Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burning Rangers/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2017.

Burning Rangers

 * Nominator(s): JAG  UAR   21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Behold, one of the least respected video games of the 1990s. What makes this article different—at least for me anyway—is the fact that it relies on mostly offline sources, which were all accessible! It was something of a minor miracle that I was able to squeeze as much information out of this incredibly rare product. I believe that this article meets both the 1b and 1c aspect of the FA criteria as it is comprehensive for the subject matter. A couple of scans have missing urls because they are only accessible through sites like Sega Retro and the like. If you want access to a particular source for spot-checking, just let me know. I learned from my past mistake on Nights into Dreams... that having at least one Japanese source for a Japanese game in necessity for FAC, so I've added some snippets from the Sega Saturn Magazine's review of this game. As if that wasn't enough, I have access to a couple more issues, but implementing Japanese sources is a slow process.

Burning Rangers was released at the very end of the Sega Saturn's life span (it was among the final five games released in America). But what makes it so sad is the fact that it demonstrated that the Saturn was a more powerful machine than its rival, the PlayStation. Still though, it faded into obscurity and thus I'm trying to promote this to FA status in hopes that some people would appreciate it. Despite the broadness of the article, I have never played this game. Please don't hold it against me as last time I checked it was something like £200 on eBay! JAG UAR   21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Aoba47


 * I would recommend adding ALT descriptions to all of the images in the article.
 * Added. JAG  UAR   16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it "most of which are" rather than "most of which is" since you are referring to "tasks"?
 * Good catch, fixed. JAG  UAR   16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is more of a clarification question, but do you think the article needs a "Plot" section, similar to the one used in the Nights into Dreams... article? This may not be necessary as the game may not have a narrative (which is why I am assuming you do not have this kind of section in this article), but I just want double-check that this assumption is correct.
 * I don't think there is any kind of narrative in this game. Before I came to this article there was a small plot section, but I found expanding it to be impossible, and WP:VG/GL recommends merging some aspects of the plot into the gameplay section if there is nothing to expand upon. Hopefully the reader can surmise that the game revolves around a group of rangers putting out fires and rescuing people, as that is the only thing it is. If anything is unclear please let me know and I'll try and clarify it. JAG  UAR   19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. The "Gameplay" section makes it clear that the game is about a group of rangers. I just wanted to double-check to make sure that there was not a major narrative in the game requiring a separate section. Merging it into the "Gameplay" section was definitely the right decision. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section reads somewhat awkwardly to me. It runs rather long and may benefit by splitting into multiple sentences. I am also wondering if a reader unfamiliar with the Sonic the Hedgehog games (as I am sure there are still some out there) would understand the concept. I would suggest revising this part to make it a little clearer and stronger.
 * I thought that the latter half of the sentence (marked by the semi-colon) describes the similarities with the crystals and rings, but I see your point. I've split and reworked the sentence to explain the crystals' function in more detail. JAG  UAR   21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I think your revision made that part much stronger. Your original wording was good, but I think it is important to be as clear as possible when it comes to one of the central gameplay mechanics. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section sounds somewhat odd to me. When listing the locations, you mention burning buildings and a few other places. However, I would imagine that all of the locations are burning considering that it is a firefighter game. It might be better to state what type of building if possible rather than describing it as burning, as the presenting wording could make it seem like the "burning" part is unique to the building stage if that makes any sense.
 * I understand what you mean. I've removed the "burning" part and further elaborated that the game also takes place in apartment blocks and factories too. JAG  UAR   21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and the revision looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Did the development team provide any reasons for why they believed "the element of fire was the most appropriate way to create fear and tension"? This is more of a clarification question and I understand if this is all the information given in the source, but I just want to double-check.
 * I double-checked the source and it doesn't give a reason a why, as it just says "it seemed that fire was the most appropriate way to cause fear and tension", along with the 'rescue game' element. It's always good to check these things over though! JAG  UAR   11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I just wanted to make sure about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the "Conceptualisation and planning" subsection, you use the term "targeted" twice in a close proximity and I would suggest revising for variation.
 * Good catch, rephrased. JAG  UAR   11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not believe the "interesting things" quote is really necessary. It might be stronger to simply say "in hopes that they would find inspiration for designing the game's stages". I am only suggesting this as I have received a note in the past about only using quotes when absolutely necessary, so I think this part would benefit from your own words.
 * That's much better, thanks! I try my best to cut down on quotes but sometimes it's difficult to paraphrase. It didn't seem to be the case here, though. I'll go over the development section once again and see if I can paraphrase anything else. JAG  UAR   11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely know that feeling all too well. You are much better at paraphrasing than I am. The section looks great! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Great job with the article. It is a very interesting read! I found relatively few areas for improvement. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I will support this once all of my comments are addressed.
