonic games), I think the page is worthy of a star. TarkusABtalk/contrib 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ProtoDrake

edit

I've looked through this article, and it seems no worse than many another recent FA with that star. It's an interesting read, even for me who isn't that into the Sonic series. I Support the promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Masem

edit

Again, noting my VG bias but reviewing on other points.

  • On the history, and I left this as an option, would it be worth while to briefly summarize that Sega was trying to break into America and had been stymied by Nintendo's popularity at this point, hence why developing a mascot to compete? You sorta mention this with SMB3, but I think you could state a bit more with a leading para (2-3 sentences at most). Kent's Ultimate History had sufficient details to back that up. This also might give you a good way to better introduce Katz and Kalinkse. (Sadly, we don't yet have a good article on the actual "console war", this would be perfect to link to, and I'm trying to create that)
  • I don't know if there are better subsection titles than "Seventh Generation" and "Eighth Generation Consoles" for the history, particular as in the last that includes games with PC versions. I mean, it fits, but maybe there's something better that's more inclusive?
  • I would specifically name the 2006 game in the article as the colloquial name Sonic '06 to be clear its distinguished from the original game. It is needed to be discussed enough (due to how poor it was received) but I think its far too easy to confuse with the same name.
  • Does the sales table account for any rereleases? I'm assuming it doesn't but a footnote may be needed to be clear on this. On the same lines, it may be worthwhile to briefly mention that many of the early games have seen rereleases through Sega's various software/hardware releases (you don't need to fully document which games appear where though).
    • There are two rereleases counted in the table—Sonic 1 mobile and Sonic Mega Collection Plus—BUT they're grouped separately from the original. I can combine them if that's OK. JOEBRO64 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably no way of providing a common point of reference for aggregate review scores for the games listed in the table I'd presume, right? (That is, older games won't be in MetaCritic). I would not mix and match aggregators if this was the only option, but if it was possible for the bulk of the games (80% or more) then this might be an option to help summarize the critical reviews quickly.
    • Yeah, there isn't really a way to do this. There was once a table with all the GameRankings/Metacritic scores in it, but I removed it because there were a number of problems with it: (1) it was massive, (2) it was not easy to read, (3) it was hard to keep up-to-date, and (4) I found it redundant to the main game articles, where the scores would be present. I think the commentary section provides enough of a general overview to understand how Sonic has fared critically over the years, I think an interested reader can go to the individual games' articles to find the scores. JOEBRO64 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref #368 ("High Score!") probably doesn't need the book wikilinked as its a red link.

Otherwise, this seems overall comprehensive across the series, and no major omissions or issues that I can see. --Masem (t) 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: responded above. Thanks for taking the time to review! JOEBRO64 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes all look good, and the intro feels ready once I can prep the console war article (eg a seealso link from Sonic to there). Everything else is fine with the changes, with the previous fixes from other commenters, so I support this as featured. --Masem (t) 19:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix talk

edit

Sorry I'm late to the party - I took a new job about a week ago, and it's just been all chaos the last couple of months. I will note to the FAC coordinators I've had a cursory look before at the peer review, and I did give some research to TheJoebro64 for this article, but that's pretty much the extent of my hands in this. Full credit to TheJoebro64 for some fantastic work on this subject.

I'll get some comments down here hopefully within the next couple of days. I will say, since I've looked already, that this is looking quite excellent. Red Phoenix talk 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do a full source review as I'm probably "too close to the fire" as someone who does a lot with references related to Sega and I've used a lot of these sources myself, but I'll point out inconsistencies that need corrected. I promise I'm not trying to be too picky, but having been source-reviewed before on an article with hundreds of citations, I'm going to be up front about it:

