# Talk:Unreleased Sonic the Hedgehog games

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unreleased Sonic the Hedgehog games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 22:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Saw you post this in the Discord and saw it was up for GAN. I'm a pretty decently big fan of Sonic, so this one looks fun to take on. Will take this on sometime in the next week or so. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Any progress on this? @Pokelego999 Tarlby (t) (c) 20:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Sorry for the lateness on this! Getting into the review now.


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale. 


### Lead
-"Builds of unreleased Sonic games have leaked online." Not sure how relevant this so early into the lead is given it's before any of the actual games have been discussed yet. Maybe place this at the end?


### Early projects
-No issues


### Sega Genesis
-No issues


### Sega Saturn and Dreamcast
-No issues


### Third-party
-No issues


### Spotcheck
Random Source Selection: 21, 36, 46, 44, 5, 27, 59, 43, 57, 69, 38, 31, 14, 17, 70. Unable to access 36, 27, 57, 43 but I assume good faith with that source's contents. The rest of the sources check out. 


### Overall
No other source issues, prose is solid. Definitely one of the highest quality GANs I've read, period. I have very little more to say other than that you've done an incredible job with this. Given the only critique I have is a minor nitpick, I can trust this will be accomplished, so I'm willing to pass this as is. Fantastic work and happy editing! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

See source - News Chatter - Top Secret. Game Players. No. 69. Imagine Publishing. March 1995. p. 30. (Sonic Sports)
An editor has added this source to the talk page in good faith. If it shouldn't be added to the article, that's fine, but that should be a discussion in itself, not something argued through edit summaries. This is basic conduct, we need to do better. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I just don't see why you reverted the removal of a refidea if another editor reviewed the suggested reference, did additional research to see if there was anything else on it, and determined that it wasn't going to be anything particularly useful. Trust me, I looked through RetroCDN, Internet Archive, Sega Retro to see if I could find anything else on Sonic Sports and came up dry. I think we should only be including games here if there's no reason to doubt they existed, and I definitely feel like there's reason to doubt Sonic Sports existed given there's nothing in the way of corroborating coverage. I just felt my explanation for removing the reference was adequate enough. JOEBRO64 00:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're following me here. I'm not arguing for inclusion, I'm arguing against its complete erasure from the talk page. If you're opposed to inclusion, that's all the more reason it should be documented on the talk page through talk page discussion.  Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2025/08/sonic-mania-2-prototype-artwork-revealed-by-christian-whitehead Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Should there be mention of the cancelled PC port of '06? It's advertised on the back of the Riders PC manual, but I haven't been able to find any sources that mention it. (Searching "Sonic 2006 PC port" just brings up a lot of articles about Project 06 or the Recomp.) Is this one of those instances where the manual itself would suffice as a source? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd support its inclusion. Using Sega's own advertising on their own product, to mention something as basic as existence, falls within WP:PRIMARY. That's the only downside, I guess, is that there's virtually nothing else to be said on it, right? Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Pretty much. I haven't been able to find any further details about it, so there's not much to say beyond "it was advertised but never released". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's a weird case where there's so little to say about it that I'm a little on the fence about including it. Maybe in the Wii ports section, could be retitled to simply "ports" JOEBRO64 20:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I like that idea. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)