Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)/Archive 2

Old bio (that needs to be rewritten)

Taki started as one of the eight original characters from the Arcade game Soul Edge and remained as such in the successive upgrade Soul Edge: Version II and the PlayStation port, gaining slight gameplay upgrades along the way. Her Edge Master Mode in-game story states that, after a hard fight against a demon who haunted a temple, she discovers her beloved weapon, the magical ninjatō she named Rekkimaru, was considerably weakened. Discovering the source to be Soul Edge, Taki decides to travel west to save her treasured sword, and to hunt down Soul Edge as well.

Taki returned as a starter character on Soulcalibur, both on the Arcade and Dreamcast port. Her style went through a substantial change: originally using a single weapon, she is given a second ninjatō to wield, changing her style to dual-wielding. Besides the gameplay upgrades she gained, her story fleshed out considerably as well.

The Prologue of the stage explains how Taki confronted the main villain of Soul Edge, Cervantes, and obtained a fragment of the shattered sword. In the process, she also saved another character, Sophitia, who was the one who shattered the smaller of the Soul Edges. Her in-game profile follows her story as she tries to merge the fragment with her Rekkimaru without success. But when she fused it with her other weapon, Mekkimaru, it shed a powerful evil aura. In order to destroy this new evil weapon, Taki sought to pit it against Soul Edge, hoping both blades would destroy themselves.

However, the official profile released on the official website expanded on the backstory of her new weapon Mekkimaru, and how she obtained it. It starts with the revelation, from her leader Toki, that former Fu-Ma leader Hachibei stole the mysterious sword and escaped. Turned a nukenin (fugitive), she is ordered to kill both him and his daughter Chie, a childhood friend of her, and bring back the blade. With her network intelligence, Taki locates Hachibei quickly, and she is informed about Toki's obsession with the powers of the blade. Hachibei urges her to not let Toki get ahold the Mekkimaru and gives Taki a kodachi (short sword). Taki later gives a false report to Toki, leading his forces in pursuit of Li Long, Chie's lover, under the idea he has Mekkimaru after killing both Hachibei and Chie. However, Taki is eventually found out by Toki's right hand man, a ninja known as Geki. Surviving the encounter, Taki becomes a nukenin herself, being pursued by her former allies as she tries to destroy Mekkimaru.

Taki returns as a starting character in the game's sequel, Soulcalibur II. Mostly unchanged from her last appearance, it marks the first instance in which her primary outfit appears unmasked. Her profile states that, after hearing Soul Edge was destroyed by a group of warriors, she decides to try to tame the evil kodachi instead. Four years after, several Fu-Ma ninja tried to capture her without success. Taki discovers then that they carry Soul Edge fragments, and reaches the realization Toki has many more of them, and was looking for her to gather information. Taki decided to keep both Soul Edge and Mekkimaru from Toki, but became worried of him as well.

Taki appeared in the fourth installment of the saga, Soulcalibur III, with minimal changes in both appearance and playstyle, the most prevalent being her new magic-based attacks. Fittingly, her playstyle becomes available to use in the Create-a-Character feature to characters using the "Ninja" job setting. Her story followed from her last profile, showing Taki decided to travel back to Japan, discovering that the Fu-Ma village was suffering from internal conflicts due to Toki's madness. Taki contacted the rebellious part of the Fu-Ma and discovered Toki's location on the Great Buddha Shrine. Sneaking there, Taki faced her master Toki, who recently absorbed the Oni spirits within the shrine. Taki defeats her master with the techniques he taught her, but then the spirits dwelling within him came out from him and traveled west. Knowing they are going for Soul Edge, and that the sword's presence was weak enough to allow its destruction, Taki starts a new journey to end Soul Edge at once.

