Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2017

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2017 [1].

Cardiff City F.C. edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Welsh football club that competes in the English Football League. I have recently rebuilt the page and it was promoted to GA status soon after. I was encouraged by the reviewer and another editor to make an attempt at becoming a featured article. I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I reviewed this for GA status and found it well-researched, comprehensive and a pleasant read. I can't find any other quibbles (ensure you change all-caps titles in references to title case though..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lemonade51 - always nice to see a football nom here, not a detailed review:

  • The usual issue when it comes to sports articles, are clubs singular or plural? The first paragraph of the history section reads "The club was founded in 1899 as Riverside A.F.C.," yet under that there's "Despite their exploits in Europe, the club were still struggling in league competition". I'm not sure what WP:FOOTY's consensus on this is, but consistency is vital. Maybe @Struway2: could shed some light?
    • More heat than light, probably... I doubt if WP:FOOTY has a view, but both usages are grammatically correct. In the first, the club refers to a single entity, so takes a singular verb. In the second, it refers to Cardiff City's football team, which has a collective meaning and in British English takes a plural verb: who are Cardiff playing on Saturday. Having said that, to avoid the appearance of inconsistency without drifting into mid-Atlantic grammar, it might be an idea to restrict the words "the club" to when you're talking about the entity that is Cardiff City Football Club, and use "Cardiff" or "the team" when you're talking about what the football team did. Or if you do use "the club" when writing about what the football team did, only do it if the verb form is the same for both singular and plural :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "South Wales FA" the same as South Wales and Monmouthshire Football Association? If so, wikilink it.
  • When did Cardiff stop participating in the Welsh Cup, and why? If they qualify for Europe like Swansea did, do they represent England? Think the answers to these questions could be included somewhere.
  • Bit about Thames being Cardiff's record league win: it's mentioned twice in the article (which isn't a problem), but the club are wikilinked twice.
  • Cardiff's win against Real, "Despite going out after losing the second leg 2–0 the result would still go down in the club's history," doesn't really add anything. Every game Cardiff play will go down in history if you get my drift. I'd rephrase that line.
  • Looking at recent seasons: "On 18 August 2013, Cardiff played their first ever Premier League match away to West Ham United, losing 2–0.[33] However, Cardiff won only three games in the first half of the season...," however is unnecessary here.
  • The other concern I have is sourcing. Crosschecked the sentence "In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828 seater stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million," and the capacity is nowhere to be found in the source.
  • Source formatting is a minor problem. Footnote 39 and 41 for instance use different parameters for BBC Sport. The Guardian and The Independent are newspapers so they need newspaper= parameter.

This is not far off meeting the criteria, but it needs another once-over from you. Go over the sources, format them consistently and make sure the material in the article is covered by it. There are some sentences that are excessively long and could do with trimming, namely in the 'Colours, kit and crest' section. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the reviews both, I'll get onto those improvements as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonade51: I've implemented all of the improvements you noted above and given the article a bit of a once over, rewording and adding refs where required. Hopefully it's considerably better than it was. Kosack (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Second "the" should be removed in "the most recent being in the 2013–14".
  • 1920's success & later decline: Should the apostrophe be in this subsection header?
  • Typo in "suspnded" towards the end of this subsection.
  • Post war & European competition: Another excess "the" in "one of the most famous victories in the Cardiff's history".
  • Is "present" missing from the Recent history section title? It looks odd to have 2000–: there. Maybe it's because the formatting is a little different than the other section titles.
  • I'm seeing a bit of repetitive language in various places, such as "Hammam invested heavily in the team, investing in new players". A little more variety in word choice would be good, both here and in a few other places.
  • Ninian Park: Is "of" missing from "due to the scaling down grounds"?
  • Not doing a full source review here, but I'll note that the bibliography should probably be in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for the review, I've fixed all of the typos and errors listed above. I've changed some of the more repetitive lines that I could find, if there's anymore let me know. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • A few pedantic points
  • "BBC Sport" should not be italicised in the references (refs 40, 42, check for others)
  • Neither should "WalesOnline" – ref 70, check for others
  • No citations to the Grahame Lloyd book C'mon City... which shouldn't be listed as a source
  • Same thing with the David Collins book. Both Lloyd and Collins could be listed as further reading.
  • Reliability: A number of online statistical sites are referenced. I am not at this stage questioning their reliability, but I'd like a little more information about these sites, in particular who, in each case, is the publisher with ultimate responsibility for site content. The websites I have in mind are:
  • English Football League Tables
  • Welsh Football Data Archive
  • Historic Football Kits
  • The Football Fan Census
  • 11 v 11

Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I've fixed the issues raised above. In regards to the sources used:
  • English Football League Tables I'm unsure of the website publisher, I can replace this ref if necessary
  • The Welsh Football Data Archive is compiled by a research team which is listed HERE
  • Historical Football Kits I'm also unaware of but I believe it's considered a reliable source and is used in other features articles such as York City F.C. and Luton Town F.C. and it includes its sources at the bottom of the page Here
  • The Football Fan Census is run by a company of the same name.
  • 11 v 11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians.
Kosack (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for six weeks without attracting much comment, and there is unfortunately no consensus to promote. Therefore I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2017 [2].

