Talk:Sonic X-treme/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JimmyBlackwing (talk · contribs) 04:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I find this game fascinating, so I'll nab this review for myself. Comments below.

Prose

• The first sentence says that Sonic X-treme is a canceled game, but it's standard to put discussion of canceled games entirely in the past tense, as seen in Sam & Max: Freelance Police (FA) and Voyager (video game) (GA).
  • Interesting precedent, reworded.
• I know prose is less of an issue at GAN, but the second sentence's "looked to capitalize on the success of Sega's mascot character in the form of what would have been" desperately needs to be condensed. Try, "was designed to capitalize on the success of Sega's mascot character by being".
  • Used your wording, thanks.
• "there were several different forms of gameplay being created" —> "several different styles of gameplay were tried".
  • Used your wording, thanks.
• "incidents including an unfavorable visit by Sega of Japan executives and issues with acquiring a game engine made the deadline much more difficult to achieve" —> "incidents, including an unfavorable visit by Sega of Japan executives and issues with acquiring a game engine, made the deadline difficult to achieve".
  • Used your wording, thanks.
• "The two are" — Again, it would be "were". Media or artifacts considered lost are discussed in the past tense. This goes for the rest of the article as well; if anything in X-treme is discussed in present tense, change it to past tense.
  • This would be the first "cancelled" project I've ever worked on. It's been rectified.
• The Mike Wallis quote in section 1 is too long. Either break it up with paraphrasing or move it out of the prose with Template:Quote box.
  • Used a quote box. I'm actually surprised how much nicer it looks.
• "designed for released" —> "designed for release".
  • Whoops. Fixed.
• "Sonic Mars[4] after" —> "Sonic Mars,[4] after".
  • Comma inserted.
• "in charge of developing the main game on a PC" — I don't understand this. All video games are developed on computers. Is this intended to mean that it was developed for PCs?
  • Yes, Sega ran a PC games division at the time. Sonic the Hedgehog CD is an example of a video game that had a PC release as well as a console release. I've changed it to "for PC".
• Also, all instances of "PC" should be changed to "Windows" (or Mac, if applicable). PC is slang, and it's very rarely used in WPVG articles in the GA-FA range.
  • I would presume that Windows was intended to be the OS used, but not one single source I have explicitly says that. Is that still okay? All of the sources just say "PC", which I'm well aware is a generic term.
    • "PC" and "Windows" are generally considered interchangeable, in my experience. Sources shouldn't be a problem here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Addressed. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Second Wallis quote in Development has the same problem as the one mentioned above.
  • Again, quote box added.
• Chris Senn is still alive, but that isn't made obvious in the article until the next section. Should probably be mentioned earlier.
  • Added a dash statement which should add some clarity.

Sources and images

• FURs look fine on the first two images.
• Second image seems excessive. We've already seen the game, and this doesn't seem to add anything in terms of understanding the prose.
  • Question for you here: I agree it could be a bit excessive, but in this case the two images are from the two different game engines. The first is from Senn and Alon's engine for the "main game", the second is from Coffin's "boss engine", which is made heavy mention of in the Development. Would there be precedence to move it up and expand the FUR to explain this?
    • I think that would be appropriate. Change the description of image #1 to clarify its engine, too. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• What makes Lost Levels a reliable source? Any reliable sources using it as a reference? Written by one of the designers? I'm not a stickler when it comes to source reliability, so even a little bit of backing for this source will be enough for me.
  • It's published by Frank Cifaldi, an established video game journalist and writer for 1UP.com. Also cited by Ken Horowitz at Sega-16.
    • Works for me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto for Sega 16.
  • Published by Ken Horowitz, established video game journalist. Source has previously been okay in past FA/GA articles I've written. Has been cited in publications such as Retro Gamer.
    • Seems solid. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• 1Up links are dead.
  • This seems to be an unusual problem they have at 1UP; their links go dead and come back to life with some regularity. Hopefully they'll come up soon enough so I can get a text archive saved (note: robots.txt prevents a WaybackMachine archive, but text archivers work when the site's up), which I've done before. If not, I'll rework the material.
    • And just confirming: according to 1UP's Facebook page, posted last month, they're committed to preserving their material but some links have been broken while the transition to archive all of this is taking place. Should mean it'll be back soon; if not, it can likely be found in another location, which I'll search for if necessary.
      • Very well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Why should a forum post from "Senntient.com" count as a reliable source?
  • In this case, this is Christian Senn's site himself, one of the programmers for Sonic X-treme, and the post is actually his, from his account. As such and in its use here, it should fit under WP:SPS, and it's only being used to cite that he cancelled the project to revive the game; the post is his announcement.
    • Forum posts are extremely mediocre sources, but I'll let it slide since this is GAN. If you take this article to FAC, I strongly advise you to replace the source, or to remove the discussion of the remake's cancellation entirely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I would agree, though for now I don't see it as any different than a Facebook or Twitter announcement from a band or anything like that. Not ideal, but at least workable for the time being. I'm not sure I'd like the idea of dropping the mention of the project's end entirely; it serves to reinforce that X-treme is very unlikely to ever have a playable version. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• What makes "WebProNews" a reliable source?
  • I'm not sure there's anything specific here, but they do have an editing staff and are published by a company called iEntry Network. It's not adding much, so it can be removed if you think it won't work.
    • I'd say cut it. Just change "Many journalists" to "Several journalists". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It has hit the cutting room floor. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Scanning source #6, I see a lot of room for expansion, but I don't think the article could be failed here for comprehensiveness issues. Something to consider if you're going to FAC.
  • It will be. Having read a few of the sources, there's a LOT of detail and varying accounts of why Sonic X-treme failed; if I do take it to FAC, it will be a consideration.
• Spotchecks:

• Regarding "levels appeared to move around Sonic", the word "appeared" makes it sound like this was an illusory effect, which isn't in the source. Aside from that, good.
• "Nakayama requested the entire game be reworked around the boss engine" — Good.
• "While early development plot lines included a story based on the Saturday morning cartoon series" — Source says nothing about multiple plot lines designed to follow the cartoon series. It states only that the game started off as an adaptation of that series. Definitely iffy, but it looks more like an attempt to unify the paragraph thematically than foul play. Change it to be closer to the source and I'll ignore it.

• ... foul play? Confusing... part of the issue here may also come from my elimination of another source which expanded into detail about that, but I am fairly confident it was an unreliable source and haven't found this anywhere else. I've fixed this. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Foul play as in intentionally fudged sourcing. Looks fine now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Even at this stage [...] settled on a full 3D platform game" — Good.

The article is on hold until these issues have been addressed. Good work so far. It would be great to see this as a GA—or potentially a FA, if you expanded it and strengthened a few of the dodgier sources. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a tighter look at this later, for the mean time I'll post a couple of responses above. It's late where I'm at and I have some sleep to catch up on. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 05:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

All right, think I"m ready for more feedback now. @JimmyBlackwing: whenever you're ready. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a few more points to address. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: I think we're good to go here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)