--94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Official bio

• http://www.soularchive.jp/tmr/souledge/edgechar.htm
• http://www.soularchive.jp/tmr/soulcalibur/calichar1.htm
• http://www.soularchive.jp/tmr/calibur2/ps2/06taki/c06.htm
• http://www.soularchive.jp/SC3/index.htm (EN)
• http://www.soularchive.jp/SCL/contents/character/taki.html
• http://www.soularchive.jp/SC4/character/taki/index.html

--94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs another pic

Maybe of the design evolution from before Soul Edge (hosted on Soul Archive, even with a link from here), or from SCII in Waya-hime's outfit. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe [1] might be fine for the design section ("One rejected early design draft sketch for Taki in Soul Edge")? The source is [2]. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Starting review. bridies (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is partial, and all I've had time for so far:

1. Prose

• I'll copy edit the article later.
• Prose is mostly good for style, just some questions over the treatment of the fictional elements. Sometimes it's not clear whether the articles talking about the history of the character or her fictional life story (the "aged 29" in the infobox for example). I'd also question the inclusion of some of the fictional elements, measurements specifically. Chest size even more specifically: "having the chest size of 90 cm/E". I think we can just not that she's extravagantly buxom without necessitating that the reader get a tape measure out. The source doesn't explicitly say that either.
• I'd also question whether the prose is concise with regards to some elements (see below).

2. Verifiability No obvious problems at this point, though some other sourcing concerns below. 3. Coverage and Neutrality

• Concerns with regards to the treatment of her breasts: The reception has paragraphs of quotes about how great her chest is. Valid info no doubt, but I'm wondering whether we can't convey to the reader that they are the object of much admiration in a more concise way, without having to list so many similar quotes.
• Secondly, some of the sources/quotes are taken out of context. For example: "GamesRadar called "her love pillows" to be the reason of "a fanboy fave". Yet the full passage is: Long time Soul Calibur battler Taki is a fanboy fave - and here we see why. Taki's ninja suit has seemingly been designed for one thing. And that's making her love pillows resemble torpedoes. Face this lady on an icy day and you could have your eyes out! Namco really understands its fanbase.
• Another example: the quote from Kotaku states: ""her tighter than skin tight ninja outfit leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, making her high kicks the stuff of Hustler magazine spreads"". But the full passage: The fourth edition of Ivy's breasts may be bordering on obscene, only further accentuated by her new, increasingly whorish outfit. Taki's no better in Soulcalibur IV, her tighter than skin tight ninja outfit leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, making her high kicks the stuff of Hustler magazine spreads. Thankfully—or regrettably, depending on your point of view—the character designers at Namco Bandai exercised a tad more restraint when outfitting Cassandra for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fighter.
• Another source used to source a positive reception said: Sure, Taki's boobs flopped about ridiculously with the slightest breeze it seemed, but that's not necessarily a complaint.
• So what I'm saying is: yes, she is popular because of her breasts, and they've certainly been acclaimed. But there's also a cynicism in at least some of these sources, a sense that she's a guilty pleasure or a denigration of the "fanboys", horny teenagers or otherwise the "fanbase". And that second Wire source largely conveys disgust. And whichever way, they tend to ridicule her huge breasts, whether they enjoy them or not. I haven't read all the sources yet, so the exact balance is up for debate, but the article needs to trim the raving glorification of her chest, and make clear that they're also the object of ridicule, as well as that the character is seen as exploitative pandering to a particularly inclined fandom (in addition to conveying her genuine popularity and acclaim, sure) and not a little negative commentary. bridies (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Tape measure" thing is actually taken seriously by Namco in their "breast regulations", and yes, the source "explicitly says" it: [3]. And the stuff is all there, in "mixed but largely positive reception". There is only 1 plainly negative response[4] and the rest is mixed at worst (the series' Ivy Valentine is getting much, much more negative flack, I'm not sure if it's in her article). OK, the "obscene" thing too. But I don't Wikipedia readers don't need to be specifically told to explain what somebody "really" meant and especially about jokes. --Niemti (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't explicitly say it; it doesn't say anything. The reader cannot make that inference from that source. I assume you're taking the breast size from a particular picture, which is original research. And not everything is a question of black-and-white "positive" and "negative". It's about covering what the secondary commentary actually says, which the reception section doesn't do, not by a long shot; instead it's cherry-picking quotes to make it look like every commentator was uncritically drooling over her breasts. Not exactly sure what you meant by that last comment, but I'm guessing you're saying that a reader shouldn't need a the subtext of a comment explained to them. Sure, but the issue is that you haven't included the comment for the reader to see in the first place: for example of "Long time Soul Calibur battler Taki is a fanboy fave - and here we see why. Taki's ninja suit has seemingly been designed for one thing. And that's making her love pillows resemble torpedoes. Face this lady on an icy day and you could have your eyes out! Namco really understands its fanbase", only "GamesRadar called "her love pillows" to be the reason of "a fanboy fave" made it in. The grammar's broken there, so perhaps not the best example; but essentially, if you think the overall tone of the sources is clear from these quotes, it's not. bridies (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