Fawad Khan edit

Nominator(s): Amirk94391 (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fawad Khan is a Pakistani actor who've also worked in Bollywood and is known for his looks. I've been working on this article for the last three months and it has been promoted to GA. It is thoroughly researched. This is my first FAC. I am looking forward to your comments. Amirk94391 (talk)

Quickly looking through it, while the effort is commendable, it needs a thorough copyedit. An example: "where he played Arsalan.[26] Later that year, in Anjum Shahzad's travel adventure TV series Satrangi, he played a young boy who, after having fight with parents, leaves home.[27] In 2009, Khan played a rich boy who changes girlfriends every week in Haissam Hussain's drama TV serial Jeevan Ki Rahon Mein.[28] The same year, he played". "played" is used four times. The prose needs work throughout still, I would suggest that you hold off on FAC for now until the article is peer reviewed. Don't feel discouraged though, it's great to see something of good quality on here for Pakistan, but FA is a whole different kettle of fish. FA level is way above GA, always take an article to peer review after you think you've done the best you can do with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amirk, welcome to FAC. Unfortunately I agree with the Dr that this isn't quite ready for FAC yet. In addition to the prose issues noted, there are a lot of inconsistencies in your reference formatting - similar sources should be similarly formatted - and some of the references don't appear to be of high quality (eg this one). I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination and seeking a peer review or mentorship first. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose. Echoing the comments above: for some reason, prose seems to have been largely overlooked at the GA recent stage, yet there are some very obvious errors and poor formulations. Here are a few of the problems:

  • The first sentence of the article is mangled and ungrammatical
  • First paragraph: clarify what you mean by "in the industry".
  • Suggest delete the words "several awards including", to improve the prose flow.
  • Second paragraph: "started his music career" → "began his music career". The rest of the paragraph is written in short staccato sentences "He sang...", "He also sang...", "He also sang..." etc. It should be possible to summarize Khan's musical career less repetitively and more elegantly.
  • Third paragraph: I think you "achieve" popularity rather than "garner" it, at least in modern prose.
  • I think the more usual term is "closet homosexual" rather than "closeted"
  • Unnecessary "also" after "Kapoor & Sons..."
  • I'd rephrase the penultimate sentence: "He appeared as a judge on Pepsi Battle of the Bands (2017)..." I'd also question whether this appearance as a judge can be termed his "return to music".

All the above relate to the lead. There's plenty more that needs attention in the body of the article, but nothing as far as I see that couldn't be fixed quite quickly in a peer review with attention from a competent copoyeditor. I agree with Nikki's suggestion of withdrawal and resubmission when the article is properly ready. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dr. Blofeld, Nikkimaria and Brianboulton for your comments. I'm going to submit it for peer review and then I'll renominate it. Amirk94391 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2017 [3].

ZETA (fusion reactor) edit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ZETA fusion reactor built in the UK in the 1950s, the largest and most powerful reactor of its era. ZETA is representative of the fusion field's history - a theoretical breakthrough suggests a new route to fusion power, a reactor is built to take advantage of the design, it proves not to work, and fixing it requires a larger and more expensive design. Unlike other examples, however, ZETA had the rather unfortunate problem of announcing it was successful in very public fashion in newspapers around the world and then having to retract the claim. In spite of this embarrassing event, ZETA went on to have a very productive career and provided several important advances in the field.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
All the items in the first set were part of a press handout that went out shortly after the public annoucement in early 1958. I do not have the exact date. I do not have the publication dates on the last two., only the approaximate creation dates. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have managed to track down all of these, mostly by finding the people in them. The cartoon was first published in 1984 so I removed it. The laser was published in Nature in 1964. The rest are all from the same press release. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Which version of English is this written in? I'd expect British English, but we have "skeptical", "aluminum", "canceled", and "furor".
All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frederick Lindemann was already Lord Cherwell in 1949.
41 actually, but I think I'm missing the point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Frederick Lindemann and Cockroft visited and were duly impressed"; bit it should be "Lord Cherwell and Cockroft visited and were duly impressed" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is clear on this: use the form that is most commonly used in reliable sources in English. "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell")." In all of the references I have used in this article, they universally refer to this person as Frederick Lindemann, or Lindemann. Most do not even mention his peerage, or when they do, as a parenthetical afterthought. Given what I know of his history, I believe he treated it the same way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.