 * thank you for the review! It looks like I owe you another one. I think I've addressed all of the above; even though I would have done it a lot quicker but I found myself going in and out of sleep last night. This was a nice little article to write, and I'm glad that it's going smoothly. JAG  UAR   11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Sleep is definitely more important so no need to apologize for that. I really enjoyed reading through this article. I never heard of this game before, so it was cool to learn about it. I would love to play it (if only it wasn't so expensive lol). If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. I did the review for this article primarily because I was really interested in the subject (maybe one day in the future I will work on more video game-related articles) so don't feel pressured to owe me a review or anything like that. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Don't worry, I'll leave some comments at your FAC soon. I'll probably read through it tonight and will leave some comments tomorrow, if that's OK. I make sure to always keep my promises. To be honest I hadn't heard of this game until a couple of years ago, but I became interested in this because it showed that the Saturn was a more powerful console than the PlayStation, and this arguably had better graphics than anything else. It's unfortunate that this costs so much as my writing of this article would have been more articulate had I owned it! JAG  UAR   18:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I know my article is not particularly in your field of interest so I greatly appreciate your help. And the history about the Saturn is very interesting. You did a wonderful job on the article, especially since you never actually owned the game or played it. That is very impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: There isn't a single issues I could find. I hope it's promoted. Also, I wonder if you have free time, could you review my FAN, Featured article candidates/Tidus/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I'll be happy to review your FAC. JAG  UAR   16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments "Burning Rangers interview and review" says it is issue 10, but the link is to issue 31. The Archive.org link goes to search results. Change the url to to go to the selected page instead. Is Soft Bank SoftBank Group? If so, you could link to it. Hobby Consolas link could also be changed to  to not jump to search results. If I'm looking at the magazine right, it looks like the review is from 104-106, not 104-107. The GMR magazine citation is to page 103, but the review appears on page 102 (see page number in corner of the page). GamePro magazine citation says page 109, but the magazine shows page 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could Hobby Consolas be linked in the references? I am not sure what the MoS says, but I prefer more source links so people don't have to look around for them. In Citations you use e.g. "p. 54, 55". But in the Bibliography you use "54–55". Also you use p. instead of pp. even when you are referring to multiple pages. But I could not find anything about this in the MoS, so I have no idea what proper usage is. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the source review! I have addressed all of your concerns. I've used the double "pp" for all of the harvrefs that covers two pages, and I also put in the dash instead of the comma. Thanks for finding the issue error. I don't know why but archived scans always gives out the pages one more than what they should be (for example 109 instead of 108), but they're all fixed now. JAG  UAR   17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Someone else will need to do a real "source review" because I've never done one for FAC and I'm unfamiliar with the criteria. Other comments:
 * For the Weigand review in GamePro, you have two Citations for it, one to page 108 and one to page 109, but the review is only 1 page on 108. Also you have it in the Bibliography, but it's only one page. Same with the GMR review.
 * Already seems to be like that, I think? JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do a search for "Weigand 1998, p. 109." on the page. There's one for p. 108 too, but the article is only on page 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You also have a citations for Brookes p. 68, p. 69, p. 70, but the Bibliography only shows pp. 68-69.
 * Just checked the issue again and it is indeed pages 68-69, so fixed. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation #15 for Nutter still has p. 51, 52.
 * Fixed and added 'pp'. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation #32 references p. 107, but Bibliography now only goes to 106. There is something off here because you reference Herranz p. 104, p. 105, p. 106, p. 107, but the magazine article is only 3 pages, so even with the Archive.org numbering being off by one, still shouldn't have 4 pages of refs.
 * Good catch. I mistakenly allocated the bit where she couldn't understand the dialogue to page 107, where that's clearly an advert. I've corrected it to page 106. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sega Saturn Magazine staff in the Bibliography shows pp. 58-61, but you have refs spanning from 61-63.
 * I could only access the Japanese issues through Sega Retro, and their organisation of the issues weren't great. I recall having multiple tabs open at once so I must have got confused. I went back to issue in question and can confirm that the feature spans 58 to 61, so the citations are now corrected. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nutter interview starts on page 50 in the magazine. You don't reference page 50 though. I'm not sure the protocol on citing pages you don't use in the bibliography, but as it's an article I personally would cite the whole article even if I skipped some pages. Also, the content from the mag ends on page 59, not 61.
 * Fixed. I have no idea why it says it starts on page 49 in the address bar and when I was in the original search mode it said page 51. To make it worse the Sega Saturn Magazine didn't number their pages (or perhaps they're cropped in the scans). Anyway, I've changed it to page 51 to 61. You're right, it's best to list the pages of all the relevant content, even if it's not used in the article. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a citation for Smith 2003, p. 102., but p. 102 is unrelated content. You probably mean p. 103.
 * Internet archive playing up with the extra page number again. Fixed. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the GameSpot review, Ryan Mac Donald spells his last name with a space. He does so on his profile, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook too.
 * Fixed. Thanks for checking JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed this, but the AllGame citation had the wrong Archive Date.
