Talk:Tomoyo After: It's a Wonderful Life

Uh...what?

The story revolves around Tomoya and Tomoyo's life in the summer vacation after the events in Clannad, together with her half-sister, brother, and his ex-girlfriend.

I'd like to clarify this, but I'm not too certain of the subject matter. Anyone willing to help?--Sqrfrk 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article title

The tile is to be capitalized as per MOS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks):

Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized

Also changed the tildes to a colon spacing. It's a more logical way of writing out subtitles in English. The original Japanese format is still mentioned. --SeizureDog 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay

"The goal ... was for the player to enable viewing of h scene." is entirely misleading (in fact the only player "win-able" h scene in this particular game punishes the player into the bad end), and shouldn't be emphasis like it is a reward or an achievement for playing the game. The goal and thus gameplay of Visual Novels, similiar to choose your own adventure books, is to reach the "best ending", the h scenes are bonus. The fact the title is mentioned to contain sex scenes should be sufficent. 6:37, 26 April 2007

Fair enough, but I still want to include a note about the H-scenes; I'll reword it to comply with your reasoning.--十八 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GAN on Hold

1. Well written?: Overall the prose is well written, though there are some issues I think need to be addressed.
   • Wording - There are some instances where the text can be a bit hard to follow or does not flow well.
     • "In order to view the available plot lines to their entirety, the player will have to replay the game multiple times and choose different choices during the decision points to further the plot in an alternate direction. The game contained bonus H scenes depicting Tomoya and Tomoyo having sexual intercourse." It seems to drastically jump ideas from the first sentence to the next. I'd suggest copy editing a kind of segue in there.
     • "Tomoyo is the main heroine from of Tomoyo After.." This sentences seems off.
     • While lists are acceptable for a character section, I think prose would be the best choice here given the number of characters and the small amount of information under each character.
   • Organization - Some of the content in the sections seem out of place.
     • The "Visual novel" section seems a bit out of place. I'd remove the heading altogether as it implies that there are other formats of the subject and is not needed. Even if there are, the video game came first and other would be under a "Versions and merchandise" section.
     • Some of the subsections to "Visual novel" seem a bit short and could be combined. The "Gameplay" section is fine and can stand on its own even without the "CS edition" section. The "Release history" section can be merged into the "Development" section. Though the "CS edition" section is under "Gameplay" it does not describe the gameplay of that version of the game. It does give good development info that can be merge to the "Development" section. There is also some development related content in the lead that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, it wouldn't hurt to repeat it some in the "Development" section. Once the development content has been combined, it can be moved below either the "Story" or "Music" section.
     • Maybe add a "see also" link to List of Clannad characters under the character section since this is a spin-off/sequel.
2. Factually accurate?: The content is sourced, though I feel that there could be a few more sources. The "Gameplay", "Characters", and "Story" sections do not have any citations at all. Dialog from the game itself can be used to cite the story. See Template:Cite video game.
3. Broad in coverage?: Though the amount of content is a bit sparse, the content covers the major aspects of a video game. Though additional content about the reception would be a plus.
4. Neutral point of view?: Does a good job of remaining neutral and unbiased.
5. Article stability? Does not seem to be any edit wars of any kind or debates to split or merge content.
6. Images?: Image use is fine, the fair use rationales are a bare bones but still acceptable.

This article is fairly close passing GA. Once the issues mentioned above have been addressed within 7 days, I'll be more than happy to award GA status. If anyone has a problem/comment/question, please reply in this section of the talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

I believe I have finished with most of what was requested, but there leaves a few things left regarding the cites. First, I do not have the game on hand, and even if I did I wouldn't be able to take text from it because I can't read Japanese, so citing the video game itself is next to impossible at this present moment. Furthermore, I have tried to find anything I can use in terms of reception, but there is not much, plus as far as reviews go, I do not know of any reputable sources (that I can read) or find that reviewed the game, though I'm sure they are out there. Still, visual novels are on the low end in terms of importance in the video game world and are a niche market to boot, and seeing as the game was never released outside of Japan, that makes it all the more harder to find such sources. If I can get my hands on the visual fanbook, there may be stuff in there that I could use, like interviews, but even if there were, I still would not be able to read them.--十八 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes look good, you did a good job with them. Combining the other content into the "Development" section really expanding it. The "Plot and characters" section turned out good too. It wouldn't hurt to keep two separate sections for characters and the story, but the way you wrote it works well too.
Two minor things I forgot to mention in my initial assessment. They shouldn't take too much effort to accomplish, but sorry I forgot about them at first.

1. The lead could use a small bit about the reception and the story. A sentence or two about the main protagonists, what the general plot is, and like one sentence summarizing the "Reception" section. I would try to organize it all in the same order as the article.
2. The references could use the "publisher" parameter filled in the cite web template. Mainly just the name of the company that runs/owns the website were the content came from.

