Wikipedia:Peer review/Big the Cat/archive1

Big the Cat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A logical next step for my second-favorite purple cat from Sonic, as I'm considering taking Sonic characters to WP:FTC and that will require a few FAs. As of yesterday, Big seems to have found something green, if not his frog. I think he should get a gold star for his valiant efforts, so I've taken him here first. Of particular concern is the use of the second-tier gaming site Cheat Code Central as a source; it's an opinion piece by a decently established editor on the site, but I'd still like weighings-in on whether it seems reliable enough in context. I'd also particularly like input on whether some additional non-free image would be ideal, as this was suggested during GAN, and on the article's wording. As always, though, all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Spike Wilbury

General

• I'm not concerned about the use of Cheat Code Central, personally (although that doesn't preclude someone calling it into question at FAC). It is an opinion peace, but you're using just to express the author's opinions. Looking at the site, they seem to have an editorial process in place which usually means fact-checking as well. It would help if you could produce any known reliable sources (like gaming sites or magazines) that refer to CCC as reliable or authoritative.
• Check refs for dead links and put correct archive URLs in the citations using the archiveurl and archivedate parameters.

• Done. Tezero (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "and has made playable and non-playable appearances in other games" This doesn't fit well with the structure of the rest of the sentence; maybe it can be made into its own sentence? Also, do you mean other Sonic games only, or other games in general?

• Done. Tezero (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is the character being derided by the fanbase sourced? I can only find that statement in "Big's reception by critics and fans alike has been strongly negative", which is sourced to an article that's a dead link for me. Making a sweeping statement about fanbase reaction will require more (and better) sourcing.

• Fixed the dead link (God, and this one's used in a number of other articles) and removed the part about the fanbase. Tezero (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• "His poor reception and apparent uselessness caused Sonic Team to remove him from any future games in 2012" This seems awkwardly written to me. How about: "Due to his poor reception and apparent uselessness, Sonic Team stopped including him in games in 2012"

• Reworded. Tezero (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Conception and creation

• "Rumors persist that Big was created to capitalize on the Dreamcast's fishing peripheral" Careful with phrases like this that suggest currency. The source dates to 2011; do the rumors persist even today? How does the source discuss it, and how did the author know the rumors were "persisting"? Did Iizuka state as much in the interview? Do you read German fluently? If not, how did you translate the article? Google Translate is not very good at getting a properly nuanced translation for more than very basic facts.

Need to take a break because my internet service is dodgy at the moment, but will be back with more. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• I'm concerned with the use of the Blistering Thumbs site as a source. Looking at the archive, there is not really any indication of any fact-checking or editorial process on the site, or any indication of how "Richard Coombs" is notable and why we should take his opinion seriously. As you saw, the site was taken town and folded into That Guy with the Glasses earlier this year. This is a critical problem because you have several citations to the Coombs article. As with the use of CCC, these will probably be challenged at FAC and you will need to produce reliable sources naming BT and CCC good sources of criticism.

• ...Fuck. Fuck. You're right. I could've sworn it was a known reliable source here, although looking back, it may have just been that I hit "preview", saw that it was bluelinked in the citation, and figured that was good enough. I may keep it for the time being at a few other Sonic character articles as some extra weight so they don't get AfD'd, but I've removed all references to it here. Tezero (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a huge deal, and it's probably fine for GA, but it's just one of those things someone might bring up at FAC. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, you're spot-on; they totally will, and it's better to replace it as necessary now, when I have time and am not risking the deadly Oppose vote for poor sourcing. I just wish I could find another source that summarized how Big's thought of overall. It's frustrating; I know I've seen some from definitively reliable publications, but they're not turning up now. Tezero (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

• Nothing should be in the infobox that's not also written about and sourced in the article text. For example, the "voiced by" fields. You should write about those people in the appropriate headings and make sure to include sources. Those can be primary sources (like credits, instruction booklets, etc.)

Appearances

• Seems generally well-written and complete; I didn't notice anything I would change in the writing. You did ask about non-free images, and I actually find it curious that you decided to include an image that doesn't actually depict Big. Rather than adding another image, I would considering replacing the current one with one that depicts Big in the midst of some key game-play.

Reception and impact

• Looks well-written, and it seems that you gathered as many sources as are likely to be available.

I think that's it. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)