 * Thanks. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain. I hope I'm not nitpicking either. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, ! Once again I've addressed everything. It's confusing because the scans either gives out the wrong number - it's either one ahead or one behind. But I've got it all sorted now. Thanks for checking. I owe you one. Please let me know if there's anything else. JAG  UAR   22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I don't nominate stuff often, so you should probably pay it forward. Looked over two files as well: File:Burning Rangers cover.jpg - too large for a WP:NFCC 3b. Scale it down to around 500-550 on the longer dimension. And the one of Yuji Naka might do with a crop of just him from the chest up, is how I'd do it at least. That leaves off his bandage, some other person's foot, and someone's bag. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks again. I've shrunk File:Burning Rangers cover.jpg by 80% (hope that looks OK). Regarding cropping the photo of Naka; Indopug actually uploaded a cropped version but I admit that I removed it as I wasn't sure if it obstructed the photo too much. I agree that the current image of him does look awkward, so I've cropped it again and added it to the article. JAG  UAR   12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. There is still a reference to Weigand p. 109 when that page is an ad. I think it should be p. 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oops, fixed. Thanks. The issue was actually 109, to make it even more confusing. JAG  UAR   21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oops, fixed. Thanks. The issue was actually 109, to make it even more confusing. JAG  UAR   21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I realise this nomination seems a bit short (in comparison to most others, anyway), but I think I've addressed all comments reviews regarding prose, sources, and images. Odie's review consisted of both a source and image check, so I'd just like to make sure if there's anything else I need? JAG UAR   15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to contributors that I did not do any fact-checking of the article. Someone should perhaps do so. And I have never done a source review before, so it might be worth having someone give it a once over. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is ready to be considered for promotion yet, and will need additional review/feedback. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the replies. I agree – just wanted to make sure that it wasn't over yet. I'll request for a source spotcheck. JAG  UAR   22:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the review, I really appreciate it. Do you have access to the GamesTM feature? I'd be eager to get hold of it as I would like to expand the article's coverage as much as possible. I'll also check through WP:VG/RL and will ask for access to any other scans I might have missed. Anyway, I should have everything addressed, except the inclusion of GameRankings. I thought it was a mandatory thing to mention the game's aggregate score, regardless of its content value. Thanks again! JAG UAR   18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose 
 * You don't seem to have visited WP:VG/RL and so your coverage may not be comprehensive. I have a 5 page Burning Rangers article/interview with Takao Miyoshi from GamesTM which is not referenced in the article.
 * If you have access to it please may I have it? I would like to expand expand this as much as possible. I'll skim through WP:VG/GL to see if there are any offline sources I have missed. JAG  UAR   17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:VG/RL, not GL. In addition to the GamesTM feature, GameFan has a preview, Next Generation Magazine has a preview, and Edge has a review (rated it 8/10). There are WPVG users listed in the ref library as having copies of them, or you could ask on WPVG. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can't find access to the Edge review (I did see the score though). The 'GL' was a typo. I've asked for Saturn scans before, so I'll see what people have in store. I'll start looking at the Next Generation preview now. JAG  UAR   18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the Next Generation preview. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "The game's four stages take place in varying locations from factories, flats, underwater habitats, and space stations in zero gravity." - Do they take place in varying locations such as these, or these exact four locations?
 * Just the four specific locations. Rephrased to make it sound clearer. JAG  UAR   17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "can be repeated at any time by pressing the "Z" button on the Saturn controller" - what about the jump button? The extinguisher button? Why is this relevant?
 * I see your point. Removed the "by pressing the "Z" button..." line. JAG  UAR   17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "the size of what Naka considered a regular project" - There's very little context to what a "regular project" means. Regular for Sonic Team, or Sega, or game development as a whole?  Nowadays, teams regularly have 100s of people, so maybe you've included that phrase to give an indication of typical dev team sizes in the late 90s, if that is the case, make it explicit.
 * The source states "the Burning Rangers team is the size of a regular project-there are bigger teams within Sega", so I think he was alluding to Sega itself rather than Sonic Team. The interview was conducted in 1998, so I don't see any reason to compare it to development team sizes today. I've rephrased this to "regular project for Sega", if that's OK. JAG  UAR   17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Ohshima claimed that during development of Nights... ...all Sonic Team games" is fluff that can be cut.
 * Cut, and merged the remainder with the last paragraph. JAG  UAR   18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The release subsection is pointless, and the small paragraph should just be incorporated in the design subsection above.
 * Done. JAG  UAR   17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gamerankings adds no value. You already have more scores, and more diverse sources than Gamerankings.
 * I thought including review aggregators was a mandatory thing with VG articles? JAG  UAR   17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "he expressed concern with occasional clipping and glitching" and "criticised the occasional clipping" - clipping happens all the time so that areas not visible are not rendered. What you may mean is collision detection, which is sometimes used interchangeably with the term clipping in the VG space - Clipping_(computer_graphics).  You should make this clear.
 * Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. The reviewers explicitly say "clipping", but they more than likely mean poor collision detection, so I've replaced all instances of "clipping" with that. Hope I'm right in linking this to Collision_detection. JAG  UAR   18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider the split in the reception. You spend half of it talking about the graphics, a third on the sound, and the tiny remainder on the gameplay.  This feels wrong.  Surprised that none of the reviewers mentioned how short the game was.
