This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games: Sega Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sega task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.nintendo.co.uk/News/2017/June/Interview-Sonic-Team-talks-Sonic-Forces-for-Nintendo-Switch-1238419.html https://www.famitsu.com/news/201711/11145786.html

Archives

1

I do not agree with @TheJoebro64:'s edit comment on how "It's how all Wikipedia articles are written", which is a massive and also false claim to make. Well written leads should generally follow the same order as the body, and listing the game's plot, which is mostly trivial in-universe info, before its development history, release, or what the game even plays like seems out of order to me. Let's take something that was recently promoted to FA, Final Fantasy VII, as a good example. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your idea for the lead from personal taste, @Dissident93:, is there more concrete precedent for this aside from just one article as an example? Most other Sonic series good articles seem to follow his changes, as do Sonic 06 and Super Mario Galaxy, which are FA. Aside from that issue, the plot should only be one sentence in the lead, given its relative unimportance. BruzerFox 21:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic 06 was also promoted by TheJoebro64, so that seems like a COI example, and the Super Mario Galaxy example isn't like this, it has the release info before plot, which is my issue here. Having it as the very second sentence in the article seems like more importance is being placed to it, which would work on a story heavy game, but not for Sonic. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Forces/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   @Freikorp: Think I've resolved everything. Responded above. JOEBRO64 12:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm happy for this to pass now. Freikorp (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I have been wondering how we should refer where Classic Sonic comes from. As of right now, the page shows that Classic Sonic is from the past. The game does straight up refer to his home as an "Alternate/different dimension" however, while talking to the user BruzerFox, they brought up how it is technically correct, but might make it more confusing given the structure of the summery. While it is true that he does appear to be the same Sonic from Sonic Generations, I think it would be overall more accurate to refer to it what this game in particular says. It is a minor thing overall but it is of importance nonetheless. I was just wondering many people think it should change in the first place. Thank you for reading this far! Thetetrisguy (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sonic forces speed battle page redirects here but this page has nothing about it. Could an admin add something about it? Sonicfan200530 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]