Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic Adventure/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) 07:46, 21 April 2018.

Sonic Adventure

 * Nominator(s): JOE BRO  64  20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In 1996, audiences were taught that a Mario could wall-jump. Now, it was time for them to see what a Sonic could do. Sonic Adventure, released for the Dreamcast in December 1998, is one of the most significant video games of all time for several reasons. For one thing, it was the first 3D Sonic game (there was an attempt that ended in disaster a few years before); therefore, expectations were high. It is also one of the first sixth generation video games and showed players the potential of a 128-bit system.

I've been nurturing this article for a few months now, when I managed to restore its good article status over three years after it was delisted. Ever since then, I've greatly expanded almost every section of this article, making it the most complete resource about the game on the Internet. I'd also like to thank, , and for providing me print resources that I wouldn't have had access to. Now, I think this article is of (or close to) featured quality. I'd like to have it up to standards by December for its 20th anniversary. Thanks! JOE BRO  64  20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments by Red Phoenix  talk
 * I'll start with images and sources, because that's what I do best. I'm not the greatest prose reviewer, but I'll try to look at some prose a little later.

Will filter sources a little later. Red Phoenix talk  23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Sonic Adventure.PNG - looks to be appropriately licensed and used.
 * File:Sonic Adventure Dreamcast.png - Just nitpicking here: no such free equivalent exists because the game itself is a copyrighted work and therefore no free equivalent can exist.
 * Done.
 * File:Sonic design for Sonic Adventure.png - Looks pretty good, but also no free equivalent can exist because the character is a copyrighted character. I do think this would meet the qualifications to justify fair use in this article.
 * Done.
 * File:Sonic Adventure compared.png - Same as above.
 * Done.
 * Sources - spotchecks not done.

Sources all look reliable based on my knowledge of WP:VG/RS, so let's look at what's above and we should be good on sourcing. Red Phoenix talk  00:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Missing dates on some sources. Source 8, for instance, is dated June 20, 2003 on the article, and it's far from the only one missing a date.  It's preferable to have the actual article date whenever you can, even if you have an archivedate and retrieved date; it can provide relevance to how recent the reviews or information was in relation to the game's release.
 * I've gone and done all of this. Damn, I love the Visual Editor. Some, like certain 1UP and AllGame didn't have dates, so I left them out.
 * Source 10 has the publisher and date in the link, but not cited as the magazine or the date itself. Check the formatting here.
 * Fixed.
 * What kind of source is #13? It's hard to tell, or where I can find it to review.
 * It's citing a video. The source is a video interview Sega released in 2003 to promote the GameCube/PC re-release. The problem is... it was added to the article a long time ago, and the original video link has been dead for years now. You can find a re-uploaded version here.
 * List publishers whenever you can. Retro Gamer, for instance, is Imagine Publishing (except for a few of the earliest and latest issues).  Having publishers listed helps readers to establish the reliability of the sources.
 * All refs have publishers now.
 * Keep your sources consistent as well. IGN is linked several times at random, and not linked elsewhere.  It is also italicized in various places as well; it should always be as the website, then either IGN Entertainment or Ziff Davis as the publisher.  Take a scan over and look for consistency in your sourcing.
 * Consistent now—all have links.
 * Is #78 necessary? "Sonic Team (November 14, 2006). Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega. Level/area: Wave Ocean."  What specifically is this reference to the video game itself citing?  If the other source says Wave Ocean is based on Emerald Coast, that's all you need.
 * The source doesn't explicitly call it "Wave Ocean", so that's why I added it. I'll remove it though—I'm now realizing it's not necessary
 * Same for #84 and #85.
 * The first one is actually necessary. I couldn't find any secondary sources that provided the detail that Chaos is in Sonic Battle, so I just cited the game itself. I have found a Nintendo Life source that mentions the Chaos recreation, so I've added that.
 * I'll see if I can find a replacement for 84. I won't fail it if I can't, but I think we can do better on the source.  I have some ideas on where to look.
 * I'm unfamiliar with #91; what makes this YouTube video a reliable source?
 * It's an interview with Sega associate brand manager Ken Balough from 2012, so it's acceptable as a primary source. The quote that supports what he's saying is "I know Iizuka-san has officially retired Big the Cat".