  • Ref 1: 1Up.com should be italicized, as with the names of websites.
  • Ref 4: "M. Thomas, Lucas" - is the indication that his last name is "M. Thomas"? If it's actually his middle initial, it needs to be "Thomas, Lucas M."
  • Ref 5: I know it's helpful, but ditch the external link to the Shmuplations translation. There's no evidence that Shmuplations received permission from these Japanese sources to publish English translations, and in FAs there should not be any chances taken on linking to sources that could be copyright violations.
  • Ref 6: Location of publisher? As all of the other book publishers so far have location of publication listed as well.
  • Ref 9: That's actually two references nested into one, so I'd separate them to remove possible confusion. I'd also see if whoever does the source review wants to keep the quotes or not. I've had mixed feedback on that in the past.
  • Ref 11: Large quote; refer to 9 on that one but this is an internet source, so I'm even more skeptical on if it should be there, as it's easy to pull up.
  • Ref 12: "Brian Ashcraft" - why not "Ashcraft, Brian"? Inconsistent.
  • Ref 13: Not so much on 13 itself, but be consistent with ISSNs. Either all of the magazines have them listed, or none of them do. Personally I'd go with none as it'll be a lot easier that way.
    • I actually couldn't find the ISSN for Sega Visions. I think it's the only magazine cited here that doesn't have one. Given that I used ISSNs for all the other magazines, I don't really feel comfortable with removing them all just because of one. JOEBRO64 18:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For now, I've added the OCLC so it, like the rest, at least has an identifier. Ultimately, it doesn't bother me any, but I'll let someone else chime in if they feel they must. I just know FAs have been grilled for a lack of sourcing consistency, past ones of mine notwithstanding.
  • Ref 16: IGN is neither italicized nor linked. It should always be italicized as it's the name of the website. Linking, you have one of two options: either link all of them, or just the first reference and don't link the rest. Again, I'd personally link all of them for ease, as if you have to move refs, changing the links can be a real pain.
  • Ref 17: Again, Sega-16 is the name of the website and should be italicized. Same thought on the quote as above.

For now, I'll stop there. I'm hoping this will at least illustrate some of the things I'm seeing so far. I'll try and tackle as much as I can in bits, but if someone with experience has the time and can do a full source review, since I don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll defer to their opinion if they differ. Red Phoenix talk 20:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on as I can:

  • Ref 18: same as 16 above. It's okay if you want to have each page its own separate source, and it would be okay the other way too, with just one reference for all the pages, but IGN does need to be italicized, and I recommend linked.
  • Ref 19: italicized and linked "Nintendo Life". I'd also remove "Damo" from Damien McFerran's nickname - it's not used in later refs further down, and McFerran writes for more than just Nintendo Life and his general name is recognized. If you disagree, then use it consistently in later sources.
  • Ref 22: I would remove Ziff Davis as the publisher. Be consistent with websites on when you use publishers - again, either use them for all of them or none of them (unless a website name doesn't make any sense to use and then you would use the publisher instead of the website, i.e. I wouldn't use sega.jp as a website, I'd just use Sega as the publisher).
  • Ref 33: This is the only place we have a publishing location for Retro Gamer.
  • Ref 36: Hardcore Gaming 101 is the website, so it should be italicized.
  • Ref 38: Website name linking consistency
  • Ref 58: Does not include Retro Gamer's publisher, while the other occurrences do.

I'll come back for more later. Red Phoenix talk 20:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. I'll get to these comments soon. JOEBRO64 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm still working a new job and trying to find adequate time in my schedule for Wikipedia, so I'm not stressing about it. I'll keep going through the references as time allows me to do so. Red Phoenix talk 01:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: got through all those (finally!) JOEBRO64 14:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. My computer was out of commission all weekend and I’m editing from a mobile phone at the moment, so I’ll try to get back with more as soon as I can. If anyone does want to wrestle away source formatting from me, though, I have no objections. Red Phoenix talk 17:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Here are a few more to keep things moving:

  • Just in general, for now I'm going to skip mentioning every occurrence of a web site publisher and would recommend you skim all your website-based cites for consistency on this facet. If we go a while and that's all we have to come back to, I'll call them out again.
  • Ref 52: Link website, remove publisher
  • Refs 53 and 69: Missing an archive, but it's doable. You may need to manually archive it and add the link (go to the Wayback Machine and tell it to archive that URL).
  • Look at refs 55 and 56 together. Are they the same template? Why is one formatted differently than the other if they're both magazine cites? I know it would take a while, but I'd make sure you're using the same formatting across all refs of the same type - otherwise, it's just an oddity that looks a bit unprofessional. Note that WP:FACR criterion 2c is consistent citations, whether or not templates are used.
  • Ref 67: PressReader is not the publisher of this source; that would be Future Publishing. I'd cite the magazine itself: Retro Gamer issue 189, December 2018, pages 18-27. You can still use the text link, though; keep the url and fill in PressReader in the via parameter in the ref template.
  • Ref 76: GameSpot should be linked.
  • Ref 78, 93, 95, 96, 103: IGN should be linked.
  • Ref 88: 1Up.com needs linked
  • Ref 82, 100, 116: Satisfy my curiosity: Why is there a bulleted list of references under one footnote here? It seems to be an odd feature. It's also worth noting that I find it unusual ref 100 has a ref on the main line with the rest underneath, but neither 82 nor 116 has a ref on the main line - they're all bulleted. Edit: I've come to find by reading the MOS that the list in a footnote is an acceptable format. That's okay, but I'll still be looking for consistency.
    • Similarly, if we're going with the bulleted list structure, how come 115 is going its own way separate from 116?
    • I've fixed the main line issue—it was because I forgot to press enter after the ref template began. If you're talking about the Sonic Genesis/Sonic Riders MC citations (which are 117 and 118, not 115 and 116), that's because they're separate games, whereas the other ones were for singular games/singular developers. I can still bundle 'em if you want JOEBRO64 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my next batch. Red Phoenix talk 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: thanks for leaving more comments! Responded above. JOEBRO64 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I haven't forgotten about this, just barely had time to edit lately. I'm trying to get that resolved. I'll see what I can do to get another batch soon, and reiterate to editors reading that if anyone wants to take this out of my hands in doing a proper source review including reviews for reliability and possibly spot-checks since I'm too involved with these sources myself, I invite and welcome that. Red Phoenix talk 12:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: A little more time, so some more review:

Red Phoenix talk 21:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: all done. JOEBRO64 01:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Next batch:

That'll take us through 300 for now. Red Phoenix talk 03:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: And because I have a commitment to finish...

  • 7: If we're using Game Informer as a magazine source, it should have a publisher like with the rest of your magazine sources.
  • 29: Needs an archive link
  • 301: Link Jetix as the publisher.
  • 306: So I'll admit, I don't use YouTube references for any editing I do. Because of that, I'm unfamiliar with the formatting here, namely the redundancy of YouTube (YouTube). This doesn't seem right, why is that?
  • 307: "C. Esteves, Ricardo" - much like all the M. Thomas, Lucas as above.
  • 308: "Kate Dale, Laura" - as I read this and look at the author profile on the source, I get the impression that it's "Dale, Laura Kate". For instance, her author page URL ends in /lkdale, which tells me it's just Dale that's her last name.
  • 319: Link /Film as the website
    • Actually, I went and did this one myself. I found it odd to be redlined, so I did it in the article space and it worked. I guess in Wikipedia-space pages it links to whatever subpage of said page, which doesn't exist here, but it works in article space. Red Phoenix talk 12:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 329: Link Business Insider
  • A lot of missing archive links in later references: 337, 343, 349, 350, 351, 355, 356, 358, GamesRadar+ source in 364 bundle, 444, 445, 457, 468
  • 367: Includes a publishing location; I would remove for consistency.
  • 379's bulleted list formatting has a similar issue to the note on ref 100 far above; a ref on the main line, inconsistent with the rest of the sources.
  • 399: Couple of issues here. First of all, I keep getting "unauthorized" issues trying to access it, so I can't even read it to verify what it says. Missing an archive, of course. Bigger issue is this: For who's LinkedIn this is and what it's being used to source, for it to have any value as a reliable source, it needs to specify that Sega or this person is claiming the sales numbers, as it's clearly not published by a "neutral" source. Part of NPOV means if someone who could have a conflict of interest on the matter is stating something, it can't be stated as absolute fact though that doesn't mean it has to be completely disregarded.
    • A quick addendum here, too: LinkedIn is very restricted on what is acceptable use according to WP:RSP. I think this strengthens the argument to just remove it.
      • I've removed it and added what Sega said the sales were. Another editor (who, from the looks of it, seems to have had issues with misrepresenting sources in the past) added it, not me. JOEBRO64 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 404 and 406: We're missing some information here. Not listed as via YouTube, with GameTap as the publisher. Needs to be consistent with how YouTube sources are handled above.
  • 405: Okay, so we have multiple issues here. For starters, a text copy of this being posted on an Internet forum and used as a source is linking to a copyright violation. But let's take it a step further here: the material pasted here is actually a press release, which means it's a primary source and what Sega claims, not a third-party source. Let's go even further: this is all by the start of 1994, and without precise figures, the source just says "including blockbuster titles each selling over one million units in 1993". Spinball came out at the tail end of 1993, so I can't imagine we're done there at a 1 million estimate. Nor is it directly stated that Spinball was one of these such games that sold a million copies by the end of '93 - the way it is phrased avoids stating that, especially given the press release's promotional tone. If you can replace it, great. But I'd just strike Spinball off the list, remove the figure, and don't stress about it. I don't think you lose anything by simply not having a figure if one is not available.
  • 407: What makes The Magic Box a reliable source?
  • 408: What makes Garaph a reliable source?
  • 410: I would make use of the language parameter to inform users the source is in Japanese.
  • 413: Missing a publisher
  • 424: Capitalize and link Joystiq. Also adjust to reflect this is a dead link; it doesn't come up as dead now because it just redirects to Engadget, but for all intents and purposes, it is a dead link.
  • 429: Link Kotaku
  • 432 and 433: Clicking these links comes up with some kind of account suspended message? In any regard, was this a reliable source? I have to wonder now because "account suspended" is an odd message that makes me curious what kind of website this was.
    • Huh. That's bizarre, because the archived version works fine for me. I've chopped them both, since they didn't seem to be reliable. I didn't really add any of the sales chart stuff (that was already there when I rewrote the article. JOEBRO64 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 436: Okay, so a general note on the quotes here: Personally, I would axe all of the quotes to web-based sources where people can open and read, aside from videos. Otherwise it looks extremely inconsistent when we're quoting and when we're not. Any quotes we keep, we need consistency on when the person speaking is identified or not. The person is not identified in 436, but is identified in 372. Used in 218 but not in 299, with a quote in Japanese characters, no less. Please address.
    • I've removed the quotes in the web cites. As for identifying speakers: I identified them when they're not the author of the source, so I was being consistent. I will remove them if you disagree. JOEBRO64 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 449: Is PALGN the website or the publisher?
  • Due to copyright-violation concerns of using retrocdn.net, which likely does not have permission to reprint said materials, the URLs for these sources need to be discarded. They could be replaced with ones from the Wayback Machine if they exist there.

