Template:Did you know nominations/Sonic Gems Collection
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sonic Gems Collection
[edit]- ... that SegaSonic the Hedgehog was desired for inclusion in Sonic Gems Collection, but was left out due to difficulties emulating its trackball controls?
- Comment: Feel free to suggest ALT hooks.
Improved to Good Article status by TheJoebro64 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC).
TarkusAB made a thorough GA review of the article, with all the points brought up resolved by the nominator, subsequently solidifying my opinions about the article's quality in terms of its good use of citations and its use of language to keep an objective view, especially in the "Reception" section. I see no problems with this nomination, as the hook is especially great, appealing to a very broad audience by providing a legitimately interesting trivia (one that I most certainly never knew before reading this) on one of the most popular video game franchises, Sonic the Hedgehog. Both this hook and the associated article are some of the best I've seen reviewing DYK, after a year of doing so. Good job, Joebro! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. A convenient Reviewer's Template is located above the edit window. Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I don’t see why I need a box format to do something that can easily be achieved with a single text paragraph. Nominations are approved all the time without box formats. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: No, you don't; it was just a suggestion. But your review did not mention any of the criteria for DYK, namely: newness, length, neutrality, close paraphrasing, inline hook cite, verified or AGF hook, and QPQ review. Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: So far, I've observed the common understanding is that if there's a problem, it will be explicitly pointed out. This is how I went about my review, and I assumed that others would add to it, as they always do. Currently, I see no problems with the review. Everything satisfying the criteria can either was either cited in the GA review, discernible using information available in the nomination itself or stated in my review. An example of such being that I explicitly said that neutrality and citations were okay. As far as I'm concerned, that was my review. If somebody else wants to step in and point out flaws in the nomination, that's fine by me. I can't be the sole person reviewing things, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The more explicit you are, the better it is for the prep builder and the administrator promoting to the queue. You've spent a lot of words explaining yourself when you could just have noted the criteria you checked. My standard line is: "New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen, hook ref verified (or AGF) and cited inline, images freely licensed, QPQ done". BTW a GA review is no guarantee that the DYK criteria have been met. Yoninah (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- New reviewer needed, since prior reviewer has not returned to confirm that they checked the article and hook against all the DYK criteria themselves. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- N - Interesting:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Great article, but the source that the hook is cited to does not back up the hook. With Burning Rangers, the only source I could find was this portion of the GameSpy article: "GameSpy: You've undoubtedly heard this on multiple occasions, but will we ever see NiGHTS Into Dreams featured in a compilation? How about Burning Rangers? The fans want to know. Ogawa: There is a good possibility, and we have tried on a number of occasions. However, because of the complexity in developing on the SEGA Saturn, it is more difficult to port NiGHTS and Burning Rangers to a current-gen console." It doesn't actually say either Nights or Burning Rangers were wanted to be added to this specific compilation. The article should be updated and the hook should be changed. Nomader (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)