Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Review pending. Please ping me if it is not up by October 25. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Forgive the haphazard nature, it's been a few months (maybe years) since I've done a GA review. :)

1. Well-written
• Right off the bat I see some issues with comprehensibility for non-Soul fans, let alone non-game fans. "In the series' lore, what lies within her soul is honor." means nothing to me because I don't know how that's relevant to the character. Throughout the appearances section there's issues with poor word choices and clunky construction that actively impede reading.
  • Taki debuted as one of the eight original characters in Soul Edge (1995), set in a fantasy version of the year 1584, in which she is a 22-year-old Sengoku-era "Hunter of Darkness" (闇の狩人 Yami no Karyuudo?) who has dedicated herself to fighting supernatural evil and travels around Japan using her "seal magic" (封魔)[11] against demons - Well that's a mouthful. Cut this down into multiple sentences.
  • The prologue of Soulcalibur (1998) tells of how she has eventually confronted and defeated the first game's main villain and Soul Edge's wielder, Cervantes de Leon, and obtained a fragment of the shattered sword. Things like "tells of how" are just more words to have to chew through when we could reword the sentence to be plainer.
  • but when she fused it with her other weapon, the kodachi Mekkimaru, it shed a powerful evil aura. What's wrong with it shedding an evil aura? Or is it supposed to mean it's giving off that aura, not that it lost it?
  • Doesn't Soulcalibur Legends take place before Soulcalibur? So why is it mentioned after?
  • The section awkwardly shifts from in-universe descriptions to out-of-universe descriptions (from the fictional chronology to the creators talking about them.) This needs to be fixed.
• I'd personally suggest that the article be recast and place the contextual information about design ahead of the character's appearances.
  • by default usually colored either crimson red or navy blue - meaning what? I assume this is saying her default customs are either red or blue, but the concept is not brought up and the casual reader wouldn't understand what is being referred to.
• Gameplay: why is everything starting with "according to"? Even if the attribution is necessary (and I'd be concerned if we were relying heavily on single opinions that can't be considered representative in this part of the article) it could be phrased better and by more varied means.
  • Taki is the only character capable of performing a double jump - link double jump
• Other Appearances: was strongly criticized by GamesRadar - did GamesRadar as a whole criticize it, or was it just one person?
Soulcalibur Legends' timeline in the series - no idea (I never played this one). I misunderstood you - Legends was released nearly a decade after Soulcalibur, messing with the story/backstories. Atrributing by author of a guide is neccessary because it's all subjective opinions (that don't even have to be actually right), I don't know how to write in a different way than "according to". Double jump is only a dis. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• • Then you'll need to actually explain what a double jump is then in the text. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Accurate and verifiable
• Some publications have also regarded her as one of the best female characters in video games in general and for reasons other than just sex appeal. This strikes me as a really odd statement to make, especially unsourced. Is there some sort of reference that suggests the only reason people like her is her sex appeal, or that this is the primary reason? If so that should really be made clear and cited. This is also the lead to a paragraph that mostly just seems to be talking about her looks, anyhow. On that note: what makes the Unreality award worth mentioning?
• What makes the following sites notable: Japanator, Manolith, BeefJack?
• GameDaily, considering most of its articles referenced are link-bait slideshows, is getting mentioned way too many times here.
The refs are in the rest of the paragraph. Most of reception was really about sex appeal (it's discussed in the section "sex appeal"), either solely or with gameplay issues and a sheer popularity; other reception was quite rare. Japanator is a sister website of Destructoid / part of its network, but I just checked Unreality, Manolith and BeefJack and it seems to they're only amatour websites / glorified blogs. I removed them. Most of GameDaily references are in a single-sentence list. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Coverage
• The basic sections for a character article are covered, although a lot of the later reception is mostly discussions of her cup size and snarky quotes to that effect. If there's not more substantial comments on that point, it's best not to belabor it.
4. Neutral
• Suffers from some weasel wording and weighted phrasing ("on the other hand") here and there, nothing too major.
5. Stable
• Seems fine in this department.
Overall, it mostly needs a stiff line and copy edit. Note that publications don't have opinions; the writers for those publications do, and unless there is no author mentioned, it really should be rather than just a blanket attribution back to the magazine or site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Many articles just don't have identificable authors. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Um, hello? --Niemti (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• What makes "The Long Gamer" and Soul Archive reliable? (If Soul Archive is the official site it would be helpful if the reference was formatted out fully to make that clear.)
• Still issues with long, comma-spliced sentences, e.g., A cloth mask returns with Taki's primary costume in Soulcalibur, which is also the only game in which her breasts are partially exposed,[15] and an iron mask with her blue-colored main costume in Soulcalibur III, this time based on a lower part of female demon mask.
-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Of course it's official site (and it's Project Soul Archive, not just "Soul Archive "). There's no "The Long Gamer"? --Niemti (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, "Lone Gamer". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing really, it's a Wordpress-powered blog. --Niemti (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that two of the explanatory notes are themselves unreferenced: "Given that Mitsurugi was replaced by the character Arthur in the Korean version of Soulcalibur, Taki is the only character to have appeared in all versions of every game", and "In her Soulcalibur IV ending, which later proved uncanonical, she tracks down and defeats Siegfried, who takes the evil sword and allows himself to be crystallized while she silently walks away.". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is just the game.[1] --Niemti (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• The game I don't think expressly says Taki is the only character to appear in all games, and who said the game's ending was declared non-canon? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It's the rosters in the games. SCIV was originally supposed to be final part of the series and in the fifth game they found a "way to know how Taki lived her life from that point on" (found a disciple in Natsu, went on another journey, to be continued). Oh, and Siegfried didn't die. --Niemti (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• • My point is it's original research unless you find a clear source for it. The assertions you're making cannot be simply attributed to a game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. She was in every game and that's all. --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is that all? --Niemti (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still doing another pass, but I ccan tell you that as it currently stands the prose is not competent enough to pass standards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually the only GA requirements for prose is "Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity" (which yes, doesn't even exist). And seriously, it goes on for over 3 weeks already. --Niemti (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As outlined with examples above, the text is neither clear (with in-universe descriptions and bad grammar) nor concise (run-on and rambling sentences.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, not anymore? ("Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity" simply doesn't exist, anyway.) --Niemti (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll bring that up at the MoS, but I would say an article that still has obvious grammatical and syntactic issues does not meet the definition of "good". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not from an English speaking country so I can't really help it more than I already did. (And the article has been tagged for copyedit for many months once, but nobody has really ever corrected anything.) If you just corrected these grammar mistakes that you see it would be awesome. --Niemti (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through and doing a copy-edit now, but I'm listing the review for a second opinion to get a fresh set of eyes and hopefully bring the review to a conclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading through this article, I can agree with David with it having MoS issues. And as such, I suggest that this article should be taken to the Guild of Copy Editors so it can be copy edited. GamerPro64 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, on that recommendation I'm closing the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)