Talk:Kiki Wolfkill

Peer Review by NiqueMallory

Hey guys I just peer reviewed for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NiqueMallory/Kiki_wolf/NiqueMallory_Peer_ReviewNiqueMallory (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Your article does a good job of incorporating every known aspect of her life.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I suggest that you make a section for the racing even if it may not be a lot of information, because it seems as if that was a big part of her life and should be highlighted. Plus, it gives room for stuff like her internship to be added to the adult life section. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing is to work on flow and neutrality, I tried to explain it in my peer review. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I think the neutrality aspect is hard for all of us that why I think the zoom call, and reading everything out loud can help my group as well. What changes did you make? (ps: make a couple changes) Don't forget - BE BOLD and change things that are simple! I did't make any specific changes to the paper, but I did provide examples of what I mean in the peer review.NiqueMallory (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Agonz215

Alright, solid job.

1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? There is a lot of information about her career. I wasn't expecting so much depth. There is a lot of information. The article is clear in what it is saying or wants to say throughout.

2)What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? To expand on certain subjects and change sentences to more factual and making sentences have less bias. "The best" seems subjective without any backing, and saying "so she was around..." seems like making an assumption. In my opinion, Halo could have its own section that could be on its own since its such a big part, I'm not sure how far you should go in depth into Halo, but I feel like the depth it is at right now, it should have its own sub-section under career. I also feel like there is something bias about this article, I feel like the wording makes me want to believe that the author really likes Halo. Where is the evidence for this statement? Also the statement is very general "Millions were playing it on a regular basis". Where is the evidence for this statement? "13 million people watched online the 2017 Halo Championship". "some that are competing to win the Tribeca Games Award" Not sure about this one, but the word some seems generalized, can you specify?

3)What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The overview in the beginning is way too small. Can you specify what books or comics, etc. that she is involved in in the overview? It doesn't give me a good complete sense of her overview.

4)Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! The section on her career is very large, maybe our group could expand upon this branch off of her career to find more information.

5)What changes did you make? (ps: make a couple changes) Don't forget - BE BOLD and change things that are simple! Took out the word "general" as it wasn't needed and wasn't a factual word to really use on wiki. I reworded a sentence to sound better, and not start with "because".

Good job and goodluck!

Agonz215 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Alexrod2213

1. What does the article do well? The article does a good job covering Kiki Wolfkill's life from childhood to adulthood, reflecting the extensive research done by the publishing team. The article also does a good job showing how influential Wolfkill is in the world of gaming by listing off her accomplishments and accolades, thus showing the reader her importance. 2. What Changes would you suggest? I would suggest that a more extensive introduction be given to Wolfkill that talks about more than just her professional career. This would allow for the authors to let the reader learn more about Wolfkill early in the article and make the article look more crisp. 3.What is the most important thing the author could change? Expand the overview/intro to make the article look better, as it is now it seems to only be and overview of the CAREER subsection. Putting in small details or facts from other subsections in the article would expand the intro and provide the reader a better sense of who Wolfkill is. 4. The detail of the early life article would be something I wish I could apply to my article. If my group had more credible sources I would definitely make a clear and concise EARLY LIFE subsection like the one in this article. 5.I added "In the Halo Franchise" in the career subsection to clear up any confusion caused by just the word "Halo". Deleted "a farm without animals" in the early life section because it didn't seem. necessary to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexrod2213 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kiki Wolfkill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aranya (talk · contribs) 14:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I can review this one! Aranya (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Here are my current concerns on content and sourcing:

• Remove "currently" from the last sentence of lead. Could the year she became transmedia head be used instead?
• Could you clarify the point on the "creative freedom" her parents gave? Bit unsure about what that means in the context of her childhood.
• second in Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) Racing - per the cited ref 2 it should be "Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) Club Racing"
• In 1996, she participated in road racing competitions in the SCCA and Porsche Club Racing circles. - ref 2 says this was from 1996 to 1999
• I don't see anything from the first three sentences of the Career section's second paragraph in the cited ref 7.
• The conference speaker blurb from Cre8con is the only questionable ref I'm seeing. Could you replace it, for example with the original publication?
• I'm not seeing an age anywhere, so Category:1969 births shouldn't be used unless it can be sourced.

Prose, MOS, ref layout:

• getting degrees in Chinese history, broadcast journalism... -> "getting degrees in Chinese history and broadcast journalism..."
• drove acquired cars - should this just be "drove cars"?
• Xbox should be linked
• by Microsoft in to manage -> "by Microsoft in an effort to manage"
• spoke out sexist -> "spoke out against sexist"
• Fortune magazine should be linked
• 10 Most Powerful Women in Gaming should be in quotes if the original title is used
• "upcoming" should be removed - I think the Tribeca Games Award was given on June 17
• Ref 1 (Microsoft): news.microsoft.com seems to be different from the Microsoft News news aggregator currently listed
• Ref 8 (Vice): Mention of the publisher Vice Media is redundant

Great work on improving this article. I think it's close to passing once the content and sourcing issues are resolved! It's also pretty cool to see a GA nomination that originally started through the Wiki Ed program. I'm going to put this on hold for a week so improvements can be made. Please let me know if you need anymore time. Best, Aranya (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Aranya, thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed everything above; the citation issue was me just forgetting I had multiple Ars Technica refs used, and I just left out the (later) story that covered that material. Should be sorted now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing all the points, the article looks good to me! I'll go ahead and promote this. Best, Aranya (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Year

The prose noted that she was promoted to Director of Art for Microsoft Game Studios in 1988. Except, Microsoft Game Studios did not exist in 1988, and according to Kiki's Linkedin profile, she was still enrolled in the University of Washington studying Chinese history. The problem lies with a factual error or typo in one of the cited sources, Women in Gaming: 100 Professionals of Play, which I have a copy of. Also, if it is true that she was promoted following her work on games like Midtown Madness which came out 1999, then the year 1988 is certainly incorrect. I am surprised that this was overlooked when this article was prepped for nomination and scrutinized for GA review. Haleth (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I went ahead and removed the incorrect year but kept the relative order of events. In its place I added that she joined Microsoft Game Studios in 1998 (according to the Sports Illustrated source also cited). Aranya (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)