Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)/archive1

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to help take this article to GA as with Sonic Adventure. Any feedback or suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Czar
Copyedited section by section, didn't verify refs. Didn't flag for cns. Responding inline will be messy, so address what you'd like in a separate list?
 * Hatnote: since this page is off the beaten path, linking to the 2006 game is extraneous; consider using that space to link to the disambig, which is far more useful (links to the character, series, other games)
 * Re: 8-bit/16-bit disambig: do you know why this was done this way? Do any other games besides Sonic 1 and 2 use this disambig? Do you know how the dev team and initial reviews referred to both? That could help.
 * Consider using list-defined refs—it'll make reading and editing the markup easier
 * The refs are a mess. Some are missing supporting information. Their date formats need to be consistent. Ideally archive them with WebCite. Make sure all sources are reliable.
 * Lede:
 * Consider Doctor Eggman → Dr. Robotnik. Article uses the American version of everything else, and he was Robotnik in America. If not, it's okay since it's prefaced it as "series' antagonist"
 * Lede says six Chaos Emeralds, #Gameplay says seven
 * "ordered its AM-8 team": jargon—clarify what this is (their best team, their lazy team, etc.) or simplify it and only mention in article
 * "a mascot for the company": this is vague as to whether AM-8 was charged to come up with a character and came up with Sonic itself or was given Sonic (and by whom?)—clarify that point
 * Consider adding what else Sega wanted from the game. E.g., did they want it to be their Mario?
 * "increasing the popularity of Sega's 16-bit console": weren't the effects more dramatic? Also isn't "Genesis" preferred here? (16-bit is jargon)
 * "mascot character": redundant?
 * "success" used twice


 * Infobox:
 * Box art: mentioned on the talk page that the current cover is very dark and over-saturated, I recommend replacement; also kind of hurts the eyes when at that size, too, and long in the length consider downsizing to compensate? (no rules about 250px in WP:VGBOX afaik, 225px per Sonic 3 could be nice)
 * All facts not reiterated within the article needs refs, no?
 * Platforms aren't listed in same order as release dates (also they don't line up)
 * Consider collapsing the platforms list per SMB
 * Consider removing the platforms line breaks once collapsed—I think it looks bad (only keep them when the list looks funny without them)


 * Gameplay:
 * "split up into zones": how many?
 * explain the difference between zones and acts (zones as a theme, acts as variations within the theme, how does gameplay change in each?)
 * "The game is split up into zones, each of which is split into three acts.[1] The player must navigate through each zone to progress." → "The player progresses through X zones, each..." (it is a platformer, navigating to progress is implied, but the point of this can be spelled out:)
 * Add that the player moves from left to right, and why (see wording in SMB article)
 * On structure, I'd present the overview of the basics in the first paragraph, and expand into what each zone entails, how Sonic dies, in the subsequent paragraphs
 * Rings should be in first paragraph—iconic
 * Mention of how rings affect dying should go with info about dying
 * "The player must also avoid rows of sharp spikes, bottomless pits, and other obstacles.": repeated
 * "the player loses a life": and restarts the level, no?
 * "view the good": define good vs. other outcomes
 * Consider organizing this section into like parts: the basic premise of the game (Robotnik, the story, running to the right, collecting rings, the acts, the final boss, the breakneck speed should go in here), how the gameplay works (side-scroller, spinning, attacks, dying, life/health mechanics, losing rings), levels (add more about the level themes and how gameplay evolves, describe Special Level here [still unclear if Special Stages are just for dying without lives or if they're a reward for having lots of rings at the end of a level]), describe the endgame
 * Explain why Robotnik is in vehicles?


 * Dev:
 * See lede comment about what AM-8 is and who was tasked with creating/designing the mascot
 * How did they choose the hedgehog? How? This is a juicy story!
 * Who made up the team? What other projects did they work on?
 * Did the order involve Mario? How?
 * Who were the execs who wanted a mascot? What exactly did they say? To whom?
 * What happened during the dev process that made Yuji Naka dissatisfied? Incorporate this fallout.
 * Add dates for milestones in dev process. Did they meet milestones? Run behind?
 * What did each of those mentioned devs do?
 * What kind of software and tools did they use? How experienced were they? How did the process go? Surely there are some retrospectives on their dev process.
 * I removed the hyphens from AM8. Replace if necessary.
 * What was AM8's reputation in the company? How were they chosen?
 * "to use clear cutting lines": clear-cutting or clear comma cutting? don't have the source available
 * "neatly" and other three quotes: does the quote end the sentence? the quot marks usually go inside (on WP) otherwise
 * Don't think all of the band members need shoutouts
 * Don't forget source for track listing
 * Need more info on how the music was composed, the influences, tools used
 * I'm not sure these composers are chiptune musicians per se—they saw themselves as composers, no? I don't know if they see themselves as chiptune musicians ex post facto, but it probably isn't the best title.
 * Investigate that Western changes claim?