 * I usually organise reception sections by principle (eg. critics enjoyed a game's visuals, critics were disappointed with sound) rather than by author, since see this form as easier to read. The third paragraph was initially about the control scheme, but I suppose it makes sense to expand it to cover the whole of the gameplay. JAG  UAR   18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * hahnch e n 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Email me for the article. - hahnch e n 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the GamesTM article. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, I've used the scan to expand and flesh out the development and gameplay sections. Is there anything else you think is incomplete? JAG  UAR   17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I've addressed all of the concerns so far and have requested a scan of GameFan to implement in this article. JAG  UAR   21:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead states that it was one of the last five Sega Saturn games to be released in North America, but the body states that it was one of the five final Sega Saturn games to be released in just America, and the source states that it was one of the five final such games to be released in America. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks. It was originally "North America" in both instances, but another editor changed it to simply "America" in the body. I suppose it's more accurate that way but I prefer using the former as it refers to the region, and not the more ambiguous "America". Anyway, fixed. Did you find anything else? I'll leave some comments on one of your peer reviews soon. JAG  UAR   21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I am not getting your pings. Anyway, "3125 different routes" would be better off being "3125 unique routes. I have just noticed that this article is written in British English (hence the dates), so I guess that I am going to have to scan the article for any Americanisms. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that the information on the release dates in the lead (other than in the infobox) is a little tedious for the average reader to read? I believe that it should just be "It was first released in Japan, in North America, and then in Europe in 1998.". Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this source may prove to be useful for the last-given source in the Bibliography section. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And finally, I wonder whether the other non-URL-linked sources in the section can be linked to the corresponding magazine issues. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've changed it to "3125 unique routes", sounds better that way. I think that keeping the release dates in the lead gives the reader more information and also balances out the paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. If I condense the dates then I'll have trouble keeping the three paragraphs an equal length and would be forced to merge it into two paragraphs, which would interfere with organisation, if that makes sense. Thanks for the link to the manual, I've made use of it in the gameplay section. It seems that the North American manual is a little different, so I've adjusted the page numbers accordingly. Finally, sources with missing URLs in them are left that way because the only accessible links are copyvios. I'll link them here if you want to check them: Edge interview, GameFan 1 and GameFan 2. Thanks again! JAG  UAR   11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I trust these sources as truthful, although I would like it if someone were to check the quotes to see whether they are accurate. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the very last sentence in the Design section, which said that many Saturn magazines were discontinued and that the console lot third-party support, as it seemed irrelevant to the article's subject. Should it be put back up there? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! You're right about that. I saw it in the source and wanted to emphasise that all Saturn support had diminished by the time this game was released, but it doesn't seem too relevant, so it was best to remove it. JAG  UAR   20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

just making sure if there's anything else needed here? I got more input since the last time, and Gamingforfun365 done an additional source spotcheck. JAG UAR   23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what I said about my supporting the FAC, but my complaint is that I had to use alternative text for the in-game screenshot to find out what on Sonic Earth is going on. I could not tell that the playable character was fighting a fire. Either the caption can tell us that the player-character is fighting a fire, or a less ambiguous screenshot can be used. Still in favor of support, though. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was very clear that the player-character was standing in front of a giant fireball in that screenshot. I've rephrased the caption slightly as I couldn't find another decent screenshot anywhere. JAG  UAR   18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: And finally, do note that I had extremely hardly done any fact-checking, so someone else may want to do it. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What? That's what I asked you to do and you said you did it? JAG  UAR   10:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; I'm sure the FAC coordinators will check the prior reviews and see if they've been thorough enough. I believe Odie and Tintor did source review spotchecks and would have said anything had something been amiss. It's just that I got confused because I asked you at WT:VG if you'd be willing to go through the sources and fact check this, in other words I said to you The last thing it needs is a fact checking checking review (going through all of the article's sources and making sure it accurately backs up what's mentioned in the article). It's just a bit confusing that I asked you to do that and now you say you "extremely hardly done any fact-checking". I'm just a bit confused. But really, don't worry about it. JAG  UAR   11:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have forgotten that I have also read that part and think that if I did not forget, I did not take it quite seriously. Apologies. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 00:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808
Support: I made a couple of minor copy-edits. Aside from that, I see no issues that would keep this article from being promoted. If you have some time, I have God of War: Ascension up for FAC. -- JDC808  ♫  00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Will do. JAG  UAR   13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I haven't done a full prose review yet, but reading through the reception section I think it suffers from the "A said B" problem. You might find this essay useful (it's easier to link to that than repeat those suggestions here). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Some notes as I go through the article; I'm copyediting as I go, so please revert anything I make a mess of.
 * In the lead, how about making it "... is a 3D action video game developed ..." and then starting the second paragraph "Most of the tasks the players complete are centred around ..."?
 * I'm not too sure about this. I think the reader would understand that most games of this period were in 3D, and adding in the '3D action game' part in the lead's first sentence would render the gameplay paragraph's opening sentence "The game is presented in 3D and has players completing various tasks" useless, unless you felt that sentence could be removed? JAG  UAR   18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After second thoughts, I've went with your suggestion. I think I was initially worried that cutting a sentence might make the second paragraph appear too short, but it should be fine! JAG  UAR   18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck; one of things I was trying to get away from was "has players completing various tasks", which is a bit vague; I just moved "3D" up in order to more easily rephrase that sentence. If you think "3D" doesn't need to be there, we could remove it, but I certainly didn't know that it was 3D till I read that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd change the em dash in the third paragraph to a comma; dashes are breaks in thought, which is not what's going on here.
 * Done. JAG  UAR   13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is "teleportation" really the right target for the link from "transport"? Seems a bit of an Easter egg.