????? The whole article is about this "particular picture" being published! It even reads: "Frankly, in cases like this a picture is worth a thousand words, so we'll let the art do the talking." I don't understands at all what you say with "the subtext of a comment". The "seemingly been designed for one thing" thing? That goes to "mostly skintight attires" from the previous sentence. --Niemti (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then, nowhere in that article do I see "90 cm/E" mentioned, only "famously buxom", and the article should reflect this. By subtext I mean implicit meaning. bridies (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles is ABOUT the picture, and it specifically shows the picture to "let the art do the talking" instead of writing "a thousand words". --Niemti (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

But you're still presumably taking that "90cm" from the picture only, and there is no annotation which indicates that Taki is the particular one with 90cm. Ultimately, as I said, one cannot make that inference without being - shall we say - intimately familiar with the subject matter, which makes it original research. And really that's aside from the main issue of taking excessive fictional details from a primary source only. bridies (talk)

You're killing me. It's WRITTEN RIGHT ON HER. Also here's identification specially for blind people: http://www.thelonegamer.net/fan-service/soul-calibur-takes-their-breast-sizes-seriously/ --Niemti (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Or just people who can't identify a particular naked video game character on sight... I still don't see any secondary commentary on the 90cm. As this is a relatively minor issue, I think it best to wait until the more sizeable (no pun intended) issues are taken care of, and then getting a 2nd opinion. bridies (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

They're not naked :D What other issues? --Niemti (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'll drop this per Aircorn. bridies (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• All right, the quotes I pointed up are a bit better now. But they need to be better organised: the reception section hasn't been well-thought out, and doesn't read coherently. For example, those quotes above should be grouped with the Beefjack source and UGO sources in paragraph 2. Group the uncritical acclaim together, more mixed, tongue-in-cheek commentary together, and then any more negative commentary together. On that note, there's a similar problem with that Beefjack source. Just saying she was listed as "awkward" doesn't really convey all that the source says. It calls her "tacky" which seems like it belongs with the Kotaku description as "obscene" and "whorish"; and again this mention is buried amongst mentions of sexiest character lists.
• Taki's character design has resulted in mixed but largely positive reception shouldn't be there in the first place, unless there's a secondary source which says that specifically. Per WP:SYNTH, we don't take a bunch of sources and then make editorial statements about them collectively.
• Couple of dead links to GamePro. Since these don't seem to be hugely important points, I think they should be removed.
• Complex magazine is italicised in the prose but not the refs bridies (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I actually wrote it "well-thought out" and "does read coherently". Maybe you should see the mess of reception sections in the so-called "Good Articles" (for example: see Samus before and after my rewrite In July, but it was a GA all along - read them both). This is based on the 3 links after the period mark first and then the rest of the section. An opinion by BeefJack does not fit into the paragraph that is about popularity. Complex is a magazine (and the Wikipedia article is about the magazine), but the articles themselves are from their website (which is calling itself Complex.com). Whorish was about Ivy. --Niemti (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's just a GA. You're treating it like it was FA. See some other GA articles, like the reception at Pyramid Head, what a mess it is (and hardly ever updated for several years - the tag's mine, but everyone ignored it). Or the mess at Iori Yagami (a fighting game character, who even has his gameplay, portrayal and merchandise content tugged inside his reception section). Or how short Li Long has it, even when mixed with "promotion", which really was about merchandise (and it's another Soulcalibur character, like Taki). But that's the GA standards. Not very high. --Niemti (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I just rewrote the whole section, I hope it's now more "well-thought out, and does read coherently". --Niemti (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm not treating it like an FA. The "GA standards" are here, and my complaints were that it was not "well-written" (or "concise"), "broad", or "neutral"; pretty clearly explained in themselves and with reference to the criteria. I think I'm a pretty lenient reviewer tbh (see below). I've been busy the last few days, will hopefully check it over again tomorrow. bridies (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has already offered a 2nd opinion, but will offer my services if you have a specific question. If it just concerns the 90cm information then I feel that having it mentioned in the picture is enough to satisfy the verifiability criteria, as long as you are happy with the source reliability. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit comments Second pass, excluding the reception section:

• Taki, one of the series' main good characters... Good, as in not evil, or good as in interesting, popular, successful etc.?
• In the series' lore, her soul embodies honor. This doesn't make sense. The trailer is not much help either.
• and that the cursed sword's presence was weak enough to allow its destruction. Say what? Presence?
• Taki witnesses how the battle between Siegfried armed with the Soul Calibur and Soul Edge-wielding Nightmare unleashes a powerful cataclysm. What does "cataclysm" mean here?
• Taki would appear unmasked only in some of her alternative costumes, but in II and IV she is unmasked in all of her appearances. Doesn't really make sense.
• ...due to having given the second sword to wield once. Doesn't make sense.
• ...and many unsafe special moves". Unsafe how?
• The reception section now needs to be broken up into subsections. Aside from the length issue, this will give the reader some thematic pointers at least. bridies (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• And Taki's character design has resulted in mixed but largely positive reception based on 3 sources which jsut give opinions, is original synthesis. bridies (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good as in fighting evil, as a globetrotting vigilante exorcist of sorts. Every Soul fighter has something assigned to their soul (also stop seeking "sense" in Japanese fighting games), kind of defining thing, and for Taki it's Honor.[5] Er, like power. Cataclysm = "a cataclysmic eruption of destruction that few survived"[6] just in short. In the first game she uses only one sword. Unsafe as in risky. Reception for characters almost never has subsections. Actually it's followed by not "3" but a several dozen sources (over 50 or so). --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's still original synthesis, no matter how many sources you're synthesising. And the article has to make sense, even if the game doesn't. bridies (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It needs subsections, due to the length and coherence issues already discussed. Reception for characters almost never has subsections isn't much of an argument in itself, but "almost never", like Ayane (Dead or Alive) or Jill Valentine? And if you want an WP:Other stuff exists argument, I think the fact the length of this section is at least as long as any (sub)section in World War II is a better one. bridies (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I myself made these subsections in Jill's and Ayane's, it's most OTHER articles don't have them (in Reception at bios for fictional characters, that's besides the fact that most non-vg characters don't have a Reception section at all). In Taki's, maybe the reactions to her removal from SCIV, but I don't know how to name it. --Niemti (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Recusing from this. IMO this is still some way from the GA standard: the reception section is way too long and still has to an extent the issues described above. The prose in the sections dealing with fiction is not great either; and per Teancum's unflattering second opinion. I have a feeling the nominator will be none too happy if I fail it though, so it can stay at the top of the queue rather than the bottom. bridies (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