 * I'll finish with fixing up the sources tomorrow. I've responded to a few of your points above. JOE BRO  64  01:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've resolved all issues with referencing. Responded above. JOE BRO  64  21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking good so far, Joebro. I'm going through and filtering through sources again and throwing in a few publishers and fixes myself.  As I do, I'm coming across a couple more questions I have.
 * Source 29 is to a strategy guide, and the link is just a link to where to purchase it via Amazon. If it's not a link to the text itself, it should just be delinked because it only serves as advertisement.  Also, I see that source is used to cite a technological limitation of the Dreamcast?  I would be curious to see the actual source or what's being cited there specifically; it's a bit unusual for a game guide to go into technologic speculation and surely they're getting their information on that from a better source, or they're just making an assumption, which can be dangerous.
 * Removed the Amazon link. The strategy guide actually has an interview with Takashi Iizuka, which is where that information is coming from.
 * Something interesting about source 30 you may want to consider: its original form was used before in the Knuckles Chaotix article. This makes some sense, since EGM was for a time owned by Ziff Davis, who also purchased 1UP and owned it for a while, so 1UP shares some of that material.  It's not a huge, huge deal, but I would consider going with the primary source since it was EGM who conducted the interview.  Not a dealbreaker if you leave it be, though.
 * I've replaced it, per your suggestion.
 * Source 36: Anywhere we can access this interview? Was it published somewhere?
 * Crap. It was here, but the video looks like it was deleted. I've dropped it entirely.
 * Source 69: Is this a book? If so, can we find an ISBN number?
 * Done. I've also linked to the book, since it has its own article.
 * I did some work to help add a few more publishers too. If we can address these final few points, I would be glad to support this article on images and sources.   Red Phoenix  talk  15:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing! I've hopefully addressed your comments; responded above. JOE BRO  64  16:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done. At this time, I believe that the article's images and sources meet the FA criteria, and I am happy to support this article on images and sources. Well done! Red Phoenix talk  16:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. I remember playing this game when I was younger. I only had a few brief comments. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate help with my current FAC (Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if you have the time and energy. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments from Aoba47
 * Since you reference Tails by his full name (i.e. Miles “Tails” Prower) at his first mention in the body article, do you think that you should do the same for the first mention of the character in the lead for consistency?
 * You're right. I've done this.
 * For the final sentence of the first paragraph of the “Gameplay” section, I am not sure if the use of the semicolons are grammatically correct (i.e. the use of semicolons in a list). The same comment applies for the end of the second paragraph in the same section. It could be correct, but I just wanted to draw attention to this.
 * I've changed them to commas. I looked at other video game FAs and they didn't use semicolons, just commas.
 * Actually, the semicolons are the correct way to go here. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on.  I have changed them back. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For this part (As they explore the hub, players find entrances to), I am uncertain about the use of the word “players”. To the best of my knowledge, this is a single-player game so I think it would be more appropriate to say “the player”. The “they” pronoun would still work with the singular as it would be gender neutral. Is the reference to “players” appropriate for this section? It is a nitpicky comment, but just wanted to raise this to your attention.
 * I've changed it to "the player".
 * I have a clarification question about this part (Action Stages; some of which have to be opened using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field). The current word, specifically the reference to “using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field”, makes me think there is only one key to unlock all of the entraces. Is this true? If not, then I would substitute “keys” for “a key”.
 * I've used your suggestion.
 * For this part (Chao can be taken with the player), I think you mean “Chaos” plural.
 * Actually, within the Sonic games, "Chao" is one of those words that can be single and plural, like "deer".
 * Makes sense to me. It has been a while since I thought about those little guys so I forgot about that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you thik you should be put the GBA acronym after the first mention of Game Boy Advance?
 * Yeah, I've done this.
 * For References 30, 31, and 32, the titles should not be in all-caps.
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you for commenting! I've responded above. I'll take a look at your FAC later. JOE BRO  64  21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The content of the article is fantastic. The prose is a little weak in places. The series of edits I have made myself while conducting this review and the below observations will help in that department, but even with these corrections, I am not sure the writing is quite up to FA quality yet. We'll see what we can do though!
