Talk:Wisp (Sonic)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up this review. I will leave down some initial comments within 24 hours but judging by the size of this article the GAR shouldn't take that long. I mainly focus on copy editing issues. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   It is well referenced.

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• The lead definitely complies per WP:LEAD and the GA criteria. Well done

Design and characteristics

• "The mother of all other Wisps is a giant, pink one named Mother Wisp" - I'm quite confused here - all 'other' Wisps? The sentence before this didn't say if the Wisps were divided so what others?
  • By "other" I meant all Wisps other than her, since she can't be her own mother, but I removed it anyway. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• "while Orange Rocket Wisps (for blasting rapidly into the air) are very emotional" - what does being emotional have to do with the game?
  • Elaborated. Basically, Orange Rocket Wisps have very unstable and explosive emotions, and that reflects how they work as a power-up. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Takashi Iizuka, head of long-time developer Sonic Team" - doesn't really make sense here. Is 'long-time developer' meaning that Sonic Team is a long-running games developer or is Takashi Iizuka a long-time developer at the studio?
  • Rephrased. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Appearences

Some parts of this section doesn't have great sentence structure. I'll list some examples below:

• "Suspicious, Sonic and Tails investigate,[36] and they rescue two Wisps from Eggman's henchmen Orbot and Cubot" - how about Suspicious, Sonic and Tails investigate and rescue two Wisps from Eggman's henchmen Orbot and Cubot (you may want to add to this as the reference should be moved from the mid sentence).
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• "When Sonic defeats her, she reverts to normal,[ also thanks Sonic and Tails, and returns to Planet Wisp with her children." - this isn't great grammatically. How about When Sonic defeats her, she reverts to normal and returns to Planet Wisp with her children thanks to Sonic and Tails
• "When Sonic defeats her, she reverts to normal, also thanks Sonic and Tails, and returns to Planet Wisp with her children" - I don't like the syntax here... how about After Sonic defeats her she returns back to normal. Also thanks Sonic and Tails she returns to Planet Wisp with her children...
  • Is there a difference between these two complaints? Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to change it to one of those, as "thanks" is being used as a verb, not an interjection or preposition (as in "no thanks to your dumb ass..."). Instead, I changed "thanks" in that sentence to "expresses gratitude". Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah you're right there, what you done was better than my suggestion! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception

• Everything checks out here - this section's prose is good and complies per the GA criteria!

On hold

This is a neat and compact article. Most of the prose is generally good and this definitely has a good shot at achieving GA status if those copyediting issues I have mentioned above were addressed to. I will put this on hold for seven days. Other than some prose issues I could find nothing else wrong with this article as all the references are in check and everything else is in good standard! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: How about now? I think it'd be pretty sweet to have the article promoted while it's still on the front page. Tezero (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you and well done for addressing those issues so quickly!! I had no idea it was on the front page today. With only an hour to spare, you've addressed those copyediting issues I had mentioned above. Nothing else seems to be wrong with this article and it now meets the GA criteria. It was lucky that I came back online just in time to promote this! Well done again! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being online! Tezero (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review - April 2014

Comments by CalvinK(talk): I have had a good read of this article and I had no knowledge of the subject matter. As you are looking to potentially take it to FA nomination, I have used the FA criteria to base my review. This should not be taken as a definite pass for FA once the issues have been corrected - the ladies and gentlemen at the FA review are much more experienced than I am.

Some things to think about are as follows:

• "They debuted in the Wii/Nintendo DS game Sonic Colors in 2010, where Sonic can use them as power-ups while he rescues others from Doctor Eggman, who plans to use them for a mind control ray." To me this is a very difficult sentence and could do with being tidied up a bit. It might be worthwhile to break it into two longer sentences just to make it a bit clearer. Other than that, the lead paragraph is good.
• That table. I appreciate what you're saying about it and at this time can not think of any way around it. I would certainly give a very brief few sentences in that section before the table, perhaps something along the lines of "there are x different types of Wisps".
• Sources are good. Reception section is balanced.
• Media is non-free but adequate rationale has been placed.
• Stable article

It is an engaging read and I felt it was well written. I would say all you need to is tidy up that sentence in the lead, and do something about that table (at the very least add a sentence in that section!) and it should be OK at FA Nom. Calvin (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Some slight minor edits

I've just been following the progress of this since my peer review. I decided to change the section with the table and I have decided that 17 should be expressed in words. WP:MOSNUM allows this so long as there are no other numbers in the article that are expressed in numbers. I couldn't find any other numbers expressed as figures, and I think expressing it in words made it appear better.

As for the second sentence in that particular section, it's very confusing to follow. I'm not entirely sure what it is meant to convey so it could do with a rewording to make it easier to read and follow. Other than that, good work, and you have my support at FAC. Just drop me a message on my talk page when it is listed at FAC. Calvin (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Think I retooled that sentence to sound a little more natural. Thanks! Tezero (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just added some extra text to make something clearer, and also to remove the use of "as of yet", as encyclopedia articles should not speculate about what the future is going to be, unless there are reliable sources to suggest future Wisps. As for the last sentence, I think the issue I have is with the word "variously". I think there is a better way to describe it than using the word variously. Alas, I can't think what that word is. Although that did bring up an extra point that might be worth mentioning in the article. Is there any kind of correlation or explanation for the seemingly random exclusion of some of the Wisps depending upon the game and/or console the game is played on? If so, I'd definitely suggest adding it to the article. Calvin (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Random exclusion? I mean, some weren't introduced in Colors (and none were in Generations). I'd guess that the Lost World dev team just didn't think some of the older ones would fit in that game, but that hasn't been in any of the coverage I've seen of the game. I can look further, though. Tezero (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I say random as there doesn't appear to be any reason as to why some are included in some of the games and some aren't. To be honest there must be a way of tidying that section up to make it a bit more clearer, but it's been a long day and I think it may be worth setting it up for FAC Nomination now and seeing what they may suggest for improvement. Calvin (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Please see Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters#Notability for a notability discussion that pertains to this article and its series czar ♔ 04:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)