Wikipedia

Talk:Xenoblade Chronicles 2/GA1

< Talk:Xenoblade Chronicles 2
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago42 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, there. Since the Tin Star review didn't end so well, I hope reviewing this article makes up for it.

Xenoblade Chronicles 2 looks good in many places, though I do have comments.

  • It's a little bit off from meeting 2a from the criteria. While most of the citations are reliable sources, there are a few that aren't or are questionable.
    • The first citation is from a Forbes contributor. WP:FORBESCON indicates strong skepticism about reliability of these types of sources. Are we sure the author is an expert in the field for the piece to be reliable?
    • There are two self-published sources in ref 14 and ref 30. It's fine to use self-published sources if they're verified to be from the original game creator by independent parties (see also Plok!) but these tweets are from outsiders who had nothing to do with the game's development.
    • Attack of the Fanboy is not reliable.
    • Is My Nintendo News reliable? Although it updates frequently, its layout plus username-like authors of the article suggests its an unprofessional self-published source.
    • I'm having similar skepticism about Nintendo Everything, with all of its news pieces written by one author and few other writers for pieces of other sections. Also, any "submit an article idea" button on a website is a bit of a red flag.
    • Is Switchwatch reliable too? While its layout looks pretty dope, it doesn't have many followers and it looks like a website run by a few Youtubers with no professional journalism experience.
  • Other comments:
    • "Gameplay"
      • "The game is the third title in the Xenoblade series" What does this have to do with how the game plays? Sounds like it should be in the section about the game's narrative.
        • Sure. It's a bit difficult to have a summary section, when the only info you want to get across is that it is a video game, and part of the Xenoblade series, so then you can clarify it is the same sort of gameplay as the games before that. I have reworded slightly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • Although I understand it is a widely used description in sources, "Japanese role-playing game (JRPG)" is not a genre. It just categorizes the location of a game's development, not the style of gameplay. I think "action role-playing game" suffices.
      • As a dummy whose only gaming experience is a lot of retro platformers (plus Rock Band and various Nintendo Wii and Mario games), I can tell there's a lot of MOS:JARGON unique to RPGs and the game franchise that aren't specified or linked to another article for the reader to understand. For example
      • For the jargon, I recommend (mostly) to link to articles about those concepts or specifying what each concept is.
      • "Each character has skills called "Arts", that can be used to inflict status effects.[9]" Good sentence. This is an example how I like the jargons to be made clear to casual readers...
    • "Synopsis"
      • More talk of the Blade in both sections, yet I still don't know what the heck it is.
    • "Release"
    • "Reception":
      • "Pre-release":
        • I don't consider opinions of two citations enough evidence to indicate the full reception of anything, including the initial announcement and Gamescom showing.
        • Why is the Gamescom showing introduced here yet not in the release section that talks about other teasers and announcements?
      • "Reviews" section is having some 3a issues:
        • The GAC doesn't require completeness, but only a disappointing five publications have their viewpoints represented, one of them (GamingBolt) far less notable and recognized than Edge, GameSpot, EGM, Famitsu, Game Revolution and Game Informer (which have their reviews only cited once for listing scores and not to present their opinions).
        • A look at sources for the Metacritic and GameRankings aggregate pages (which isn't listed for some reason) also showcases other far more recognized publications not represented, such as Hardcore Gamer, 4players, various foreign editions of IGN, Eurogamer Italy, HobbyConsolas, The Games Machine, GamesBeat (a gaming edition of VentureBeat), gamesTM, Pocket Gamer, and Easy Allies. Most of these are already coded in the Video games review template for crying out loud.
        • There's also no representation from reliable sources that specialized in RPGs (RPGFan, RPGGamer, RPG Site) or publications that don't specifically specialize in gaming (The Washington Post, The National Post, Slant Magazine).
        • I'm not saying to include every single review of these publications, just that the reception section needs more reviews to meet the GAC of broadness.
        • Also, no GameRankings aggregate listed? And why is the USgamer citation discussed in prose but doesn't have its score listed.
      • "Sales": Where in Ref 67 does it specify the Japan sales unit and year-end ranking of the game? All I'm seeing is how much of a share the big industry players had that year.
      • "Awards and nominations."
        • Why is the IGN award presented in prose but not listed in the table? In fact, there's so few awards a table list is unnecessary. I'd present it all in prose.
        • Actually, I think you should put the accolades in the video games review template since they're so few to list and discuss. It's not worth its own subsection.

