Talk:Tales (video game series)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I have no idea what this thing is. It has no apparent source, claims it's the logo from Tales of Graces when it clearly isn't, and generally appears to be some sort of user-created mockup. In short, something is very wrong here.Y

Logo-wise, most series pages for series that keep changing the name format either use the original logo or the most recent logo. Final Fantasy and Fire Emblem just use uncopyrightable text.

The linear motion battle system image needs a better caption. At present it's quite unclear what readers are supposed to be taking from the image.Y

This is still an issue, as the caption still doesn't explain what is important to see in the image.

The new caption is better, and the new image does a much better job of demonstrating the interface, but the image is really hard to see. Would suggest keeping this or a similar image but formatting it closer to how FA FFXII does it, where the image can be popped up to a somewhat more visible resolution.

I've uploaded a higher-res image of the battle scene, and did a test on it. When you click on the image now, it should make things easier to see. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

First link I checked is dead. Was able to pull it out of Google cache, but would suggest link archival for the ones that aren't archived already.

ProtoDrake, I can pick this one up. Have you done this? Tezero (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that. I also addressed the lack of mixed or negative comments concerning the series, or tried to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm reading over the page as a whole now. I don't know what the heck that guy was talking about with run-on sentences; I'm not seeing any. Tezero (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a few changes to the lead, though; it used "the series" several times in a short span of text, which read kind of oddly. Not seeing much of that elsewhere, though. Tezero (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that's a pretty weak source for artistic criticism, especially given that this series certainly has more significant analysis out there. Is there nothing usable in the numerous entries on individual titles? Even machine-translated Japanese sources would be superior to this borderline-clickbait.

Looks like you cut this one.

I thus far haven't found any other obviously problematic sources, but since there are a hundred more stuff may show up here.

Scope[edit]

The article is virtually devoid of voices critical of the series, which is both a neutrality concern and a scope concern: problems and how they were (not) addressed are a significant aspect of coverage for a franchise like this.
The page doesn't really cover any technical aspects of development, e.g. game engines used throughout the series.

Western audiences/reviewers criticize the series for sticking to anime tropes (amnesia, coming from humble beginnings to save the world, etc) and not conforming to Western-style video gameplay mechanics. This could be used to address the "devoid of voices critical of the series" concern. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done something approximating that. I've also noted that the graphics have often drawn a mixed response, so I added that in too. Again, have no choice when it comes to the reference style. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing[edit]

Lead section is too short. See WP:LEAD.
Pervasive run-on sentences, awkward phrasing and transitions. Should probably be copyedited.

On the plus side, you don't seem to have a stability problem.

Anyway, page On Hold pending resolution of problems. --erachima talk 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to create a section about the technical side of things, as well as expanding the lead, doing some copy editing and cleaning up here and there. I also found reviews concerning the series' stories, which seem to be their most commonly critiqued aspect. From the looks of it, I'm not sure we can have a logo on this page. I trust that that can be sorted out at a later date. I know the reception section uses the multiple-reference style, but there aren't any usable sites that give a wide view of the series. It's a similar problem to what I had with the article on the Drakengard series. My work is by no means finished, and I'm sure I've missed things or forgotten or taken the wrong course of action. I've also asked for help from another substantial contributor, as I think I will need some help on this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to be in that inconvenient range for scope and sourcing where it's impossible to exhaust the sources ("article is 12 kb long, and contains all extant human knowledge on the subject. time to take it to FAC!") but also not at the level where you can trivially find sources for anything you want.