That'll wrap up a first pass on sourcing consistency alone. As you address, I'll come back and take a couple of sweeps to ensure nothing's been missed - it's tough catching everything in almost 500 sources. That being said, while other than the questions I raised above I feel pretty confident in source reliability, I would certainly appreciate a second set of eyes to verify this. I will also respectfully decline to do any spot-checks, not as a time-based issue but actually on a material familiarity issue. Working with the same materials as used here actually hurts my ability to do quality spot-checks because I don't have fresh eyes to recognize inconsistencies, so I'll leave that up to a FAC coordinator to figure out if they will require that or not.

I know it's a lot, and sourcing consistency is never the fun part in an FAC, much less one with so many citations. Hopefully, though, we can make this process as easy as it can be. Let me know if you have any questions or when you are done; I know my time for Wikipedia has sucked badly lately, but I'll do my best to get back to you in a timely manner. Red Phoenix talk 03:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the thorough review, Red. I will get to this sometime today/tomorrow. JOEBRO64 17:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to finish up the last set of comments by Thursday/Friday. JOEBRO64 03:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this has been open for ages, are we done here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: thank you for the reminder. I have been terribly busy, but this will all be done tonight. I'll ping both you and Red when it's done. JOEBRO64 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Red Phoenix: I've done it all. Red, thank you so much for your review. That was truly a Herculean task. JOEBRO64 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome job, Joebro. Ian, I'll wrap up tonight: with Joebro done with my comments I want to do a final pass for any items missed or outstanding. I also looked through and while there were a couple of comments about images I didn't actually see an image review, so I'll conduct one of those as well, as I know those are required at FAC. I apologize about how long this has taken; I know my activity level lately hasn't been conducive to getting this done quickly, but I assure you it's worth the wait, and we're almost there. Red Phoenix talk 03:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I go through a final pass, I'm finding a lot of little things but I addressed them myself to try and save time, since we're in a rush to finish. Some of them, though, I need some help with:

Here is my review of the images:

  • File:SonicSeriesLogo.png - PD-Text, and trademark. Looks all right to me.
  • File:Yuji Naka' - Magic - Monaco - 2015-03-21- P1030036 (cropped).jpg - Seen a few variations of this pic around. CC-3.0, appears to check all the right boxes.
  • File:Naoto ohshima gdc 2018.jpg - CC-2.0, uploaded by a respected member of the community. Checks all the right boxes.
  • File:Sega-Genesis-Mod1-Bare.jpg - I would recognize an Evan-Amos work when I saw it anymore. Definitely all good.
  • File:Sega-Saturn-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg - Same as above
  • File:Dreamcast-Console-Set.jpg - And same as above again
  • File:Sonic2Gameplay.gif - My only concern here would be if others agree that an animated GIF meets the minimal-use parameters of the fair use criteria. I think it does, as it demonstrates the gameplay in a way a still pic alone would not, so I am satisfied. FUR looks good here.
  • File:Crush 40.JPG - PD uploader. Looks like it checks the right boxes, and from my working on the Crush 40 article, this isn't one I've found on the internet other than here. That suggests to me it's good.
  • File:JaleelWhiteDec10.jpg - Uploaded via OTRS, CC-3.0.
  • File:Tim Miller by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg - Originally uploaded to Flickr by the creator and verified as Creative Commons, so reuse should be fine here.
  • File:Time lapse Macy s Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012 New York hd720.webm - Viewing the source confirms that the video is Creative Commons licensed.
  • I had to add ALT text to three images. The rest looks okay.

That being said, I do have a couple of actionable items from the image review:

  • From the precedent we set at Sega a few months ago: Would not an image of Sonic the Hedgehog himself be warranted? If it is placed next to the section on Sonic's character design, an image of Sonic would be completely acceptable as it describes the character in ways words alone cannot, and would meet NFCC. I would personally go with File:Sonic 1991.png, as it encapsulates the original design, and expand the FUR on that page. However, I suppose any image of Sonic would probably do as long as it's not something totally misrepresentative, like the Sonic Boom design, for instance.
  • Would just like to ensure there's no objections to the animated GIF of the gameplay. As I mentioned, it appears to meet the criteria by my views.

@TheJoebro64: Very nicely done with this article. If you can finish these last couple of things, I will be happy to sign off on the image and source reviews for the article. Red Phoenix talk 06:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: addressed the ref issues from above. As for an image of Sonic, I definitely agree that it'd be helpful. I added File:Sonic modern and classic designs.png under the "Characters and story" section. I think it'd be useful to show both designs since the redesign is discussed in the article (and has been in place for most of the character's history). JOEBRO64 15:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Everything looks good, and I made a couple more minor tweaks just for consistency's sake. And now for what I know you've anxiously been waiting for for quite a while: Support on sources and images. Red Phoenix talk 18:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Unless you require anything else of this review, I think we should be good to go. Red Phoenix talk 18:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

edit

I picked out this article due to having limited background knowledge about video game production - hopefully this provides the viewpoint of a casual, uninformed reader. I have just left a few comments which will hopefully help to make the article even better.

  • I like how the infobox is shortened with links to lists.
  • In the lead, "speedy gameplay" (mentioned again later) doesn't sound encyclopedic enough, could this be explained or expanded? In that same line, "locations" (as a recurring element) is very broad - what does that mean?
  • "Catch on" is an informal phrase.
  • Sonic Riders... was designed to appeal to Sonic and extreme sports fans - does it need to be noted that a Sonic game was designed to appeal to Sonic fans? Or you could state "extreme sports fans as well as regular Sonic fans".
  • so Sonic Team refocused on speed and more traditional side-scrolling - could this change to something like "refocused on more traditional side-scrolling elements and fast-paced gameplay"? "Speed" is broad.
  • Do Wikipedia articles typically note (see Crossovers section) in the middle of prose?
  • "Culture of the 1990s" is linked in Commentary, but it appears earlier in Characters and lore - link the first appearance. Can "environmental themes" link to a related article?
  • In Music, swap the [256][5] references so that they are ascending. Check for others but I haven't seen any more.
  • Sonic X tells a single story that spans the series' run. - could you add "single serialized story" or similar?
  • In May 2020, Sega brand officer Ivo Gerscovich said that Sonic Boom reruns would continue but there would be no new episodes. In terms of TV, reruns typically always continue - so it might only be necessary to say "Gerscovich said that no further episodes of Sonic Boom would be produced".
  • The production team used Ted... - this seems like trivia and takes away from the surrounding sentences about the backlash.

