Talk:Sonic Forces/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    'Hedgehog Engine' just redirects to 'Sonic Unleashed', which is linked in the same sentence in the lead
    Unlinked.
    'spin and drop dashes' - can you briefly explain what this means to the reader? Perhaps mention what White Wisps are as well
    Explained everything.
    'weapons known as Wispons,' - so just to clarify, Wispon is just the in-game term for 'weapon'?
    Pretty much.
    'Doctor Eggman attacks a city' - does the city have a name?
    It has three names; I didn't want to chose just one. The levels are called "Ghost Town", "Sunset Heights", and "Park Avenue".
    'Hedgehog Engine 2' just redirects to 'Sonic Unleashed' as well. At least link it to the development section at that article
    Changed target.
    'featuring the "Sanic Hegehog" internet meme' - this needs explaining
    Explained.
    Wikilink Screen tearing
    Done.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    There's no point in listing the publisher and the work where both are exactly the same. I.e Techno Buffalo Techno Buffalo', 'VG247 VG247'
    Fixed.
    At least one of your references gives SiliconEra a capital E, the others do not
    I can't see any references that use Siliconera with a capital E. I gave the references a good look but can't see it.
    Dissident93 ended up fixing it shortly after I finished my review. :) Freikorp (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    The 'August 31, 2017' twitter reference needs additional parameters
    Added some more parameters.
    I'd archive more of your sources before they inevitably start rotting, but that isn't a GA requirement
    I'll get to that soon.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Looks pretty good overall. Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Freikorp: Think I've resolved everything. Responded above. JOEBRO64 12:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    I'm happy for this to pass now. Freikorp (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)