And you're right, there was still a good bit of work to be done on this one. I'll look at what you've done so far and make notes. Good luck, and keep me posted as you change things. --erachima talk 21:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a logo. It may not be alright first time, but as far as I can tell, there is no one logo used by the series. The one I've used... well, you can read the rational and the logo caption. I am prepared for scathing criticism. :) Oh, and I changed the battle image and expanded the description. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erachima:Update: I've done a little more copy editing and added info and references concerning character design and what happened to the Namco Tales staff after the studio's absorption in 2011. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm the one who had written most of the draft that ProtoDrake reorganized and rewrote into the version getting GA reviewed. I've been going about making some minor fix-ups here and there. One thing I thought I'd mention here first: One leftover remnant from my draft was Nine out of the fourteen entries in the main series have been localized. While true when I wrote it, as of Aug 19th/22nd, Tales of Xillia 2 comes out in NA/EU, and in November 2014, Tales of Hearts R will be released. So that will need to be upped to 10 and eventually 11 soon. (Or somehow reworded into a "X number released, Y number scheduled for release in the future" or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done some alteration so no updates will be needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. When I wrote that a few years back, at that time, it seemed to be more of a coin toss on whether or not titles would be translated. Since then, a few more mainline titles have been released or announced, and the company has stated that spinoffs are lower priority, so the "mainline ones are mostly translated, spinoffs are mostly not" approach you've taken sums it up pretty well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero's comments[edit]

I could be persuaded otherwise, but I'd like this to have a citation: "Others to receive adaptations of these kinds are Destiny, Graces and Xillia."
I've done so. I realize that it's the multi-reference style, but... you can see my reasons for using that style further up with the post beginning "I did my best to create a section about the technical side of things".
Gameplay consists of two very long paragraphs. Think you could separate it a bit for readability? Separating the first paragraph after citation 8 would be fine, as one option.
Done. I actually did a second separation to give skits and cooking their own paragraph.
"a cited example was between human and animal races" - cited by whom? Why does it matter?
You're right, the cited example of racial coexistence doesn't matter. I've removed it.
Actually, I think it'd be okay if you wanted to include it, ProtoDrake; I was talking about it being "cited". Why does it being cited matter, especially since we don't know whom by? I apologize for the misunderstanding; you can bring it back if you want. Tezero (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford comma is omitted throughout the article. I personally prefer it to be used, but I won't challenge it here as it's primarily a stylistic issue - if you take this to FAC, though, you might get challenged on it as I think the default dialect of English for articles not associated with a specific Anglophone country is American. Just a guess.
Dealt with the ones I spotted. Sure I missed some. I just thought the extra commas made the article took untidy at the time. As to taking it to FAC, I seriously doubt any of the Tales-related articles will make it there. It's like Drakengard: not enough attention in the west.
Drakengard passed FAC, though. I think you can take it if you want; Wikipedia has an unusually heaping pile of FAs on Indonesian movies, for example, and my most recent FA passed as such without a single formal review from any country. Tezero (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Bandai Namco often use" - This is another marker of British English - leave it if you want, but as with the comma I'd recommend changing it, all else being equal.
I think I fixed it.
"The series has become distinguished" - You mean that’s one of the things that’s usually called out about it, or it actually has a legacy as an anime-inspired JRPG series? I really doubt it’s the latter, but you could expand a bit on this sentence in the spirit of ̨̨WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
I've changed it to sound like a distinguishing feature rather than anything related to a legacy in gaming.
Art design is a really long paragraph. Please split it up somewhere.
I've broken it up.
"problems with outsourced development and incompatibility with the development process" - Couldn't the latter fall into the former? They're both very vague descriptions, anyway.
I think I fixed this too.
Why is "role-playing video game" not used until Reception? (Actually, it is used a little earlier, just not linked, but why isn't it anywhere in Gameplay? The reader wouldn't have any idea right off the bat that it's an RPG series.)
I've looked. It's now mentioned in the lead, infobox and gameplay sections.

Tezero (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed the issues you've mentioned. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'll be passing this. Nice job. Not that Sergecross73 would necessarily care, but he can say on his userpage that he has a GA now. Tezero (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, maybe I should start caring. The same thing just happened at Sonic Xtreme too. A bunch of my "major contribution" articles are probably just a step away from them. But then again, ProtoDrake did a lot of reworking to this article too. Nice work! Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]