The article is very well written and interesting, and I will be happy to lend my support. Best of luck with the FA nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above. I'll try to make some time to get to Bluey later this week. JOEBRO64 12:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, I'm glad you were able to take on the suggestions. Best of luck with your review and thanks for making time to visit my article. Happy to support this nomination. SatDis (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

edit

A titanic article, well-written and fully comprehensive for a topic so important to video game canon. I know I've come to this late and much has been clarified above but will try to leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 12:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay as I have been held up with university. I've took the time to read through the rest of the article today and can't dredge anything up that is worth noting this late into the review. The prose meets the FA criteria, and the sources all look good. Will happily lend my support. Really good work with this one! JAGUAR

Comments from SG

edit

This article is too long. All of the "other media" could be split to a sub-article and summarized briefly back to here using tighter summary style so that this article can focus on the video game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I’m not opposed to splitting that section, but I disagree that the article is too long; the vast majority of the kB is taken up by the references. The actual article (readable prose size) is 58kB, which WP:PAGESIZE says doesn’t necessitate a split. JOEBRO64 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to measure prose size; it is 9,500 words :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to @SandyGeorgia: for jumping into her conversation, particularly since it was from a while ago now, but I am curious on why you are against a split? This article will only continue to grow longer as more Sonic games and related media are released, as I do not see this property going away anytime in the near future. For instance, the first film has a solid three paragraphs, and the sequel, which is only two years away now, will likely take a similar sizable space. A spin-of article about the "other media" section does not seem unreasonable to me. My primary concern is less about the current prose size, but more so about how it will only undoubtedly keep growing as more and more Sonic media is released. I hope that makes sense, and again apologies for posting in someone else's review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this message is not intended to take away from the support this FAC has already received, and it seems like it is in prime form for promotion. I was just curious about this part in particular, especially since I thought about posting a review in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I'm a little confused by your comment; it looks like SandyGeorgia is favoring a split, and JoeBro's not opposed to it but doesn't agree that the prose size is too long. Personally, I think it's fine as it is for the moment with a spinout later, but I don't think this article should focus on just the video games; it's about the franchise, so I see TheJoebro64's point pretty well. If it gets too unwieldy, we can always spin out later, but I disagree that doing so to focus on the video games is a good idea since there's so much more to Sonic than that (as evidenced by this article). Red Phoenix talk 14:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: My concern was that the article will eventually become too long as the franchise continues so I was wondering why a spin-out article could not be done more preemptively to prevent that. Even if there was a spin-out article, there would still be a summary in this article, which would show that Sonic is more than just a video game franchise. So a spin-out in no way would make the article 100% focused on just the video games as you say as there would still be smaller section present about the other forms of media. I just wanted to ask because I had that question, and I thought the FAC space was the space to ask these kinds of questions about the article. I never said that it should be done to focus on the video games so I have no idea where you came up with that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on the video game was SandyGeorgia’s comment, was her rationale on how to reduce the article size and why, and was still outstanding and needed addressed. Could a spin out be done pre-emptively? It could. Should it be a concern that affects this FAC? No. If this is the most complete article at this time and it still fits within the prose size limits, and we’re talking pre-emptive concerns, it has no bearing on this discussion. I also happen to know TheJoebro64 does have plans for an article on Sonic fandom down the road, in which case a lot of that will take care of itself in due time. Red Phoenix talk 16:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am more so concerned the article likely could look very different if spin-out articles are ever implemented, but I guess that is unavoidable for an article about a continually evolving topic like this. I agree that the article should focus on the Sonic franchise as a whole and not just the video games. I think my question is fair in the context of a FAC (since it is a space explicitly intended for reviewers to ask questions and comment on an article), but I will not press this matter any further as I do not have any intention of doing a review for this. Thank you for the responses, and feel free to collapse my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here

@Lee Vilenski: responded above. Thank you for taking your time to review! JOEBRO64 11:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sonic_the_Hedgehog/archive1&oldid=994074772"