Extended content

There are still WP:MOS issues. There are several instances where references are not placed after punctuation. The references are a mess. Many are missing necessary info such as accessdates, authors, etc. Date formats are inconsistent, as are publisher names (for instance, one is listed as Official XBOX Magazine). Some seem dubiously reliable at best, such as myfigurecollection.net. Several references are dead and need to be archived. There are no valid external links per WP:EL. Wikis and links to a specific publication's site are forbidden per WP:ELNO. The review section cites publications for quotes. It should cite the author of the article. For instance, it's not: "G4 TV listed her" it's "Daniel Maniago of G4 TV listed her" File:Taki_Soul_Edge_design.jpg's free use rationale is in need of updating. Simply putting "Everything alright." under Minimal Use is not acceptable. The lead is incredibly short and does not summarize the article. See WP:LEAD There is a disambig link for double jump Acronyms, such as DLC, should be spelled out the first time, and if they are used again later must have the acronym in parenthesis after the first appearance. For example: "downloadable content (DLC)" -- after that DLC can be used. Per WP:LAYOUT 1-2 sentence paragraphs should be merged where possible. There are two instances here, one in Gameplay and one in Other appearances. Both can be merged. There are other issues, but this was just after a quick glance. In regards to bridies's assessment of reviews, remember that GA articles are held to a higher standard now than the once were. Even a few years ago it was easy to pass a GAN. If the nominator feels articles like Pyramid Head do not meet criteria any more, they can be send to WP:GAR. --Teancum (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I think the lead is fine, what exactly information do you think it lacks? The authors are in the links (if there are specific authors), and the name of "Daniel Maniago" says nothing at all to 99,99% or potential readers and it's a needless trivia (if someone cares still, it's probably in the ref anyway). I don't even know what to write in the file, it's confusing and unclear as hell. "'Official XBOX Magazine" is the name of the website (yes, in caps) and there's no error there (the error was placing it in italics, though). Not all articles have authors and the access dates are useless. Date format is as used by the publishers. It's not FA, again. --Niemti (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'll address the points individually: Citing the author when it's a direct quote required per WP:MOSQUOTE -- "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section." Since the subject is a character, attribution to individual writers in a quote is required Having "Official XBOX Magazine" in italics is correct since it's considered a publication (magazine). XBOX is not, however as Wikipedia does not stylize -- see WP:MOSTM Standardized citations are required to pass GAN. (see WP:CITE for more info) You can keep saying "it's not FA", but it doesn't change what the standard is. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC) But it's from the website (of the magazine), and not from the paper magazine, and that's how this website calls itself (the very official name used for the article is "Official XBOX Magazine | SoulCalibur V preview"). Where exactly its says something about how "Standardized citations are required to pass GAN"? I just put this phrase in google (without quotation marks), got nothing relevant. "Standardized citations good article wikipedia" brought me to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. --Niemti (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Perfectly formatted citations are not required. I mean, geez. Maybe first actually learn the guidelines, becuase you almost misinformed me. --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Also, this Wikipedia:Citing sources that you just linked me to has neither "GAN" or "good article" anywhere. So come on and let's be serious for a while. --Niemti (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'll try to fix the deadlinks and cite authors when they're quoted at lenght, tough. Dead links are still dead, or at least the Archive.org won't work for them (redirects to Joystiq for Game Daily and PC World for GamePro). You can tell me what you think the lead lacks so. --Niemti (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week or two, but I wanted to address the WP:LEAD question. The peer review bot is what I go by, as it's an official Wikipedia tool. It also covers some Manual of style issues with numbers and dates. --Teancum (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, and so this bot says the intro is still lacking a summary of what exactly? --Niemti (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of this review. I have no interest in spending my time going back and forth when the changes requested could have been completed with 1-2 hours of work. Clearly you've chosen to stand your ground, and that's your choice, but I don't have the extra time to go back and forth. I guess my review standards for GAN are apparently above the minimum required. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked you what I should add still, several times (including after expanding), but you answer told me. Instead, you showed me something about how "You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article" by the broken bot who can't even notice an infobox. --Niemti (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he was just pointing out the fact that the bot doesn't seem to think it's compliant with WP:LEAD. Personally I think it meets the minimum for compliance now. bridies (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've felt throughout the review that simply addressing the issues noted by both reviewers would both improve the article and satisfy the reviewers, yet I got the impression from Niemti of a "just the minimum needed" focus. Everyone could have been happy had we worked together to complete the requests and it could have been that much further toward A class (which, I'm assuming given other nominations, is where Niemti wanted to go next with this article). It would have served both sides to continue improvement. That being said I'll strike my request for a lead update as Niemti makes some fair points about the bot not necessarily being correct about size. I've also collapsed the above and updated issues/requests below (clarified this time). Issues are marked with (I), requests with (R). --Teancum (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• (I)WP:MOS issue: there are some instances where references are not placed after punctuation.
• (I)The IGN page on Taki (External link) should be replaced with the link from the official website if possible. I don't know much about this character, but here is her bio page from SC4.
• (I)Ref 112 should be listed as Official Xbox Magazine instead of Official XBOX Magazine per MOS:TM
• (I)Some references need to have their reliability verified such as myfigurecollection.net, ShopWiki, tisinc99.com and others.
• (I)File:Taki_Soul_Edge_design.jpg's free use rationale is in need of updating. Simply putting "Everything alright." under Minimal Use is not acceptable.
• (R)Date formats should be consistent. I would do it, but WP:MOSNUMscript is currently broken.
• (R)Per WP:LAYOUT 1-2 sentence paragraphs should be merged where possible. See the lead paragraph in the Other appearances section. If it's too hard to merge these two paragraphs while maintaining a clean flow, ignore this request.
• (R)Accessdates for all references. As Niemti pointed out above, not required (that's new on me, by the way -- every review I've had done on my work required it, so I always have for others). Still, it will be required for an A class or FA, so if this article is to be further promoted it'll be useful to do them soon.