 * Could use a Release section here, which would include marketing and release date info, hype leading up to it, magazine previews, commercials, how the game was anticipated
 * Consider moving Reception before Alternative versions and ports, or move Alt versions after Legacy. It's out of place where it is.


 * Alt versions:
 * Really need screenshot comparison, or, better, video comparison (for both music/visuals) between 8- and 16-bit versions
 * Section should enumerate all main differences between the two versions (dev process, final level designs, music differences, gameplay, how it was custom built for handheld vs. console, if it was)
 * Again, I'd avoid the 8/16-bit ordeal as jargon, if you can
 * The Master System and Game Gear versions are written to sound different—if they are indeed, that should be explained
 * GBA game: slightly zoomed in—does this relate to the Game Gear's zoom?
 * If the GBA game was panned, more than one source is needed
 * Talk:Compilations in the Sonic series
 * The individual comp titles may not be necessary here if they're all in the main article—consider listing the platforms and any major differences
 * "had sold 8 million paid downloads": total, or on iPods alone?
 * The article has a Tiger electronics tag—should the Tiger version be in this article or the series'? I'm thinking the latter.


 * Explain differences between digital releases and original?


 * Reception:
 * Should separate initial response from later response. First ¶ should focus on 1991, follow-up can expand into remake reviews
 * How many did it sell at the time/what money did it make on Genesis before this porting business?
 * "EGM gave the game a 9...": not worth repeating what's already in the box
 * Needs way way more paraphrasing action. This section could easily be four good paragraphs in critical response alone, not including the sales (money and units) figures.
 * May be worth briefly including how the 8-bit version was received, as well
 * How was the marketing received?
 * How exactly did the game impact consoles sold?
 * This goes with the theoretical release section, but were there any custom consoles or bundles, and how did they effect sales
 * Reception box should link directly to reviews, currently a number of them lazily link to the GameRankings page
 * Needs more commentary on criticism about going really fast and skidding to a halt


 * Legacy:
 * "eventually replaced": when?
 * Are these stats coming from the same place? Is the 65% mention twice necessary?
 * Last sentence of first ¶ needs additional refs (bolder the claim, stronger the refs needed)
 * Change one of the 16-bit mentions to fourth gen
 * Refs for second ¶ will greatly change how it's currently phrased, which seems like OR right now
 * "mascot-based platforming games": the refs here should verify the claim that Sonic influenced this wave, or that a post-Sonic wave existed, not that the games themselves exist (we already know that—they're wikified)—the current sources don't appear strong or reliable enough to make such a claim
 * The last section reminds me that much more space can be dedicated to the Green Hill Zone. It could be its own section. How did these remakes compare to the original Zone? What did they have in common?
 * Lots of shaky sourcing in this section
 * Realistically, this section can be three times its length. It could use more: on how it fueled the Nintendo/Sega wars, about how critics stacked Sonic against Mario as characters or mascots, about the copycats that followed, notable hacks, elements from Sonic 1 that persisted to later games (other than core gameplay, things like style, attitude), commentary on how Sonic changed the genre of platformers, how it changed the platformer lineup on Genesis, leave off on some broader facts about the Sonic franchise it helped start


 * (Why is Sonic wagging his finger in the title screen?)
 * File ideas: image of sales comparisons for Legacy section, clip of audio for soundtrack section, GIF of "Sonic Band" if available, screenshot of rings scattering, photos of dev team or photos of any of the main devs, early Sonic prototypes if the section is expanded, applicable Sonic fan art, video idea mentioned above
 * Again, didn't check ref verifiability or reliability. Also lots of unsourced statements need sources, but that isn't an immediate GAN concern. At least it's copyedited now and on its way.

Response
All right! That's a wrap. That was... kind of a long review. Anyway, only respond inline where necessary (otherwise respond below), and I'll take a look. I'm excited to see where you'll take this. czar  &middot;   &middot;  08:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no way I can take on all of that, but some random thoughts/comments:
 * Regarding the titling, the problem is, like a lot of games from this era that had both games had the same name, but were completely different games. Much like games like Perfect Dark and Perfect Dark (Game Boy Color). As you can see, much of the time, the system is the simplest disambiguator. However, the issue is that, you can't really label "Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit)" as "Sonic (Game Gear)" because the same game was released on the Game Gear and the Sega Master System, and "Sonic the Hedgehog (Sega Game Gear/Sega Master System)" is unwieldly and against naming convention. I agree its not great, but I haven't come up with, seen a suggestion, that would be better, yet. Sergecross73   msg me   18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I get that, but my logic is to disambiguate the game with its common name, so if the game's primarily associated with Game Gear (not saying it is) then it makes more sense to pair it with that than 8-bit, even if the latter is more technically correct. That said, I don't really have the inertia or interest to fight for such a change unless others agree. czar   &middot;   &middot;  20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the development section needs to be expanded upon. For an example of what a development section should look like in a GA, see the development section of the Crash Bandicoot article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)