 * All of the sources attribute it to "transporting" rather than "teleporting", however, they do actually teleport in-game (literally 'beamed up', so to speak), so I used the word that is used prominently in the sources and linked it to the correct article, if that makes sense? JAG  UAR   13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. I think it might actually be best just to unlink it, though you might want to get other opinions on this.  (I certainly wouldn't oppose over this.)  A reader who is familiar with this sort of thing in videogames doesn't need the link; a reader who is unfamiliar might think that the method of transportation is somehow important, when it's really just a standard piece of game structure.  Up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It might seem ambiguous to leave it that way, as I'm some people may not know that "transporting" is the same as "teleporting". Since it is an important mechanic for the game, I've unlinked "teleporting" and left it be. If anybody objects, I'd be open to renaming all uses of "transport" for clarity. JAG  UAR   18:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Sonic Team had a staff of around 50 people, who had made the Burning Rangers team the size of what Naka considered a regular project for Sega": not sure what this means. There were 31 people on the Burning Rangers team.  How is this connected to the 50 total staff at Sonic Team?  And did Naka consider a regular Sega project to require 31 or 50 people?
 * Naka considered the size of the team who worked on Burning Rangers to be that of a "regular project" for Sega. The source states "the Burning Rangers team is the size of a regular project-there are bigger teams within Sega", so he thought it was the size of the team made it average, and he knew that there were other teams within Sega which were bigger than Sonic Team. I reckon he thought that 31 people were a regular project, so I've rephrased it slightly and added although he acknowledged that there were larger development studios. Hope this is OK. JAG  UAR   13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting the source; that makes it clearer. I guess I'm not clear whether the reader needs to know all the information you're providing here.  The team size and team make-up is fine; the size of Sonic Team is fine.  If we think Naka is a reliable source for the size of a Sega team, we could do this: "The development team of 31 people (out of Sonic Team's staff of about 50) consisted of three game planners, six programmers, twenty designers, and two sound producers – almost all of whom had worked on Nights into Dreams...."  If you feel it's worth mentioning that 31 is about the size of most Sega projects, I'd add a footnote saying "A team of 31 was about the usual size for a Sega project" and cite that to Naka.  I don't think we need to say there were larger development studios; that's straying quite a bit from the article topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never thought about that before. I do sometimes have a tendency to somewhat stray away from the article's topic without realising it; a couple of weeks ago I was asked to cut half a paragraph from the development section for this reason. I agree, perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned at all in the article's body and would be better off as a footnote, as it was Naka's opinion after all. JAG  UAR   18:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently the footnote says "At the time, Sonic Team had a staff of around 50 people, which had made the Burning Rangers team the size of what Naka considered a "regular project" for Sega, although he acknowledged that there were larger development studios". Much of this is in the body of the article, and I don't think you need to give Naka's name in the footnote (just cite him) or mention the larger teams.  I'd make the footnote text "A team of 31 was about the usual size for a Sega project". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made this change as I'm in the middle of a copyedit pass; let me know if you disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Furthermore, Naka elaborated that the team wanted to make a game specifically with a rescue theme as he thought there were few games based on that concept": I'd shorten this to "The team wanted to make a game specifically with a rescue theme as Naka thought there were few games based on that concept", but can you confirm this corresponds to the source? What seems odd is that it's Naka whose opinion of rescue themes is given, but that it's the team that wants to make the game because of that opinion.  Is that accurate?
 * Thanks! I've changed it to your suggestion. Here is the source, Naka said "We wanted to make a game with a rescue theme – there are very few games based on this concept". I think the 'we' alludes that it was the whole team's decision to make it a rescue-orientated game, and I think the latter half of the sentence is his opinion. I'm not sure how else it could be looked at, but please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it accordingly. JAG  UAR   13:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine; it does match what the source says, so no worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd rephrase at least one of "Takeo Miyoshi reflected...Naka stated" to vary the rhythm. Perhaps make the first one "According to Takeo Miyoshi", and cut "Naka stated" completely.
 * Done all, I've chucked in some synonyms here and there for variety. JAG  UAR   18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "To create an effective in-game universe, the developers took liberties to design...": I don't know what is meant by "effective" and "took liberties" here.
 * I think the word I was looking for was "idealistic" instead of "effective", as the source states the developers wanted to creative an environment where everything is "clean" and "children can play happily" etc. I've removed the "took liberties" and just cut it down to "the developers wanted to design". JAG  UAR   18:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's certainly better, but now I understand what you meant I think we can trim it a bit. The "clean and beautiful" future = the idealistic in-game universe, so I'd just cut the first clause completely: "The developers wanted to design a..."  I don't think we get any new information from "idealistic". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed "To create an idealistic in-game universe". JAG  UAR   20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK; I tweaked the sentence a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 'the "burning" image had a "go for it!" connotation in Japanese': the image, or the word? Saying "connotation" makes it sound like we're talking about the title of the game, so "image" seems wrong.