And I think that'll do it. I have tried to minimize what I saw, but should also point out that I never went over the prose itself, merely the basic things I usually look for first (the easy stuff). --Teancum (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by so-vaguaely referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but I'm pretty sure the meaning of "placed after punctuation" was as in "not before punctuation" (in Polish Wikipedia, it's before punctuation, as in "."). Official XBOX Magazine is not in italics, because it's the name of the website (just like the name of the website of Game Informer is www.GameInformer.com, and so on). Good find on the English website, though, somehow I didn't know about it. --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that websites of magazines serve as an extension. Game Informer would be one entity, whether on paper or on the web. I could be wrong, but that's how Wikiproject: Video games has always treated it. In regards to references after punctuation I found a better reference for you: WP:CITEFOOT -- "citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas. For exceptions, see the Punctuation and footnotes section of the Manual of Style. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker." Hopefully that helps. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Video games does not exist. Official XBOX Magazine is just how the Internet edition of OXM calls itself. After punctuation - that's what I'm talking about (in many countries, and Wikipedias, it's before punctuation). --Niemti (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of fixing the link when we had an edit conflict, sorry. --Teancum (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And regarding actual problem with references: maybe you would know what's wrong at XCOM: Enemy Unknown, because apparently nobody knows where's this bug at. --Niemti (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Review pending. Please ping me if it is not up by October 25. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Forgive the haphazard nature, it's been a few months (maybe years) since I've done a GA review. :)

