Talk:Big the Cat/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Tezero (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised this has been sitting without review for over a month. I will take it; expect comments later today. CR4ZE (t) 03:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I was getting worried that it was too egregiously bad to review - or there were some unspoken notability concerns that no one felt significant enough to voice. Tezero (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   "Big is a large, overweight, purple, 18-year-old anthropomorphic cat" - can you rework that sentence, perhaps into two? Too many adjectives at once.

   Done. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   "He plays the role of "power" character in Team Rose in Sonic Heroes". I had to look at the Sonic Heroes article to understand what this meant. Perhaps try something along the lines of: "In Sonic Heroes, Big is the Power character type in Team Rose". Not sure why Knuckles, E-123 Omega or Vector need to be mentioned.

   Reworded similarly. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The terms "video game", "cat" and "frog" do not need to be wikilinked. Per MOS:QUOTE, you can just write "considered by many to be Sonic Team’s crowning moment of derp" without brackets around the lower-case letter "c".

   Done. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   I have concerns with a number of sources. Please provide evidence of reliability for the following: Gamers Global (#1), Cheat Code Central (#47), SegaBits (#49), Axiom Magazine (#55) and Sonic Stadium (#56). If you have difficulty, let's instead open a discussion at WP:VG/RS so we can reach consensus with other editors. How is an Amazon listing an RS? In the case of the Nintendo Everything citation (#58), the article is sourced from an interview with Official Nintendo Magazine. You need to replace that with the original source instead, because again I don't see reliability. Inquire at WP:VG/RL, search online or try Zinio.

   Here it is if you don't mind paying $5. CR4ZE (t) 12:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   Cheat Code Central, SegaBits, and Axiom Magazine are just being used for opinions, not facts about the games or character. Does that matter? Tezero (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   For Sonic Stadium, I've found something more reliable (still from SegaBits, but an interview, which per a recent GAN of mine can be pretty much reliable no matter whom they're from) to back it up with. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   And for Official Nintendo Magazine, I guess I can pay the fee if that's the only option, but how sure are you that that's the right issue? Tezero (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   As for the Amazon listings, well, I assumed they were RSes as they've been used in GAs before, but I was able to cite something about Big merchandise to the interview. Tezero (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   I have opened up a discussion here to make sure we are in the clear for Axiom, CCC and SegaBits. I am quite sure that the ONM issue I linked you is the correct one. If you click on the "Contents" page preview, on page 10 there is an interview Iizuka on Sonic Lost World. I checked the November and September issues to make sure there wasn't anything from Iizuka in those. However, before you go and purchase it, make sure you check the Reference library and see if someone has it, or try to find a scanned copy online. The only person here who would have it is User:Ashnard, but they appear to be inactive at this time. CR4ZE (t) 05:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

   I decided to just buy it, but then I got this message: "Sorry! This edition of Official Nintendo is not eligible for sale in your region. Please remove it from your cart to continue." I live in the U.S., not Australia, so would you be okay buying it if you could think of some way for me to pay you back? Alternately, could I just... cite it anyway? I know basically what it says already and, presumably, on which pages. Tezero (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

   You can cite it anyway, yes, but you'll need to make sure you can fill out all the appropriate fields in the cite journal template. Perhaps the reason that you were unable to purchase it is that I sent you a link with an "au.zinio.com" designation? CR4ZE (t) 22:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

   Perhaps. Anyway, I've cited the issue, so I don't think we should be waiting on anything but a reply to that source question. Tezero (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

   Axiom is gone, and I have decided that CCC is a situational okay in this instance only. The piece is clearly attributed as an opinion, and the author is a staff member of the website. However, I doubt you'll be able to use it if you decide to go for FAC. The SegaBits interview from YouTube features two Sonic Team developers, so that's a situational okay as well. CR4ZE (t) 05:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The first two paragraphs of In video games are borderline WP:NOTPLOT. Condense and merge into one paragraph.

   Done. Tezero (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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:

   File:Big the Cat Sonic Channel.gif and File:Big the Cat fishing.jpg are both fine. During the fishing gameplay in Sonic Adventure, is there any point at which both Big and Froggy are visible on-screen? That would be a better choice. However, what you have now is satisfactory for GA-Class.

   As I recall, it briefly shows Big and Froggy together at the end of each sequence, but then you don't really know what the gameplay is like. Would you prefer something like that? I'd really like to know what's ideal, as I'm considering going for FAC after a PR. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

   In that case the image that you have now would be the best choice. I wanted to see an in-game depiction of Big but the infobox image basically serves that purpose. If you could find a good one, I wouldn't rule out adding a third image to the Reception section. However, as you already have two, it'd have to be a very different kind of shot with an airtight fair use rationale. (This would be for going forward beyond this GAN, as what you have now is perfectly fine). CR4ZE (t) 10:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Please remove the external link in the caption for the Infobox image.

   Done. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Aside from my concerns with the sources, the article's basically there already. CR4ZE (t) 10:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 8#Big the Cat RS. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the discussion.

Find video game sources: "Axiom Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

Find video game sources: "SegaBits" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

In the article Big the Cat, which is a current GAN, there are two sites being cited in the material that I have not heard of. Are Axiom Magazine and SegaBits okay to use in this context? Cheat Code Central is additionally being used in an opinion piece; is it appropriate to use in the article? CR4ZE (t) 05:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussions linked on the page for CCC show it as generally being seen as unreliable. I don't go about remove every instance of it, because there's no hard consensus it seems, but I wouldn't think it would be fit for a GA. Segabits is just a Sega fansite too, isn't it? Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't see any evidence that AxiomMagazine is reliable. It has barely any hits on Google, and is not recognized at all in the industry. Anyone can start a magazine, but that doesn't instantly create a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. SegaBits is an unreliable fansite. Other industry players seem to only use the site for its finds, but they don't take SegaBits's word for anything and always look at the source themselves ([1] [2]). That's not a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And as a nail in the coffin, they've been called out for bad reporting by VentureBeat. That is a giant black mark in my book. Regarding CCC, I don't like using it if it's avoidable, especially some of their lower tier writers like this one is. I wouldn't use it myself, but I wouldn't forbid it either. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with the both of you on Axiom and SegaBits. User:Tezero, looks like you're going to have to find replacements and if you can't you'll have to remove the statements that are sourced from these sites. Now in the case of CCC, you're both right in saying it isn't the best source. The article in question is an opinion piece composed by Angelo M. D'Argenio. He is a senior staff member who's been with them for three years. The article makes point that it is a subjective opinion, and it's written by someone who appears to have some experience. I wouldn't say his usage is cardinal sin in this instance, at least not for a GA, but it appears that Tezero is limited by the amount of RS to be used in the article. Would anybody else conclude CCC's usage as a situational okay in this instance only? CR4ZE (t) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember feeling sketchy about Axiom and SegaBits when I first added them, and they're now gone without much consequence. As I recall, I just wanted to be damn sure the article wasn't going to get re-merged. CheatCC, though, I guess I assumed was a decently respected site, maybe on the level of Destructoid or GameZone, but one that happened to host user-submitted cheat codes alongside its more respectable articles. Tezero (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Verdict

✓ Pass. CR4ZE (t) 05:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)