# Talk:Tales of Vesperia: The First Strike

Cyberlink420 and Sn1p3r87, please try and resolve the dispute via open communication on this talk page instead of constantly reverting each other's edits. --Remy Suen (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the edits is that he's reading too much into one offhand comment.  All Baker ever said was that he hopes that someone does license the Tales of Vesperia movie, and that they ask him to play Yuri again.  Nowhere in there was a confirmation, a denial, or even a hint, and as Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, the edit does NOT belong on the page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on the information being added, I would say that it fails WP:Verifiability. No one can independently verify what Baker said during a panel at a convention unless the convention, or someone on their behalf, recorded the panel and released the recording. 64.127.58.192 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone DID record it.  The problem, however, is that as I mentioned before, all Baker ever said was that he hopes that someone does license the Tales of Vesperia movie, and that they ask him to play Yuri again.  There's no "hint" anywhere. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tales of Vesperia: The First Strike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't done anything with this article, I think. I'll take this up. It may take a few days though. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a few points I noted

In the lead: the sentence "He expressed pressure due to First Strike being his debut as a director and thus elaborated on how difficult was creating the storyboard." I feel that the grammar could be better.
In Reception:  "Tales of Vesperia: The First Strike is a standalone offering, or at least one that might have done better had it focused solely on Yuri and Flynn and left the rest of the 'cast of thousands' far in the background.". I think maybe you should use italics for the film's title.
If possible, I think you should add creation dates for Refs 6 to 9, 21 to 26. Authors are not essential, but where it can be done or it's not obvious due to the reference's title, I think you should add the author of the online article.
Once these are addressed, the article should be fit to sport the GA icon and be a part of the GA list.

Added dates. However, I can't find ones for refs 6-9
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think this now rates as a Pass.
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)