1. Well-written
• Right off the bat I see some issues with comprehensibility for non-Soul fans, let alone non-game fans. "In the series' lore, what lies within her soul is honor." means nothing to me because I don't know how that's relevant to the character. Throughout the appearances section there's issues with poor word choices and clunky construction that actively impede reading.
  • Taki debuted as one of the eight original characters in Soul Edge (1995), set in a fantasy version of the year 1584, in which she is a 22-year-old Sengoku-era "Hunter of Darkness" (闇の狩人 Yami no Karyuudo?) who has dedicated herself to fighting supernatural evil and travels around Japan using her "seal magic" (封魔)[11] against demons - Well that's a mouthful. Cut this down into multiple sentences.
  • The prologue of Soulcalibur (1998) tells of how she has eventually confronted and defeated the first game's main villain and Soul Edge's wielder, Cervantes de Leon, and obtained a fragment of the shattered sword. Things like "tells of how" are just more words to have to chew through when we could reword the sentence to be plainer.
  • but when she fused it with her other weapon, the kodachi Mekkimaru, it shed a powerful evil aura. What's wrong with it shedding an evil aura? Or is it supposed to mean it's giving off that aura, not that it lost it?
  • Doesn't Soulcalibur Legends take place before Soulcalibur? So why is it mentioned after?
  • The section awkwardly shifts from in-universe descriptions to out-of-universe descriptions (from the fictional chronology to the creators talking about them.) This needs to be fixed.
• I'd personally suggest that the article be recast and place the contextual information about design ahead of the character's appearances.
  • by default usually colored either crimson red or navy blue - meaning what? I assume this is saying her default customs are either red or blue, but the concept is not brought up and the casual reader wouldn't understand what is being referred to.
• Gameplay: why is everything starting with "according to"? Even if the attribution is necessary (and I'd be concerned if we were relying heavily on single opinions that can't be considered representative in this part of the article) it could be phrased better and by more varied means.
  • Taki is the only character capable of performing a double jump - link double jump
• Other Appearances: was strongly criticized by GamesRadar - did GamesRadar as a whole criticize it, or was it just one person?
Soulcalibur Legends' timeline in the series - no idea (I never played this one). I misunderstood you - Legends was released nearly a decade after Soulcalibur, messing with the story/backstories. Atrributing by author of a guide is neccessary because it's all subjective opinions (that don't even have to be actually right), I don't know how to write in a different way than "according to". Double jump is only a dis. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• • Then you'll need to actually explain what a double jump is then in the text. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Accurate and verifiable
• Some publications have also regarded her as one of the best female characters in video games in general and for reasons other than just sex appeal. This strikes me as a really odd statement to make, especially unsourced. Is there some sort of reference that suggests the only reason people like her is her sex appeal, or that this is the primary reason? If so that should really be made clear and cited. This is also the lead to a paragraph that mostly just seems to be talking about her looks, anyhow. On that note: what makes the Unreality award worth mentioning?
• What makes the following sites notable: Japanator, Manolith, BeefJack?
• GameDaily, considering most of its articles referenced are link-bait slideshows, is getting mentioned way too many times here.
The refs are in the rest of the paragraph. Most of reception was really about sex appeal (it's discussed in the section "sex appeal"), either solely or with gameplay issues and a sheer popularity; other reception was quite rare. Japanator is a sister website of Destructoid / part of its network, but I just checked Unreality, Manolith and BeefJack and it seems to they're only amatour websites / glorified blogs. I removed them. Most of GameDaily references are in a single-sentence list. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Coverage
• The basic sections for a character article are covered, although a lot of the later reception is mostly discussions of her cup size and snarky quotes to that effect. If there's not more substantial comments on that point, it's best not to belabor it.
4. Neutral
• Suffers from some weasel wording and weighted phrasing ("on the other hand") here and there, nothing too major.
5. Stable
• Seems fine in this department.
Overall, it mostly needs a stiff line and copy edit. Note that publications don't have opinions; the writers for those publications do, and unless there is no author mentioned, it really should be rather than just a blanket attribution back to the magazine or site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Many articles just don't have identificable authors. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Um, hello? --Niemti (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• What makes "The Long Gamer" and Soul Archive reliable? (If Soul Archive is the official site it would be helpful if the reference was formatted out fully to make that clear.)
• Still issues with long, comma-spliced sentences, e.g., A cloth mask returns with Taki's primary costume in Soulcalibur, which is also the only game in which her breasts are partially exposed,[15] and an iron mask with her blue-colored main costume in Soulcalibur III, this time based on a lower part of female demon mask.
-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Of course it's official site (and it's Project Soul Archive, not just "Soul Archive "). There's no "The Long Gamer"? --Niemti (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, "Lone Gamer". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing really, it's a Wordpress-powered blog. --Niemti (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that two of the explanatory notes are themselves unreferenced: "Given that Mitsurugi was replaced by the character Arthur in the Korean version of Soulcalibur, Taki is the only character to have appeared in all versions of every game", and "In her Soulcalibur IV ending, which later proved uncanonical, she tracks down and defeats Siegfried, who takes the evil sword and allows himself to be crystallized while she silently walks away.". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is just the game.[7] --Niemti (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• The game I don't think expressly says Taki is the only character to appear in all games, and who said the game's ending was declared non-canon? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It's the rosters in the games. SCIV was originally supposed to be final part of the series and in the fifth game they found a "way to know how Taki lived her life from that point on" (found a disciple in Natsu, went on another journey, to be continued). Oh, and Siegfried didn't die. --Niemti (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• • My point is it's original research unless you find a clear source for it. The assertions you're making cannot be simply attributed to a game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. She was in every game and that's all. --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is that all? --Niemti (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still doing another pass, but I ccan tell you that as it currently stands the prose is not competent enough to pass standards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually the only GA requirements for prose is "Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity" (which yes, doesn't even exist). And seriously, it goes on for over 3 weeks already. --Niemti (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As outlined with examples above, the text is neither clear (with in-universe descriptions and bad grammar) nor concise (run-on and rambling sentences.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, not anymore? ("Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity" simply doesn't exist, anyway.) --Niemti (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll bring that up at the MoS, but I would say an article that still has obvious grammatical and syntactic issues does not meet the definition of "good". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not from an English speaking country so I can't really help it more than I already did. (And the article has been tagged for copyedit for many months once, but nobody has really ever corrected anything.) If you just corrected these grammar mistakes that you see it would be awesome. --Niemti (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through and doing a copy-edit now, but I'm listing the review for a second opinion to get a fresh set of eyes and hopefully bring the review to a conclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this article, I can agree with David with it having MoS issues. And as such, I suggest that this article should be taken to the Guild of Copy Editors so it can be copy edited. GamerPro64 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, on that recommendation I'm closing the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