 * Comments from Indrian


 * The History of Sonic the Hedgehog is a book, so every time it is sourced the citation should include a page number.
 * Done.
 * All the FA articles I can recall reading include the page numbers in the footnotes, so each page is a new citation. It may be your way is also correct, I just don't know the policy on that. Indrian (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't actually matter, as far as I know; both ways are acceptable. I've written some articles include the page numbers in footnotes, but that's because the book citation isn't inline (it's included at the end of the article sometimes, but not here). I recently helped get Knuckles' Chaotix to FA status, and all the book citations were inline. JOE BRO  64  16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me! Indrian (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "the player is placed in an Adventure Field—open-ended hub worlds that they can freely explore" - Singular versus plural agreement. The player is either "placed in one of several Adventure Fields" or an Adventure Field is "an open-ended hub world that they can freely explore."  Whichever you prefer is fine.
 * I used the plural.
 * I do not believe the term "player character" is a hyphenate.
 * You're right. I've removed it.
 * "Through exploration, the player finds entrances to normal levels called Action Stages" - What exactly makes a level "normal"? Perhaps the word can be omitted?
 * Yeah, I've omitted "normal".
 * "Chao can be taken with the player by downloading the minigame Chao Adventure" - Poorly worded. Chao can also be taken with the player if they lug a Dreamcast to someone else's house.  We need a better way to convey the portability aspect of the creatures.
 * Reworded. I've made it clear the VMU is a handheld and moved the information about the GBA connectivity in SADX to the release section.
 * "Players can also raise the status of their Chao's status"
 * Man, as much as I love the GOCE, sometimes weird things happen when they edit articles! Fixed.
 * "The story ends on a cliffhanger, with Sonic chasing Robotnik." - Chasing him where?
 * Uh, the game kinda just ends with Sonic chasing him. I've reworded it to say "chases him to places unknown".
 * There is an organizational problem in the beginning of the development section. In the prelude portion, the article makes reference to Naka being excited by the possibility of the Dreamcast allowing him to make "the best Sonic game ever," which implies that working on Dreamcast was the impetus for starting the game.  However, in the next section, the article reveals development began on Saturn and only switched to Dreamcast a few months later.  The material about Naka being impressed by Dreamcast should appear when the article discusses the shift to Dreamcast development.
 * I've restructured it. I split Naka's learning of the Dreamcast and the beginnings of development (i.e. Saturn development and Dreamcast transition/basics) into its own section, and added some information about how Naka didn't like Sonic X-treme and thought that only Sonic Team should make 3D Sonic games.
 * "as development progressed the team wanted to challenge itself 'with in this undertaking of recreating Sonic, the character, and his world brand new'" - This phrase makes no sense and appears not to track with the included quotation from the source. He is saying that it felt like the power of the hardware was challenging the team to recreate Sonic and his world in a new way.  The current sentence construction does not convey that and is grammatically incorrect.
 * Goshdarnit, I knew there was something wrong with that sentence. Fixed.
 * "The designer submitted several concepts before one was accepted." - This sentence adds little to our understanding of the subject -- I think its understood that most designs go through several iterations -- while harming the flow of the paragraph. I would personally take it out.
 * Cut it entirely.
 * "Sonic was also given new homing and light speed attacks to make the 3D controls feel more comfortable" - How exactly these new moves make the controls more "comfortable" is not clear from the article.
 * I've clarified this and moved it down to the paragraph about the challenges of transitioning the series to 3D.
 * "Iizuka wanted to create a villain who would serve alongside Doctor Robotnik, which would have been impossible to make on older hardware." - I assume this sentence indicates that they wanted to create a villain design that would have been impossible on older hardware, but as written it states that it would have been impossible to have two villains on older hardware.
 * I've cut the part about him serving with Robotnik.
 * "they changed their stance when working on the 2001 sequel, Sonic Adventure 2, only including the elements they deemed necessary" - This fact would make sense in a series article, but not an article specifically discussing the first game. Maybe it could be worked into the Legacy section.
 * You're right—I've cut it entirely. I might try to take the Sonic series article to GA sometime, so I'll keep this fact in mind.
