Talk:Tales of Xillia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: DragonZero (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing the article. Expect comments up later today. CR4ZE (t) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
At this stage, the prose is not passable. The syntax in some points is poorly written and difficult to understand. I request that you have a copy-edit done by a native English speaker. Some examples of bad prose: " It broke previous records for most pre-orders in the Tales series and sold over half a million copies in its week of release". "Tales of Xillia was unveiled on December 15, 2010 by Weekly Shonen Jump and followed by the game's official website". "It is followed by the Tales series and Idolmaster costumes on August 20 and then the school costumes which were released on September 3". "Game Informer, GameSpot, and Joystiq, praised the character interactions with Destructoid calling varied characters are what makes the game a joy to experience".

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
One-line paragraph in Audio CDs, second paragraph in Reception is two lines of prose. There are 13 review scores in Template:Video game reviews, which is too many and creates a big white space before the Reference list. Many of the review scores are redundant i.e. four 7/10s and four 8/10s, which is against the template's guidelines. The awards could be converted into prose to increase the readability of the table.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
References #29 and #57 are incorrectly formatted.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Most sources look good. Siliconera.com is not a particularly good source to use, and a Google search for "Namco Tales of Xillia trademark" provides plenty more reliable replacements.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Having watched some footage online, there is much more than can be said about the gameplay. I wanted to know what the player does while exploring the world and how they are guided through the game. The combat is not explained in enough detail, for example how the game transitions between the field map and the battle screen once the player approaches or is approached by an enemy. The attacks/weapons available to the player are not covered in enough detail, and neither are the skills. What is meant by a "skit" in the context of the game? The entire gameplay feels brushed over and needs further development.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
The fair use rationale for File:Tales PS3 Concept.jpg is inadequate. Why is the use of this piece of non-free content essential to the reader's understanding of the article?

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Neither File:Xillia gameplay.png nor File:Tales PS3 Concept.jpg have appropriate captions. "A battle gameplay in Tales of Xillia" is not only incorrect English, but not detailed enough.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article needs a lot of further work before it can be considered GA-Class. I am failing upfront as the article needs too much work to just be put on hold. The prose needs further refinement in order to be up to GA standard, Gameplay feels glossed over and the reviews table is full of redundant scores that are aesthetically unappealing. I would be opening a Peer Review and/or have the article copy-edited before nominating again. CR4ZE (t) 13:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]