Talk:Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)

Comments by Chris L'Etoile and Shamus Young

• I see nothing in WP:SPS that would make the forum posts unusable. It clearly fits Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable_use_of_self-published_works, an expert on the topic. And it is a widely known information about L'Etoile that he uses the nickname Stormwaltz, I can google the name together with the nickname to easily find a number of pages confirming that, so I can easily add more non-self-published citations for that. I see no reasonable doubt about the origin of the posts - the account is registered, interacts repeatedly with others who know that Stormwaltz is nickname of L'Etoile (that google search shows this was known at least in 2004), and has insider information (talking about ME2 accepting ME1 saves a year before the game was released). What other plausible explanation for the post can there be? Llunak (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• As for Shamus Young, Amazon in fact lists several of his books, including one that's specifically about Mass Effect. And he's cited in the Reception section for Urdnot_Wrex. Not that I see why having a book would matter here, people from other cited sources presumably have not written any books, yet are cited. I linked him because he's apparently spent a lot of time on the topic, and his article includes conversation quotations from the game, which cannot be said about the other sources.Llunak (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards, and why articles by individual journalists or contributors who write for a reputable source can be cited and used, even though the journalists themselves are often not considered independently notable in their own right to warrant a Wikipedia article. I highly recommend that you thoroughly read Wikipedia:Reliable sources as it contains vital information on guidelines and policies for productive editing.

The problem is that a direct quotation of forum or Reddit posts is often problematic to utilize. This is not the same instance as the way BioWare staff used the official BioWare Social Network message board to conduct their business, like direct announcements or updates about their games or answering impromptu questions from fans. Staff forum accounts were (from memory) clearly identified by their full names. I am not saying that what you said about L'Etoile's forum identity and his activities on these message boards is factually incorrect or that I don't find the commentary interesting, I am saying that the connections you are making is original research, because no reliable source I am aware of, however marginal, has drawn attention to the connection between L'Etoile, the Stormwaltz user handle, and his comments about Ashley's reception. Per the link you've provided, if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Basically, you are saying Wikipedia should cite the opinions of random, anonymous forum users who drew these connections because you, a Wikipedia editor, has verified these claims. If that information is as widely known as you are claiming, other reliable sources should have picked up on that by now, and there is no shortage of writeups and even academic dissertations about the Mass Effect series all over the internet these days. Because the information you are proposing to include does not comply with the requirements of WP:OR and WP:V, both of which are non-negotiable policies, I am afraid I have to oppose their inclusion here as it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what Mass Effect Wikia/Fandom's views are on verification and original research, but maybe you can post all that info on the character's article there instead. As it stands, Chris Thursten's articles about the character and that Italian source are the only ones I can find which represent a dissenting view against a generally negative consensus concerning the character, a fact that Stormwaltz, if he is indeed Chris L'Etoile, has acknowledged.

I've checked Shamus Young's publications, and they all appear to be self-published, or released through a vanity press outlet like Lulu.com. Another quote, the author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. While this isn't an exceptional claim, I see no evidence that Shamus Young's fictional writings have been published by a reliable third-party publication and his book-length analysis about Mass Effect appears to be self-published as well, unlike say Jason Schreier who used to write for Kotaku and has authored books on the video game industry. As for the article cited for Urdnot Wrex's reception, it was published by The Escapist, but that does not mean it automatically confers the status of a subject matter expert to Young, as reliability hinges on the The Escapist's editorial standards. It would be a different story if his writing work about the Mass Effect series, whether for The Escapist or another source, had been widely cited by other reliable sources, and that includes his self-published Mass Effect book. Haleth (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 47.9% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. See below.

The toon website probably copied Wikipedia, and OMG that is a porn a website. I checked and I was surprised on what was it.

• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • other character's death → latter character's death.
    •  Done
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add alt text to images.
    •  Done
      • Kimberly Brooks image does not have alt text.
  • What about merging the Promotion and merchandise section into In other media?
    •  Done
  • Recommended wikilinks:
    • Lede: Shepard → Commander Shepard
      •  Done
    • Character overview: BioWare → BioWare, xenophobia → xenophobia, Shepard → Commander Shepard
      •  Done
    • Development: Kimberly Brooks → Kimberly Brooks
      •  Done
    • Appearances: SSV Normandy → Normandy (Mass Effect)
      •  Done
  • The article complies with MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable.
    • There are four YouTube references, although from verified channels (IGN, EA, Mass Effect), so this could pass.
    • What is The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 and The Art of the Mass Effect Universe?
    • Forbes article was written by their staff so it passes.
    • Origin in the infobox is unsourced.
    • First paragraph in the Mass Effect 3 section is unsourced.
    • Ref 2 and 3 are missing pages.
  • See below for spotchecks:
    • Ref 1 only backs up the first usage.
    • Will spotcheck Ref 3 once pages get added.
    • Ref 5 nor 6 back up that "She ties her hair into a bun".
    • Ref 14 does not mention the following: Geth, Eden Prime, SSV Normandy, Richard L. Jenkins, genophage cure, Urdnot Wrex, nuclear warhead, salarian and turian, medal...
    • Ref 9, 12, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33 verify the cited content.
  • Checking potential copyright violations.
    • First comparison is with a porn website which is not 100% identically written as on Wikipedia but this could be an instance of close paraphrasing. This website has been online since 2006 while this article (and this text in particular) was created and added in 2020. The text it also detected is the one I could not verify in Ref 1 (at the time of the creation of the article this text was unsourced). I doubt that the user who wrote this here actually copied this from a porn website so, we would actually need a source that would back this content up.
    • Other comparisons are alright because they are quotes which are properly used in the article.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@Greenish Pickle! and Haleth: As of writing this, some issues have been already addressed. Most of the issues remaining are related to references and a potential copyvio. Looking at this version of the article, the Appearances remained unsourced until pretty recently. If we look at other GAs, the Appearances section is always full of references. Some of this remains unsourced, and some of this has failed verification. However, I am willing to put this on hold for a few days, probably until Wednesday. I am on the edge of quick-failing this but I'll give this a chance. These issues should be fixed and I'll come back to check later (ping me here when you finish). --Vacant0 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what are you talking about. The appearances section were already cited plus you couldn't cite everything on a game's plot. Also, the porn website probably copied Wikipedia. Me and especially Haleth wouldn't copy a porn website in a first place. I'll maybe ask perhaps @Kung Fu Man for better explanation about this. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 19:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a program that checks a page against other websites to make sure there isn't a copyright violation, i.e. too much text copied directly. In this case the porn site is showing a lot of stuff copied because it listed info off wikipedia, so you're fine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ref 1 is used three times in the article. Out of those three instances, only the first one is actually backed up in the source. Other two instances where the source is used do not back up the content in this article. Ref 14 which is used once does not back up most of the text in the Mass Effect section under Appearances. I've added {{failed verification}} tags next to those paragraphs so that you can find them easily. To sum this up, you will need to find sources that actually back up that certain part of text in this article. Vacant0 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay Thanks. Ill try Work on it later. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've also checked Ref 16 and that too fails verification. My recommendation would be to look at newly-promoted GAs about video game characters such as Ardyn Izunia, Wooloo, and Tinkaton. Multiple references are, of course, allowed for this section and that is what you should look to do. You can even add the video game as a source itself (like in Ardyn Izunia), but only if it is properly referenced (e.g. at what point in the game do we learn that Ashley is the sole survivor of her squad following a surprise attack by the Geth on the human colony world Eden Prime), though this would take more time, so you should look for website articles first. Vacant0 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I just reliazed that its hard to cite mass effect characters appearances and I took it for granted unlike Resident Evil. I guess I should be given up. Feel free to close this as quick fail. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You can re-nominate the article for a GA review once the issues from this GA review get addressed. Otherwise, the next GA review could be quick-failed under criteria QF5. Vacant0 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for checking through out. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

ill try and work on appearances sec later. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary:

• Two references are missing pages.
• Two references (The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 and The Art of the Mass Effect Universe) should be expanded.
• There is unsourced content (Origin in the infobox).
• But most importantly, there is content in this article that fails verification (located in Character overview and Video games section). Without the presence of reliable sources that could verify this material, this could be counted as original research. There is also a possibility of copyright violation in one instance, though I doubt that the user who wrote this copied the material from the porn website where the text is present.
• With additional approval from the nominator, this article, for now, fails the GA criteria. The nominator should address these issues first before re-nominating the article for another GA review. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.