 * "and introducing new elements such as evolution" - Chao evolution is not mentioned in the gameplay section of the article. If its important enough to be discussed in development, then it needs to be explained what evolution is in the context of the game.
 * "Evolution" was supposed to be a paraphrase of "improve its skills". I've mentioned evolution in the gameplay section, and reworded the sentence in development.
 * "The band created the game's main theme" - What band? First time a band is mentioned.
 * Oops. That's a leftover of when someone tried to add that Crush 40 made the music for the game (in retrospective OST releases they are credited, but actually weren't formed until 2000). Fixed.
 * "downloadable content were also added" - What downloadable content? DLC is not mentioned anywhere else that I can see.
 * I've reworded the sentence to give a better explanation of the original's DLC.
 * "This version is based on Sonic Adventure DX and supports high-definition visuals but most additional features were removed and needed to be re-implemented by purchasing them as downloadable content" - What was removed? It need not be a complete list, but as written the article gives the reader no idea what is missing.
 * I was actually able to add all the stuff that was removed because it was only three (big) things: the Game Gear games, missions, and Metal Sonic. The latter two can be reimplemented with the DLC.
 * Many of the reviews are from the time of release, but the article mixes in several that are retrospective in nature. These are very different types of reviews that are evaluating the game on different criteria, as release reviews are based on what has existed to that point and retrospective reviews are also taking into account developments since that time.  They should be clearly separated from each other.
 * Yeah, I did try to separate them, but they kinda got shifted around with later edits. To fix this, I've added each retrospective comment to the end of the paragraph they're in and signified that it was a retrospective analysis.
 * One and three-quarters paragraphs on Big is too much Big. I would attached the first sentence of the stand-alone paragraph ("Big's poor reception and perceived uselessness caused Sonic Team in 2012 to decide not to place him in any more games") to the end of the previous paragraph and delete everything that comes after.  If you want to do it another way that's fine, but we need a smaller Big presence.
 * Done.

That does it for this round. Its a fair number of changes, but they will really help whip the prose into shape. Indrian (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the copyedits and review! I think I've resolved everything from this round; responded above. And I appreciate the comment that the content is fantastic—this is probably my favorite article that I've worked on. JOE BRO  64  21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the changes, they have improved the flow of the article tremendously! I still have a question on page numbers articulated above, but all my other concerns have been addressed.  I do not have time to do another full read through right now, but I will do so soon.  I will note any other concerns at that time.  Indrian (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did one more round of copy editing mostly to improve flow, and I believe the prose has reached a similar standard to the excellent content. I am ready to support promotion.  Well done!
 * Thank you! JOE BRO  64  18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I was hoping that some of the commentators on the WT:FAC thread on source reviews would chip in here, but unfortunately no-one has. This diff from (this is a courtesy ping, not a request for a review!) raises a few issues. The main one is if the Pétronille, Marc; Audureau, William work is sufficiently high quality for FA. My inclination is that it isn't. But there are a few other issues raised there. So I think we need to look at sourcing a little more. Also pinging who did the earlier source review. Sarastro (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A JUVENILE book?!? Not sure what worldcat is smoking, but no it's not.  Pix'n Love is a French specialist press run by Florent Gorges, the world's foremost expert on Nintendo.  The Petronille book is written for an adult enthusiast audience and includes numerous direct quotes from all of Sonic's key creators, three of whom were interviewed specifically for this book.  It is the best general history of Sonic out there.  I understand the need to be careful on sourcing, but this is what happens when a non-expert in a topic takes a hurried look at a source without even bothering to read it. Indrian (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we could avoid alienating reviewers, that might be a good starting point. And I'm afraid we need some way to verify what you are saying. Sarastro (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not my FA candidate nor my source review (nor my GA review for that matter), so I don't have a horse in this fight, but yeah I kinda take offense at people offering critique on a source they have clearly not engaged with, so I will stand by that.  takes issue with the Petronille book because he claims Worldcat labels it a juvenile work.  It is, quite simply, not, which anyone who actually read the source itself would know.  Simple as that.  If you need proof of that beyond the article being promoted to GA status and being given a source review by an editor in accordance with policy, then just take a peak at the preview on Amazon. Its not high scholarship or anything, but there is no reason to doubt its reliability or dismiss it as a children's work.  