Talk:Xenoblade Chronicles 2/GA1

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

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

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. More comments coming soon. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I think I've got rid of all of these and replaced with new/existing items, let me know if I've missed any. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * I have removed this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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
 * Blades are discussed a lot but I don't know what a Blade is. Is that is a sharp weapon of some sort?
 * Yeah, I agree. I've added that they are a type of character. It is a bit confusing. hopefully this is a bit nicer. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What's a "character's class between Attacker, Healer, and Tank"? Plus what are those three things?
 * I've given clarification here. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The game's Blades and skills are based on eight elements, with enemies being weak to certain ones." What "eight elements"?
 * There is now a sourced note. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Health" is also video game jargon.
 * For the jargon, I recommend (mostly) to link to articles about those concepts or specifying what each concept is.
 * Should be much better now. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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...
 * I agree. That's a great point. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Synopsis"
 * More talk of the Blade in both sections, yet I still don't know what the heck it is.
 * "Release"
 * Why is the section one big paragraph? It's so uncomfortable to read and navigate this way.
 * I have split this up. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that announcements, promo music videos, and expo showings are discussed, I'd rename the section to "Release and promotion"
 * Sure. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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?
 * I've moved all this to release. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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.
 * Looks like it's in that table that is now broken. I'm not sure how reliable it is so I've removed. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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.
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * Just so you are aware, there has been consensus of RPG Site, RPG Fan, and RPGamer being high quality and reliable. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I'll preface all of this and say I don't actually write plot sections (nor this one), I find them to be cruft magnets. I'll clean this up to make it easier to read. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * What is the "World Tree"? Is it a tree that is the size of the entire globe?
 * I've reworded. Its like a central pillar. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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 salvages the sea for treasures. I agree the current wording is poo. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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?
 * Reworded. Azurda became like a ship for Rex. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any other voice actors besides those for Rex, Pyra and Mythra to credit?
 * These are the main ones, but I'll see what I can add. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only the lead states the Drivers are humans, but this is not clarified in the body.
 * Ah, that's me oversimplifying in the lede. Technically anything can become a driver. There's a bit in the story about a big ol' spider becoming a Driver. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "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
 * Changed Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Yeah, I think if I were to take to FAC I'd get some additional help. My FAC backlog is pretty full anyway, so it won't be anytime soon! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * I've cut down, rather than paraphrase, but I can change if that would be better. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More comments (3/31/21)
 * Why does the lead start with gameplay summary, then go into development summary, than go back into plot and setting summary?
 * I have reordered, see what you think. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are we listing the elements as a note citation? I don't see how having it as part of the prose detracts in any way.
 * Now in prose. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "with enemies being weak to certain ones." I'd like elaboration on this. Examples, for instance.
 * I've just removed this. If we state what the elements are I think it gives it away, and this is very normal RPG mechanics. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * They were unhappy with the feedback is what it boils down to, as they got very average reveiws. I've made a change. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "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."
 * Changed Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ". 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?
 * Sure. They are specially talking about the games architecture. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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 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)