 * The "burning image" was mentioned directly in the source, so I changed it to "burning conception". I hope that matches "connotation"? I'm not really sure how to alter this. JAG  UAR   22:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be something like the English phrase "a burning desire" or "burning issues", which connote urgency; that's why I thought it might be the word "burning" rather than the image of something burning. It sounds like Naka was definitely talking about the image, not the word, though.  What's the wording in the original source?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says: "I don't know about Western audiences, but to us Japanese, that "burning" meaning has a great "Go for it!" image. It seemed to fit the disaster-rescue nature of the game perfectly". I'm really not sure if he was thinking of "burning" as an image, or a word, which is why I'm unsure on how to rephrase it. I'm really not sure if it's the other way around! Should I rephrase it to something like Naka thought the idea of something burning connoted a "go for it!" feeling in Japanese? JAG  UAR   20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this some more I've edited it to read 'Naka felt that "burning" had a "go for it!" connotation in Japanese'. I don't think we need "conception" or "idea"; just putting "burning" in quotes is enough to make it clear to the reader we're referring to the idea. Does that work for you? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 'The team emphasised that a "ranger" could match itself into a Power Rangers-like image, and after confirming the name with some foreigners, the final name became Burning Rangers': several things here. I don't think "emphasised" is the right word; I'm not sure what is meant, but "emphasised" implies that the statement is clearly true and agreed-on, and the team is stressing the point.  That's not what appears to be intended.  What does "match itself into" mean?  I think you mean that the team decided that "ranger" also brought to mind "Power Rangers", and those connotations were felt to be suitable for the game.  Finally, I don't think you mean "confirming with some foreigners"; surely you mean they tried the name out with some native English-speakers?
 * I see what you mean here. Perhaps "emphasised" was the wrong word to use here, so I changed it to simply "thought" and rephrased the latter half of the sentence to also brought to mind the Power Rangers franchise. I went with "some foreigners" because it was mentioned directly in the source, but I agree that "native English speakers" sounds more accurate here. JAG  UAR   22:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have "confirming the name" closely followed by "the final name"; it would be nice to avoid using "name" twice in close succession. Also I'd prefer to rephrase "confirming"; the English speakers presumably didn't confirm the name -- they confirmed that it had the associations that Naka wanted.  How about "...and after confirming with native-English speakers that this was the case, the final name..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I went with that! JAG  UAR   20:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to stop reviewing at this point as I see quite a few prose issues; I've copyedited some but enough remain to make me lean oppose on prose grounds. I glanced down the design section and see a couple more points; the reception section I commented on above. I have the article watchlisted and will come back to review again once the points above are dealt with, but please copyedit the design section too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and helpful copyedits. I'll get to addressing your concerns shortly. JAG  UAR   13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review so far! I've made some copyedits to the reception section, with your helpful essay at hand. If there's anything you feel like I've missed please do let me know. JAG  UAR   19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll read through again today or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes from this pass:
 * "Other key members of the development team consisted of Naoto Ohshima and Takao Miyoshi, director and designer, respectively": This strikes me as a bit wordy -- it's fairly obvious that the director and designer would be key members. One solution would be to simplify the sentence to something like "Naoto Ohshima was the director, and Takao Miyoshi was the designer", but that's a bit dull.  I assume Miyoshi is actually something like "lead designer", since the previous sentence says there were twenty designers on the team; am I right?  If so, how about merging this information with the previous sentence: "Naka's development team of 31 people (out of Sonic Team's staff of about 50) was led by Naoto Ohshima, the director, and Takao Miyoshi, the lead designer; the team consisted of three game planners, six programmers, twenty designers, and two sound producers, almost all of whom had worked on Nights into Dreams...."?  Though how do we reconcile the 31-person breakdown with Ohshima and Miyoshi -- is Ohshima included in that list of game planners/programmers/designers/sound producers?
 * I've just checked the manual, and Miyoshi is indeed listed as the game's lead designer. Ohshima was the game's director, as well as one of the graphic artists and the sole character designer, so really he took three roles! How about Naka's development team of 31 people (out of Sonic Team's staff of about 50) was led by Naoto Ohshima, the director, and Takao Miyoshi, the lead designer. The rest of the team consisted of three game planners, six programmers, twenty designers, and two sound producers, almost all of whom had worked on Nights into Dreams....? I think this way it separates Naka, Ohshima, and Miyoshi's prominence. But since they were both designers, would it be fair to subtract two from twenty and write it as The rest of the team consisted of three game planners, six programmers, eighteen designers? Or would that crossing a line as the number of designers wouldn't match the source? JAG  UAR   22:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm halfway through the copyedit and have been looking more specifically at the sources, and I'm a bit concerned that you're not sticking very closely to just what the sources say. I can forgive you for the "English-speakers" one that I just fixed, because that was my suggestion, but I was quite wrong to suggest it -- the source makes it clear Naka is talking about multiple languages.  I just found another one: the article has "During the early stages of development, some members of Sonic Team visited Hong Kong shortly before the transfer of British sovereignty, hoping to find inspiration for designing the game's stages".  The source says "Some of the Sonic Team members went to Hong Kong for some enjoyment and while there they thought that they might find some interesting things.  This was right during the starting phase of development.  We wanted to go over before Hong Kong reverted back to China."  The wording in the article implies they went specifically in order to get inspiration.  Before I copyedited it, it read "in hopes that they would find inspiration", which is quite unambiguous and really isn't supported by the source.  Since Naka doesn't say what, if anything, they learned from the trip, I'd suggest just cutting the whole sentence, but if you keep it it needs to say only what the source says.  Another example: I changed " Naka reflected that if they had made the game seem "too real" then there would have been an exaggerated gap between reality and fiction" to "Naka reflected that if they had made any of game elements highly realistic, the contrast between those elements and the clearly fictional elements would have been exaggerated"; I looked at the source because I couldn't understand the sentence as it stood, and it's clear that Naka is talking about making individual elements realistic, not about making the game "too real".