Indrian (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I should note that some of 's other concerns related to Destructoid, Engadget, and Kotaku are valid and should be examined in further detail, as these are all situational sources that may or may not have been used appropriately in this article. If this needs a further source review as a result, I would be happy to do one, but readily admit I have never done one for an FA before. Indrian (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone and replaced the refs Ealdgyth commented upon with better ones. The only one I didn't change was the ref used to cite "In May 2011, Sega rereleased the soundtrack to celebrate the Sonic franchise's 20th anniversary" because that is clearly supported by the source (which is primary). JOE BRO  64  23:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged: As someone who has spent a long time reviewing WP:VG/RS and has spent considerable time studying video game sources for accuracy in writing a collection of FAs myself, I will stand by my source review. Red Phoenix  <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  00:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I second Red's expertise. I only offered to do a second review if it would set minds here at ease, not because I think he did a poor job. Indrian (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the actual content of 's non-FAC comments that Sarastro1 is merging into this FAC: Engadget does not appear on the article. Kotaku and the editorial side of Destructoid are listed at WP:VG/RS. WorldCat listing the book as a "juvenile work" is clearly an error on their side—a look at its Amazon listing very much indicates otherwise. Ealdgyth and Sarastro1 appear to be mulling over your FAC at his talk page, which I'd suggest you all keep an eye on. Something about an iTunes source. Ealdgyth has even posted a helpful solution. Aside from that, I see no reason to disparage the credibility of the initial source review. Ealdgyth was mistaken. I'll be watching this page to see how this goes. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd actually seen that and implemented Ealdgyth's suggested change. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments: I was under the impression that this had three supports and was looking to promote. However, I see we only have two. Perhaps the simplest way is if I recuse as coordinator and review myself as this seems pretty close to me. I've copy-edited where I can, but as usual please revert anything that I messed up. Once these issues have been discussed/addressed, I'm inclined to support this as it's a very readable piece of work. Sarastro (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do sales figures stop at 2006? Is there anything more recent? If not, can we not just say that two million copies were sold rather than dating it?
 * The Dreamcast was basically dead by 2006, which is when those sales were first reported. Reliable sources haven't provided any higher numbers since, so those are the most recent sales we have. I'd wouldn't mind removing it, but the video game project typically requires articles to state when the sales numbers were reported. (If they don't, editors typically put a "when" tag next to it.) <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the lead, we say that reviewers were "saying it successfully moved the Sonic franchise to 3D" but I can't really find this in the main body. Not from the reviewers anyway.
 * You're right. I've removed it and changed it to something the reviewers do say. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The game is considered one of the most important of the sixth generation of video game consoles and among the best games of the Sonic series.": I think we should be a little more circumspect in the lead; the main body qualifies this by saying who said these things. Maybe tone this down slightly for the lead? In any case, the obvious question here is "considered by who"?
 * I've provided attribution. I'll remove it from the lead entirely if you think that's better, though. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "is often called one of the worst in a video game": Called by who?
 * Added "by writers". <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Sonic Adventure is a 3D platformer action game": Watch out for WP:SEAOFBLUE
 * I've reworked it a little bit. Is what I did better? <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Horrified, Chaos harnesses the power of the Chaos Emeralds to transform into his Perfect form": Why is Perfect capitalised?
 * That's how it is in the game and how sources write it, so I think that's how it should be here. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot really understand the plot section at all. It simply makes no sense to me, but I suspect that isn't the fault of the editors of this article! Perhaps someone who knows what it's all about could take a look and see if it can be tweaked for the poor general reader without bloating out that section? I wouldn't oppose over that section, and it wouldn't prevent my support, but it sticks out as clunky in a generally well-written and accessible article.
 * Well, before I rewrote this article in November, the plot section looked like this. I tried to make it "Sonic Adventure in a nutshell" when I wrote it. I've altered it a bit and added some clarification, so I hope it's a bit better. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "The cancellation is considered an important factor in the Saturn's commercial failure": In this case, it either was or wasn't. Would we be safe to lose "considered"? If not, I'd suggest reworking this to say "Levi Buchanan [note to say who he is] considers..."