As far as additional sources or getting some general translations of Japanese sources, I'd ask for some help at the VG project talk page. Because the article is looking good right now, but I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the sources listed adequately satisfy WP:V for GA. Everything else is in good shape, and I'd hate for the article to not make it because of a detail like that because it is a very well done article. See what you can do, and I'll think things over. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

Okay, those two points have been taken care of, now all that leaves are the cites. However, I would like to bring up the fact that artciles on fiction can even be promoted to FA status without cites in lengthy Plot/Characters sections (The Lord of the Rings#Synopsis).--十八 22:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but The Lord of the Rings was promoted over a year ago and has not been under a Featured Article Review since its promotion. With so many video game articles and other articles on works of fiction coming under scrutiny, it's better to error on the side of caution. I saw the extra source, that's a good start. Keep up the good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Fair enough. For now, I have attempted to source what I can in "Plot and characters" with cites from the two official websites the game has, and the Gameplay section was cited with the Prototype site as well. At this point, would the cites still be the thing keeping this article from getting promoted, or not?--十八 01:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the extra citations, those are good. Though the WP:GA? does not stipulate an exact minimum number of sources needed, the only thing I feel this articles is a bit lacking on is the number of sources. See if you can find extra sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

I cannot say I exactly agree. This is a small article, only 15KB in length, and I have tried to source everything that needed a source. Is there some glaringly obvious point in the article that needs a source, because I cannot see it. I believe the number of sources should be proportional to the length of the article and the amount of information that needs to be sourced, which is why I think there is no set number at WP:GA? for sources.--十八 08:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) I understand your disagreement, because the article is of good quality. I believe that the minimum amount of sources should be proportional to the article length. Right now I consider the number of sources in the gray area and can see other editors arguing that aspect of it along with one or two others at WP:GAR if it were to ever go there. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I highly recommend finding more sources. If nothing else to ensure that the article stays at GA level after promotion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

But again, I'm not entirely sure your request is reasonable. Is there anything left to cite a source for that hasn't already got a source? And by this I mean, are there are statements in the article that require sources, and are going to be subject of having to be verified?--十八 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we may have a misunderstanding. I'm not asking for additional citations for unsourced content, the current content is properly sourced. I'm suggesting a few more sources in addition to what is currently there to help further establish notability and verifiability. If you can't find any more that's fine, it's not going to prevent the GA promotion. However, I would suggest to keep looking in case the article goes up for GAR, because I feel the current sources just barely scrapes by. That's just my opinion though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

Okay, now I understand what you were asking, but as you said, I do not think I can find anymore reliable sources to back up the current sources I have. I'd have to find new reliable websites, translate interviews that may be out there, or find new info on development, all of which I do not believe is available with new developments to the games (like adaptations of the game and added reception info).--十八 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

1. Well written?: The prose is well written.
2. Factually accurate?: The content is properly cited with first and third party sources
3. Broad in coverage?: The content covers the major aspects of a video game.
4. Neutral point of view?: Does a good job of remaining neutral and unbiased.
5. Article stability? Does not seem to be any edit wars of any kind or debates to split or merge content.
6. Images?: Image use is fine, the fair use rationales are a bare bones but still acceptable.

GA Pass

The major issues were addressed and the article has been further expanded past what was requested.
Additional suggestions to further improve article

1. The more you source, the harder it is for people to dispute content. The more reliable sources in an article the more credibility it carries and it never hurts to source anything.
2. Expand the "Reception" section.
3. Beef up the fair use rationales
4. Maybe include an image of an album cover or manga cover (after it's released).

All in all this is a good article. Good job to the editors, keep up the good work. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Clannad, Episode 24. (Kyoto Animation)

Should it be mentioned in the "Media" section, that Clannad's OVA, or episode 24, is based after this eroge? AngelicMasterMind (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually. The OVA was an adaptation of Tomoyo's arc from Clannad, not Tomoyo After.--十八 00:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

360 version cancelled?

The article currently states "A version of the CS Edition for the Xbox 360 will be published by Prototype and released in 2009." but it's not listed at Prototype's website. Has it been canceled? The sentence should at least be reworded since 2009 is now a thing of the past. --Remy Suen (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it hasn't been canceled. Prototype is known for their delays, so it's not surprising it's not out yet. And they usually don't update their site until a given game is very close to being released.--十八 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ITMedia Review

As it seems, ITMedia reviewed the PS2 port back in 2007; hopefully it'll come in handy. [1] -- クラウド６６８ 08:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tomoyo After: It's a Wonderful Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330234835/http://erogamescape.ddo.jp/~ap2/ero/toukei_kaiseki/game.php?game=5986 to http://erogamescape.ddo.jp/~ap2/ero/toukei_kaiseki/game.php?game=5986
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://c83.product.co.jp/prototype.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peakspub.co.jp/ranking/rank184.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.peakspub.co.jp/ranking/rank187.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)