I'm removing the following texr because it either doesn't match the sources or doesn't belong in the article per WP:COATRACK, or another reason I will mention as I go. I often find problems in 'Reception' sections, and this seems like no exception.

• Reception:

Doesn't match source(s):

She was also noted to be the favorite Soul series character of GamePro editors McKinley Noble and Billy Berghammer.

Doesn't say a great deal about the character, just some random grasping for quotes here, and the 'Street Fighter' comparison is for another character:

In 2011, Cracked.com listed the "sexy ninja" Taki as first among the "important good guys" of Soulcalibur and described her as this series' equivalent of Street Fighter's Chun-Li.

The thing is Chun-Li is the "first lady of fighting games" (and SA recently had a fight between her and Mai from KOF for the best female arcade character[8]). It's not random, it's pretty much like if a film director was compared to Spielberg etc. --Niemti (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Very short quotations tell me to check references, and I'm usually correct. Those one- or three-word quotations have been cherry-picked from an article with three minor mentions of Taki. How is "The higher ups want in on some of that awesome Soul Edge power, so they order Mulan, sorry, Chun-li, I mean Xianghua to find it." comparing Taki to Chun-Li? I don't expect to find this kind of mis-quoting in a Good Article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Trivia/fluff:

Other Game Daily galleries featuring Taki included "Soul Calibur Hotties", "The Next Wave of Video Game Babes", "Babes We're Thankful For", "Brunettes" and "Asian Beauties".

• Sources removed:

GamesRadar US chose her to represent the Soul series while discussing the "best in breasts" of video games. In 2007, Joystiq's JC Fletcher called her "everyone's favorite underdressed ninja". In 2011, Ross Lincoln of GameFront included Taki's breasts on his list of "greatest boobs in video game history".

• Cutting some of the more lightweight reviews (inc sources):

Taki has been also often described as one of the most sexy ninja characters in video games; GameSpy in 2003 described her as "the bounciest ninja this side of Mai Shiranui", In 2012, FHM included Taki on its list of nine "sexiest ninja babes" in games, comparing her to Solenn Heussaff. In his review of Soulcalibur II, Gaming Target's Ryan Genno wrote, "I love the ninja Taki and her very skin tight red number which I'm surprised got by the censors."

GameDaily featured Taki in its "Babes of the Week" gallery series including the 2007 special "Babe of the Week: Taki", which stated that she is "becoming more agile – and big-breasted – with each new entry. She made such an impact ... that we awarded her a solo gig." In 2008, GameDaily ranked her as 17th "hottest game babe", stating: "Female ninjas will always hold a special place in our hearts, especially Taki, what with her muscular physique and insanely large chest." GameDaily also said, "the only thing better than a regular looking ninja is a big breasted female one." GameDaily praised her "superb fashion sense" and positively contrasted her with Mortal Kombat's Mileena. GameDaily repeatedly contrasted Taki's "inexplicably big" breasts and her "swift ninja moves," and asked, "how does she fight with those big boobs" and said, "she's quite agile too, despite her tremendous breasts."

Complex pitted Taki against Kitana from the Mortal Kombat series in its "battle of the beauties" feature, category "female ninjas", and said she was "hot, face mask on or off".

References