More comments coming soon. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

So, I have moved the awards to the end of reception. I agree it is a bit short, and I've removed the small table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
A couple notes:
  • The MOS says that GameRankings shouldn't be used unless it's significantly different from the Metacritic score, which I'm almost certain they're not.
  • Im not sure not addressing RPG centric sites is a shortcoming. They're often more obscure and on the fringe of reliability. It's probably better more mainstream sources are used.
  • Conversely, you are correctly, virtually all of the Nintendo fan sites, like My Nintendo News, and Nintendo Everything, are not reliables sources. They're generally pretty easy to replace though, as they repost news far more than they produce original content. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Thanks for taking up this review. I've been little under the weather at the moment, so I'll get to this as soon as I can. Pretty much what Serge said above, happy to replace the non-reliable RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
From what we've had above, I think the outstanding issue is the amount of publications listed in the reception. I'll try and get some more written in as soon as I can. Let me know if there are more issues outstanding. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've added a bit more on the reception. There is still some more that I can (and will) add, but some of those mentioned above (such as Washington Post), I am region/paywall locked, and I only have the scores for some of the reviewers (like Famatsu). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Excuse the delayed response. I've had a nasty flu the past few days that slowed down my activity significantly. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I hope you are ok. There's no issue in taking your time. I think I've put in quite a few other publications in the reception now, so hopefully this is a bit better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
More comments
  • As a bit of a geography dummy, I would suggest linking or explaining geography-only jargon when it occurs just in case casual readers may not get it. The first paragraph looks weird all linkless.
  • "inhabited by massive creatures known as Titans on which smaller creatures reside." Let me see if I comprehending this correctly. There are smaller creatures living on top of the heads or bodies of larger creatures? Japanese video games are weird, man.
    • I've reworded. Basically, instead of the contents we have on earth, the game is set in the cloud sea, which if you imagine really dense clouds in the sky, would act like water (you can float in it and such). The humans (and other things) live on giant Titans which act like the contents we live on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • What is the "World Tree"? Is it a tree that is the size of the entire globe?
  • "Because of this, Rex became very accustomed to the Cloud Sea and as such ended up becoming a salvager." Clarify what salvager is. Did he salvage the Cloud Sea or the creatures and/or people on it?
  • "He is very close with Azurda, a Titan whom Rex calls "Gramps", where he lives a portion of his life." Clarification. By "he," is it Rex living "a portion of his life" on the Titan, or did Azurda live "a portion of his life" on the Cloud Sea?
  • Any other voice actors besides those for Rex, Pyra and Mythra to credit?
  • Only the lead states the Drivers are humans, but this is not clarified in the body.
  • "Anúna after becoming a fan of theirs" I think it's only in British English where you pluralize possessive nouns for groups, and articles about Japanese topics generally don't write in the British English format. Correct me if I'm wrong
  • I'll say the Reception section, by GA standards, is representative-enough of the wider picture for now. When the time comes for FA, you're going to have to consolidate opinions using many more reviews (with WP:Bundle citations, of course ;)) and probably read WP:RECEPTION.
  • Also, one of the reception paragraph starts with "However, the game did receive some criticism for its poor explanation of some mechanics," which implies that's what the paragraph will be away. However, only the IGN Japan rev has this kind of opinion presented, and there are so many other concepts discussed in all other parts of the paragraph.
  • "Sales": I think Takahashi's quote can be paraphrased.

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

More comments (3/31/21)

👨x🐱 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

More comments (4/3/21)
Development
  • " The development team grew impatient upon hearing the fanbase complain about the changes, and started work on another story-driven title.[10] " Grew impatient to do what? Make another game?
  • "Initial work on the game was difficult because the technical specifications of the Switch were not yet finalized or known yet,[10] but once it was finalized, the game featured a shorter development period compared to the prior titles." Awkward writing, especially the "featuring a period" part. Here's how I would write it: "Xenoblade Chronicles 2 took shorter to develop than previous games, although development was difficult the beginning to a lack of finalization of the Switch's technical specifications."
  • ". Executive director Tetsuya Takahashi cited being able to use the technological foundation established in Xenoblade Chronicles X as a means of speeding up development time.[11][12] " Another awkward sentence in how needlessly long it is. It should be "The technological foundation of Xenoblade Chronicles X was used for Xenoblade Chronicles 2 to speed up development." Also, some things need to be specificed: what "technological foundation" are we talking about, and how did it quicken development?

👨x🐱 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Excuse the delayed response as my interest in expanding and reviewing film articles got in the way. There probably is more I could comment about with a re-read, but it might get into comments for making a FA, so I'll passed this. The comments about jargon and broadness have been address, and if there are other things I don't notice that other editors do when it comes to prose, I'm sure it can be noticed through a peer review. I will suggest if you are going to take this to FAC, that you read WP:RECEPTION, make sure most of the many reviews are represented to their fullest and concisest, and to re-read citations if you missed any details in the sources. Great work!

Thank you HumanxAnthro for your detailed and thorough review. The article is in a much better place now. :) If you do have any articles you would like to take to GA, let me know, and I'll be happy to pick up a review to make up for last time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenoblade_Chronicles_2/GA1&oldid=1017912278"