Talk:Sonic Advance 2/GA1

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * I'd give a very brief description of what Chaos emeralds are in the lead for people not familiar with the series. I'd probably also clarify that Doctor Eggman is a reoccurring villain from the series.
 * Done.
 * "who can unlock Cream the Rabbit" - I'd clarify "unlock" means make them playable characters. Non-gamers will not understand this form the current wording.
 * Done.
 * "and Amy can swing a hammer throughout levels" - what purpose does swinging a hammer achieve?
 * Clarified.
 * "a sound test feature" - what does this mean?
 * Clarified.
 * "where toys for Cream's Chao, Cheese" - This is convoluted; I'd just say "for the character Cheese"
 * Done.
 * "transforms into Super Sonic" - can you describe what transforming into Super Sonic actual consists of?
 * I've added a link and that you need Chaos Emeralds.
 * "was developed by Dimps" - I'd introduce Dimps as a development studio; as it's currently written it could be the nickname of a single person or something else.
 * Done.
 * "Sonic Advance 2 received generally positive reviews upon release, according to review aggregator Metacritic" - I'd add what the ranking actually was to the prose
 * I usually don't do that, since the qualitative summary is much more helpful on its own (WP:VGG).
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * There's some inconsistency in date formats in references, I.e "Archived from the original on 2016-03-24. Retrieved 31 October 2017." Pick one date format and stick with it for every single source.
 * I'd format reference 18 with Template:Cite magazine for consistency. It looks out of place with detail like "No.915 Pt.2. Pg.121."
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Well done overall. Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll address the references when I've got time. I've worked on the prose already. JOE  BRO  64  11:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ JOE  BRO  64  20:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)