Talk:Sonic After the Sequel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 05:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Paying penance for my Sonic characters talk page conversation, I thought I'd give this one a fast review since (1) I'd like to, and (2) I don't believe there will be any issues about its notability.


 * "received somewhat less recognition than After the Sequel": not sure this is supported in the article
 * Eh, it might be OR, but I just thought I'd at least mention the predecessor and hint at why it's not covered here: I can't, really. Is that still too much? Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It has to be sourced in the article to go unsourced in the lead, so I removed it ♔


 * "existing ones" can be clarified
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth be worth explaining what's new and what's old because this would be unclear to those unfamiliar ♔


 * "fighting Eggman at every turn" clarify
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the feather segments are unclear, can use clarification
 * What's confusing? Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The narrative here is disjointed. Why is Tails playing important? Why is the feather puzzling? Where does this airship come from apropos of nothing, etc. ♔
 * Sorry; I didn't realize you'd dropped a reply. I'm neutral on including Tails playing; it sets the scene for them noticing the feather but isn't otherwise important for much more than a cuteness moment. I've fixed the feather and airship issues; do you have any other qualms? The tag's still standing. Tezero (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * may want to update the Super Sonic redirect if it's best linked to the series article
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "bird-like robot": guarding the emeralds? cl
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * decide whether he's going to be Daneluz or LakeFeperd so it can be consistent throughout the article I just went with the former
 * I thought it was that way. I must've missed some. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Encouraged," by what?
 * Never mind. Removed. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not use external links in the body of an article. WP:MOS
 * You did it. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Unusually for a major video game publisher,": outstanding claim needs special citation
 * You did it. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Still has a cn tag, also I check each point so you don't need to comment if it doesn't require action ♔


 * Sega shouldn't be all caps in Reception
 * Even if it's in a quote? Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so: However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment WP:MOSQUOTE czar ♔  15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "by that point": by that point in what?
 * Time. Clarified. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The title screen depicts protagonist Sonic in a manner reminiscent of his Sega Genesis games." seems a little ORy
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * haven't checked for copyvio yet


 * can more be said about the differences between the levels?
 * Not really. There's very little out there about the gameplay, since the source authors tend to assume everyone reading has played the original Sonics. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

outside the review scope
 * "critical acclaim" seems a bit too much
 * That might require some kind of source, but I've gone about as far as one can without one. There really wasn't anything negative any of the sources said, and there's that one that said it had the best music ever. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * heavy on the quotes in Reception, might want to paraphrase in future
 * Some of them really help to bolster just how well critics thought of it. Removed one, though. Tezero (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good overall—holding for a few clarity concerns czar ♔  05:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I edited the plot a bit more. Would be useful to at least mention the types of zones instead of saying "a few". I don't care much for plot summary anyway, so this is just a suggestion. The types of power-ups and what they do still needs clarification. And did you see the recent additions? Some are unsourced czar ♔  07:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The types of zones I don't think are that relevant to the plot. As for power-ups, I really would like to put more, but the sources just don't cover it. And I've edited out the unsourced changes among those. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "A few" isn't relevant to the plot then either. If you can't discuss the new power-ups, you can contextualize the new ones since the word is vg jargon. Re: C&D, outstanding claims likely to be challenged need direct citations. czar ♔  17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree about power-ups; it's used in plenty of GA and FA video game articles, as are more technical terms like "heads-up display". I really don't think it would appropriate to explain what a power-up is, so I'll ask WP:VG for input if you still think otherwise. I've fixed the rest, though. Tezero (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting a definition of power-up, but adding an example. Does it make you big? Does it make you go fast? Does it end the level sooner? Etc. That and making sure the soundtrack credits in the infobox are actually cited in the text would be the end of my list. However those things aren't vital for the GAN criteria, so I'll leave them friendly suggestions. Good work czar ♔  22:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)