Talk:Tail Concerto/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

 * The first paragraph is well-written. I am not an expert on Tail Concerto, so I'll ask, are there any significant departures or breakthroughs that CyberConnect2 made with this game, in comparison to any previous titles of theirs? I'm simply wondering because that would be beneficial to include in the first paragraph if applicable.
 * The second paragraph seems to be together. No major suggestions, though I would cut the ", realease in 2010", down to "in 2010".

Gameplay

 * While this section is well-written and references nicely, it seems a little lightweight. There are too many generalizations, without much vision for how the game functions. The reader may understand that the main character is in a mechanized suit, but there isn't much provided beyond that. Please expand how the game functions, (assuming it functions to a greater degree), somewhere that is more extensive, but doesn't fall into game guide territory. If what's written is all that can be said and the game really is that lightweight, convince me with a reply in this review.
 * "Tail Concerto" is mentioned once in this entire section. The rest of the time, it's "the game". Give us some more variety and say the name more.

Plot and setting

 * Rename this section "Synopsis" and split the information into subsections of "Plot" and "Setting".
 * The information in this section is rather sparse. Please expand both the plot and setting aspects before we can really go into this. I can tell that the structure will be rather different, so organize the information before expansion.

Cast

 * Make this a subsection of my proposed Synopsis section.
 * If possible, find information that went into the casting process and the voice director. If not, eh, oh well.

Development

 * A reoccurring flaw I've seen throughout this section is that it switches between the development process and what the game currently features. This change in temporal tense is jarring and should be ironed out to strictly discuss what was developed, rather than what art style is featured and what-not.

Reception

 * It would be beneficial to kick off with a brief synopsis of how it did, with the context of overall positive or negative reviews. Otherwise, this section is a list.
 * Again, enough with only calling it "the game". Let's get more "Tail Concerto" in there.
 * About IGN, "The website also felt..." - No, they're not a website. Call them, "them", or else an organization or agency.

Legacy

 * While referring to CyberConnect2, remember that it's a singular entity, not a group. Therefore, when they have actions, say "was", not "were".
 * Other than that, this section is rather sound.

Closing thoughts

 * My instincts tell me that I should fail this review, due to the massive errors with the gameplay and synopsis sections. However, I would like to give the nominator an opportunity to attempt to adjust the article to GA standards for this next week. Therefore, I'm putting it on hold for the time being.

Verdict - Due to a complete lack of interest in this article reviewing process from its contributors, I am subsequently failing this GAN. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)