Talk:Green Hill Zone/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * Lead
 * In the infobox, who are these "numerous forest characters"? Either give more specific examples or just include Sonic.
 * It's "forest animals": they're the creatures inside Eggman's robots. Citation 5 covers this. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just seemed ambiguous at first glance, but good to know about that cite. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "As its game of origin has gathered popularity and acclaim, Green Hill Zone has been remembered" is quite a mouthful. Try something like "Since its origins, Green Hill Zone has been known for its critical acclaim" in place.
 * Reworded. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * History and characteristics
 * "so playable protagonist Sonic the Hedgehog" → "so the player"
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sourcing
 * Reception and Legacy
 * Is "WhatCulture" (ref#19) a reliable, professional source?
 * Eh, I'm not sure, so I've commented it out. I've seen it around, but not noticed it in any GAs or FAs. Tezero (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is Destructoid used if A) it is a blog B) it contains a hoax?
 * What hoax? Either way, though, it contains an opinion. Tezero (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I've removed that altogether as what Sonic fans think isn't particularly important here. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What hoax? Either way, though, it contains an opinion. Tezero (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I've removed that altogether as what Sonic fans think isn't particularly important here. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you think of the following sources:  Is the first worthy of mentioning, and does the second look reliable? Tezero (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added both, then. Tezero (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Coverage
 * Lead
 * Try to expand this beyond two incomplete paragraphs.
 * Expanded somewhat. I'd rather it not be too long, though, as the article isn't. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Reception and legacy
 * This seems to be focusing on mainly what critics think of the level. Try splitting this section into a "reception" section and a "legacy" section. You've got a nice amount of critic's opinions, now add more on its impact on games and such.
 * Done. What's your opinion now? Tezero (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the "legacy" now has thrice the detail of the "critical reception". Try to expand it so the sections roughly the same length/coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can look a bit longer, but it's difficult to tease what the critics themselves think of Green Hill beyond the acclaim they think it has from the general public. That's why the second subsection is a lot larger. Tezero (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't find much else, move some info from "legacy" into "critical reception" so they're more balanced out with two paragraphs each. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutrality
 * Any negative opinions on this level? Not that inclusion of positive opinions is a bad thing, but it would help to know if any third-party reliable sources have negative thoughts on it.
 * Doesn't look like it. I personally think it's far from Sonic Team's best work, but it's kind of immune to criticism for obvious reasons. Tezero (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly is among the most well-known and well-liked. Mixed opinions would also be beneficial, but apparently those aren't around either. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stability
 * No problems here


 * GA Result
 * If these are all addressed within the next seven days, I will pass the GAN. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. I'm on my iPod now but will try to fix these up tomorrow. Tezero (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine with me. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that all my concerns have been addressed, passing! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)