 * I've removed "considered". Many more sources (and the Saturn article) verify that X-treme's cancellation is indeed a factor the Saturn's ultimate failure. If you'd like me to I'll add more of those sources. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Development of Sonic Adventure began in April 1997 on the Saturn with a 20-strong team.": Four refs for such a simple sentence usually rings alarm bells.
 * I've removed them. A few of them weren't supposed to be there; I think they might've been accidentally moved when the GOCE copyedited the article. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think some of the longer quotations in the "Design" section would benefit from in-text attribution (e.g. "giving the player an element of discovery in addition to the platforming") although technically this wouldn't be required as they are not full sentences so I wouldn't insist on this.
 * I've added attribution to the one you mentioned but not to any else, since I think the way they're currently handled are fine.<small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "When the level designs were completed, Naka decided to use them for other characters and playstyles.": I've no idea what this means. Decided to use the design levels how? Then the next sentence "Sonic Team had already implemented an in-game fishing rod with no context or use, so they created Big[27] as a contrast to the other action-based characters" similarly does not make any sense to me, nor does it really follow on from the previous sentence.
 * I've added a direct quote from Naka. I've split up the Big info, too, and clarified it. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Speculation arose that the game could save the Dreamcast,[65][71] which had not sold well by the end of 1998,[65] or even re-establish Sega as the dominant console manufacturer after the relatively unsuccessful Saturn": This is sourced to the two reviews. Can I just clarify, do the reviews say that speculation arose among other people? Or do the reviewers speculate themselves? If the latter, this probably needs rephrasing in that we should say that "[reviewer name] speculated that ..."
 * I've attributed the comments; I just checked the magazines and they say it as their belief. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I almost never comment on images, but I do wonder if the sketch of the new design in really warranted. We would know what he looked like from the other images. But I'm not an image expert so this does not affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! I've responded above and have hopefully resolved your issues. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with all the changes made, and made a few little further tweaks. Just to note that I'm still not convinced about the image I mentioned, and wonder is it worth looking at this further. But that doesn't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't really gonna go either way on this, but since I was watching this page anyway, I figured it'd be good manners to contribute one way or the other. Since another editor raised questions elsewhere about the source quality, I've read through the entire article and checked every reference for both quality and accuracy, and I'm satisfied with what's here.
 * Comments and support from Homeostasis07

The only reference I could concievably see anyone complaining about is reference #26: Gamers Global, which is used to support the text: Sonic Team (explained elsewhere) had already implemented an in-game fishing rod (explained elsewhere) with no context or use, leading to the creation of Big. In the context of what the article uses this citation to reference, and the fact that the reference itself is an interview with the game's producer Yuji Naka, I'm satisfied it can comply with the "high-quality" criteria of FAC.

Two minor complaints though: wouldn't it be better to use the SFN template for reference #4, instead of all those page numbers? I know SFN can seem a bit complicated, if you're unfamiliar with the formatting, so I'd be happy to do that for you if needed. Likewise, the only piece of prose I could complain about is the second-to-last sentence in the lead: "Writers often call a character introduced in the game—Big the Cat—one of the worst in a video game." Perhaps that could be worded a bit clearer, something like: "Writers have referred to one of the characters introduced in this game—Big the Cat—as being one of the worst video game characters ever created." That seems to be the point that both the prose of the article and the sources themselves seem to be making.

Aside from those, I'm happy to Support this article for promotion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support! My responses:
 * I'm aware of the SFN template, but I didn't use it for consistency because most of the printed resources I cite are inline. If you still think it's better I'll be more than happy to change it, though.
 * I changed the sentence about Big to say Writers have called Big the Cat one of the worst characters to feature in a video game, which I think is clearer. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The SFN stuff is really more of a personal preference anyway. I only brought it up in-case you weren't aware of it. Since I see there's a reason you've used the formatting you did, I'm happy to just drop it. And I like what you did with the prose point too. No complaints from me. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to be gone from Saturday the 21st to Friday the 27th and am probably not going to be able to edit Wikipedia. Should I notify someone to keep an eye on this and address any issues that may be raised while I'm gone? <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.