# Talk:Sonic Drift

Did we really need the headline "Sonic Drift Racers" in the article? It was definitely unimportant to the article. The only ones we wanted in this article, were the prequel and the sequel to each one. Add more information here why we didn't need the headline, "Sonic Drift Racers". --Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com

Does anyone know when this game was released? Thanks
--Power Slave 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added something in the trivia section. Hope you like it. Philip1992 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Philip1992
The trivia section mentioned "invincibility themes" without explanation, but I think a short clause saying what they are would greatly aid comprehension for the "uninitiated." JY.public 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if Sonic Eraser can get one, Sonic Drift 2 certainly should. RememberMe? 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It says Sonic Drift 2 was released in 1994, then says it was released in Japan in 1995. Does this mean it was released elsewhere first? 24.4.131.142 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a word with some members of the Video Games WikiProject so that I can get Sonic Drift 2 its own article.--Launchballer (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sonic Drift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://sega.jp/archive/segahard/gg/soft.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Drift/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Night Watch (talk · contribs) 17:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'll take a look at this one, expect a review sometime this weekend or earlier. The Night Watch (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
Review

Sorry I'm a little late; working on the review now. The Night Watch (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
No copyvios, and the article has a reference section, appears stable from the page history.


#### Notes
I'm surprised there is so little Development information, but I was unable to find much of anything regarding development beyond what you already had cited. The topic appears relatively niche, but searching around shows that it is probably comprehensive given the limited subject material available in reliable sources.
This is pretty typical of most Game Gear games of the era, and likely most handheld video games beyond the exceptional ones.  Coverage in magazines tended to favor console games and gave a brief acknowledgement that the handhelds existed. Red Phoenix talk 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Images are tagged with passable FUR.
Spotchecks forthcoming
Spot-checked sources 1, 5, 12, 15, 19: Appears verifiable and factually correct. Only nitpick on sourcing is that some of them (I.e. Hardcore Gaming 101, Beep! MegaDrive) don't have wikilinks even though those sources have parent articles. Sources also appear reliable per the WPVG source list.
Article is quite small, so not out-of-scope.
Prose is decent, no WTW that I can see. The article is quite short so there isn't much to change that wouldn't be nitpick-y. Scanning over the reviews shows that their opinions are shown appropriately in reception.
After you respond to the Wikilinks in the sources, I think I can give the article a  Pass. The Night Watch (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@The Night Watch: Addressed. Red Phoenix talk 00:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, passing.