 * The sentence originally read "in hopes that they would see "interesting things" to gain ideas for designing the game's stages", but I changed it after a recommendation (I was never fond of it either way). It originally did follow the source a bit better than it does now, but I have to be careful about relying on quotes too much. I would prefer to keep the Hong Kong sentence, as the source asserts they knew they might find interesting things, despite it not specifically stating that they went to Hong Kong for development purposes. Would in hopes of finding things of interest that would help them in designing the game's stages sound OK? I think that reflects the source better. Thank you for your other copyedits! JAG  UAR   22:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's another problem sentence.
 * Article: Naka reflected that Sonic Team had only started to program for the Sega Saturn when they developed Nights into Dreams..., and proclaimed that the engine they produced in Burning Rangers was considerably faster and featured graphical enhancements.
 * Source: When we created NiGHTS we had only just started to program for the Sega Saturn. If you take another look at every part of the engine, you'll see that the speed has been increased considerably.  We also managed to accurately portray the fires as well.  We've been able to increase the number of things that are now possible over what was possible in NiGHTS.
 * Several issues here. I don't think you need to attribute all this to Naka inline; he's a reliable source for this sort of thing, and cutting the attribution makes it less wordy.  I think the first part is too closely paraphrased: "had only just started to program for the Sega Saturn" -> "had only started to program for the Sega Saturn".  And "featured graphical enhancements" is a bit vague and doesn't tell the reader much, though I admitNaka's pretty vague here too, so there's not much to be done about it.  I'd suggest:
 * When Sonic Team developed Nights into Dreams..., they were new to programming for the Sega Saturn, and when the engine was re-used for Burning Rangers they were able to make it much faster and more capable."
 * Thanks, I've changed it to your suggestion with a little alteration. I've also done a bit of copyediting and paraphrasing in the design section. JAG  UAR   12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose . I've been pondering this article over the last day, and I think there are still too many problems with the prose. Note to the coordinators: I am aware that FAs get promoted with reception sections structured as this one is -- see Lightning_(Final_Fantasy) for an example -- but I don't think this is featured quality; I think paragraphs that are lists of "A said B" are almost never necessary. The reception section should be written so that it tells the reader what the reception was, using quotes to supply background colour and details, and only attributing the source where it's necessary to do so. I could understand someone arguing that this is not explicitly a WP:FACR-based argument; to me it's a 1a oppose, but others might disagree. I've no objection to this oppose being disregarded if it's thought to go beyond what 1a requires. A separate point: I found several cases where the sources weren't precisely in sync with the article text. It seems clear there was no misrepresentation going on, just some vagueness in the writing, but I would recommend some additional spotchecking before promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks again for your comments. I don't want to sound dense, but I've read your essay on how to write reception sections and I don't understand. I organise them by principle; for example critics enjoyed a game's music, critics were unimpressed with visuals, rather than by author, since I see this form as easier to read. I don't know the "A said B" problem is, do you think it should be better paraphrased or organised differently? Other than being busy over the last few days, this is why I seemed to have held back on copyediting as I don't know what other alternative I can use other than "A said B". Like for example should I have merged a couple of sentences where more than one reviewer agreed on the same thing? All in all though, thank you for your help here. JAG  UAR   16:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You do organize the material by topic, I agree. It's the presentation of the material that I think is weak: listing each relevant comment in turn, with each critic attributed in turn, is what I'm arguing is bad writing.  You've avoided the worst form of A said B, because you've made a reasonable attempt to paraphrase.  However, your first reception paragraph has eight consecutive sentences that start with the name of the critic whose opinion is given in the rest of the sentence.  That makes the paragraph feel like a list in paragraph form.  It should read like prose.
