# Talk:Tales of Xillia

Developer interviews
Day 1 NA DLC
DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tales of Xillia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: DragonZero (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the article. Expect comments up later today. CR4ZE (t) 04:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tales of Xillia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Will leave some comments initial within 24 hours and will mainly focus on copyediting issues. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
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: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

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: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
#### Lead
The lead could be better restructured/organised. The prose for the first half of the lead is somewhat choppy and the syntax could be improved. For example the opening sentence could read Tales of Xillia (Japanese: テイルズ オブ エクシリア Hepburn: Teiruzu Obu Ekushiria?) is a Japanese role-playing game developed by Namco Tales Studio and published by Namco Bandai Games or something similar?
I see what you mean. I reordered it so the release dates are together.
Would you prefer the use of Oceania other than Australasia? Not a problem, it's just that 'Australasia' is rarely used
Sources use Australasia, which is different from Oceania AFAIK
The second paragraph could be expanded slightly and should be copyedited to improve flow of the prose
I just merged it into the first paragraph
"in the Western world" - makes it sound like the west is a different world. How about "territories outside Japan" or something similar?
I'd prefer using Western world for better accuracy but expanded it into North America and PAL region.
Are there any criticisms from reviews that could be implemented in the lead?
Reworded English reception sentence


#### Gameplay
"When characters level, they receive GP" - "level up"?
Yeah
"Party members are able to link to each other to perform unified attacks called linked artes" - this paragraph already explains what artes are
It's a new Jargon and the game treats it differently from artes
"When the Linked Artes Gauge is full, the player character can enter Over Limit" - should this be in quotations?
AFAIK, the MoS doesn't say anything about this.


#### Development and release
"Its staff, battle system and two main characters were revealed along with the game's main theme" - this doesn't make sense, its staff were revealed??
? The director, music composter, character designers, and etc wasn't revealed until then.
"A Western world localization was officially announced" - this could be shortened to 'Western'
Taken
"In the same day" - On the same day
Taken
"The game was translated by 8-4 and dubbed by Cup of Tea Productions" - who/what is Cup?
? Cup of Tea Production is the company's name.


#### Reception
"Tales of Xillia was one of the top selling games on the North American PSN" - PlayStation Network, assuming that some readers are unfamiliar to this
Taken
The reception section could do with a light copyedit as the syntax makes it somewhat confusing


#### References
Ref 41 is broken
It's working for me
Ref 44, is Amazon generally used as a source? It's also the Japanese version
The media adaptions are all Japanese. AFAIK, Amazon is fine for release dates and only release dates
[1] Other than that there are no dead links and the citations are in the correct places so this meets the GA criteria


### On hold
There are many prose and syntax issues before this article has a chance to meet the GA criteria. I strongly recommend copyediting the article and making sure that the prose becomes clearer to understand (especially for readers not familiar to this game). I'll put his on hold for the standard seven days. If all of those issues are addressed and the most parts of the article (especially the lead) is given a copyedit then this article will stand a much better chance of passing the GAN. It is worth noting that the article has improved since the last GAN, so this stands a better chance. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
Thank you for you improvements, I think everything checks out. The prose has improved, all the references are fine and the lead complies per WP:LEAD. This article now meets the GA criteria. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)