 * Take a look at Rare Replay, which I think does a pretty good job of the reception section. The paragraph starting "Reviewers felt" has the following structure, indented to clarify:
 * Summary sentence giving the paragraph topic -- the extras (and note the comment tags in the wikitext identifying this)
 * Sub-summary of one set of negative opinions
 * Two sentences describing one negative reaction
 * Two sentences describing a related negative reaction
 * New sub-summary re the historical content
 * Two views described
 * Another reviewers opinion
 * Two sentences about another reviewer
 * Final sentence giving a couple of related points not covered above
 * Now look at a paragraph from Burning Rangers (the one starting "The graphics were"):
 * Summary sentence giving the paragraph topic -- the graphics
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * One reviewer's opinion
 * Does this make clearer what I'm trying to say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I get it now. So the reception section should be a cohesive summary of the reviewed aspects of the game, rather than an arbitrary list of reviewers themselves. I have an image of what to do now. I'll get to work on it. JAG  UAR   19:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! That's exactly it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Haven't had a chance to read the whole thing but wanted to leave a few thoughts. (1) I generally agree with Mike that FA "brilliant" prose should be more synthetic than the bar of "A said B, C said D". I don't view it as a requirement per se, especially given how few FAs (including some of my own) actually do it, but as FAC is the best of Wikipedia in its most aspirational sense, I know Jag can combine refs and vary the sentence structure to make the section shine. Only major comment I'd add here is to be precise so as to not leave readers asking "who?" The game's audio and sound effects received praise, with its main soundtrack earning acclaim. If the effect is "reviewers liked it", the refs can be combined and this can be simply said in the first paragraph, but if the effect is that the soundtrack was a special element, use the sources to say what that exactly is. Perhaps reviewers highlighted the soundtrack among the game's best elements. X magazine's reviewer said it was his favorite on the console. Etc. (What is "acclaim"? If it's an award or more likely just kudos from a specific author, say so. If that makes it less important, don't include it at all. Acclaim from whom?) Also agreed that you can take more liberties in killing the quotation marks. Only really need that when it's important to preserve the words as their own, and that should be infrequent given that the emphasis should be on paraphrasing. More in passing: (2) footnote the Japanese name unless it's crucial to understanding the topic, (3) GameRankings isn't doing much for the Reception section—I'd kill it. Five reviews isn't much of a metascore, and only four are reliable. It also skews downwards as the average of the scores listed is something like five points lower. Also GR doesn't give a qualitative comparison so "75%" won't mean much to the reader apropos of nothing. (4) Why isn't the bibliography in alphabetical order? (5) sfn supports italics, so use GamesTM staff, etc. (6) This is a little more preference, but I'd drop the publisher for websites when work is sufficiently clear. It's not like knowing that CBS owns GameRankings adds anything but clutter (and same for the other mags—the publisher param is best for books, when they help establish edition). I'd also recommend making the ref sections into Notes and References, because technically the short footnotes are notes on where to read more about the topic. The bibliography is a bibliography so Notes and Bibliography sections would work too, just non-standard. (7) Avoid "comma gerund" constructions, which tend to become a literary tick/trap ("soundtrack, stating", despite stating, despite showing, despite noting—vary these—"configuration, labelling", " tracks, affirming", and so on). Ping me if you need another set of eyes later czar  11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it! I have never tried anything like this before, so reworking the reception section took some time—think I've done it now. I hope I've got rid of the "A said B" problem as I've attempted to paraphrase more and reshuffle the paragraphs into cohesive prose rather than keeping it as an arbitrary list in prose. I looked at Sabre Wulf to get an idea of what to do. I went ahead with your recommendations and culled GameRankings, made the ref sections into Notes and References, italicised publications in sfn templates, alphabetised bibliography, and took care to avoid comma gerund constructions (though I kept one at the end of the design section as it's before a direct quote). I took liberties to expand upon what critics thought of a particular element and left the other points in a sub-summary sentence. it may have taken a little longer than expected, but I've taken a shot at redesigning the reception section. Do you think it's still a bit too 'listy' in the latter half of the second paragraph? I took care to avoid it, but I can't figure out a way to get around it as I think the critics are elaborating on judging certain aspects of the game (for example you could look at them as three sentences describing their opinions). Thanks again for your helpful and in-depth look at this article!  JAG  UAR   15:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If reviewers don't go further than vaguely claiming graphical issues, use the same weight. Say that reviewers mentioned minor graphical issues and slap a bunch of refs on it rather than breaking it out into separate sentences. (Try to group concerns rather than repeating claims that may overlap.) czar  18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to Lee Nutter of the British Sega Saturn Magazine enjoyed the detailed characters and described the lighting effects as excellent, although he, along with IGN's Levi Buchanan, noticed that the visuals had minor problems. I hope that sounds OK, though I'm not too keen on merging anything further... JAG  UAR   18:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see another editor has gone through and copyedited, and has added a couple of tags that need resolution; can you take care of those? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't understand why a clarification tag was placed in the development section: article says "Ohshima said that many of the things a firefighter does were "the very essence of a Sonic Team game"", source says Rescuing people, and many of the other things a firefighter does, are in fact the very essence of a Sonic Team game. I've added "along with rescuing people" to try and make it clearer, but I thought it followed the source quite well there. JAG  UAR   12:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the reception section is much improved. I did a bit of copyediting; please check that the right refs are still with the text I moved. One more point: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Weigand criticised the lack of a custom configuration and described the controls as "squirrelly", even with the analogue controller, though a reviewer from the Japanese Sega Saturn Magazine felt the game was more comfortable with an analogue pad as opposed to the default Saturn controller. Buchanan cited the use of the Saturn 3D controller as intuitive, and Williamson felt the control scheme was "great", especially with an analogue pad." -- seems like this is two against the 3D controller, and two for it -- could this be restructured around that in order to improve the flow?
 * Done, although was it not three in favour of the 3D controller and only one against it? I got rid of "Buchanan cited the use of the Saturn 3D controller as intuitive" as it broke the flow. Thanks again. JAG  UAR   16:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for sticking with me through this review; I think we're there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wanted to thank you so much for your patience with reviewing this, and for teaching me the better ways of writing reception sections! From now on I'll have to change my strategy for writing them. JAG  UAR   19:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.