  • "The basic understanding of nuclear fusion was developed using the then-new field of quantum mechanics": since we haven't set a base date for this paragraph, "then-new" doesn't help much. How about "The basic understanding of nuclear fusion was developed starting in the 1920s, using quantum mechanics", or perhaps "using quantum mechanics, a field that came into being earlier that decade"?
Indeed, I've done a bit of editing here to make all the dates specified.
  • "heated to a thousand of millions of degrees": "a thousand" -> "thousands"?
Fixed.
  • "It was also the most powerful design, incorporating an enormous induction magnet that was originally designed to induce currents up to 100,000 amperes (amps) into the plasma, but later amended to 900,000 amps": I think there's something off here, grammatically; "later" pairs with "originally", but the design wasn't amended to 900 kA; it was amended to induce currents of 900 kA. How about: "It was also the most powerful design, incorporating an enormous induction magnet that was originally designed to induce currents up to 100,000 amperes (amps) into the plasma. Later amendments to the design increased this figure to 900,000 amps"?
Fixed.
  • "a wider effort started to release all fusion research at the 2nd Atoms for Peace conference in Geneva in September 1958": on reading this I first parsed it as meaning that the effort started at the conference. How about "a wider effort started with the goal of releasing all..."?
Done.
  • "Critically, Cockcroft had stated that they were receiving too few neutrons from the device to measure their spectrum or their direction." This sentence seems to belong at the end of the previous section, rather than where it is now. If I'm wrong about that I don't understand its significance.
I've expanded on this a bit. See if it makes sense now, I'm not entirely happy with it.
  • "The inaccuracy of the measurement and spurious results caused by electron impacts with the container led to misleading results": can this be rephrased to avoid using "results" twice?
and expanded as well.
  • "ZETA was used almost continually": suggest "continually" or "almost continuously"; "almost continually" is probably not the intended meaning.
Interesting; my gr checker normally gets that one.

The article is fascinating and very well-written. I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but as a lay reader with some background in science I see no obvious gaps in the narrative or the discussion of the science. I expect to support once the points above are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the points above are fixed; this is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • (ooops) I'll try to get this done tomorrow... moving office/computers today so no chance to get to it. Mea culpa! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: It appears you are in the wrong article! I think you are looking at High Explosive Research? :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth:, any chance I can invite you back? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - dead boot drive has left me playing catchup all this month. Working on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Went with the one from Amazon. Reported it to Google Books.
Fixed first/last. Mike Forrest is the guy that went to Moscow to make the measurements, I'm going with reliable :-) He also reviewed the article.
Otherwise, everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

  • "Based on the pinch plasma confinement technique, its goal was to produce large numbers of fusion reactions, although it was not large enough to produce net energy."—What is "it"? The technique? The goal?
It is Zeta. I moved the statements around for clarity (and smoother reading too)
  • "Built at Harwell, UK, ZETA was ..."—What about "... Harwell in the UK, ZETA was ..."? (And it's the same opening grammar as used in the previous sentence.)
Or better yet, let's put in the actual location...
  • "bursts of about million neutrons per "shot" "—Surely it's "a" million?
Fixed.
  • "Measurements suggested it was reaching between 1 and 5 million degrees, a temperature that ..."—I guess I presumed it wasn't angular degrees for a second; but you need the ISO here. No need for conversion to Farenheit, either, in a scientific context.
I put in a K.
  • "neutrons being seen"—"neutrons observed"?
... hmmm, I tried that but it seems to read poorly. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
  • "early" × 3 in the first eight lines. "Major" × 2.
Various changes, let me know.
  • "unlimited power"—political or electric? Sometimes the two are blurred.
It's not power anyway, but energy.
  • "a scientific advance for Britain greater than the recently launched Sputnik had been for the Soviet Union"—seems like an opinion. I hope it's reffed further down.
It is, it's a quote from Cockroft.
  • "Continued experiments on ZETA showed that the original temperature measurements were misleading, and the bulk temperature was too low for fusion reactions to explain the number of neutrons being seen."—Is "Further experiments" better? To exclude the second clause from the "showed", perhaps "... misleading; the ...".
Indeed.
  • "ended by 1961"—you mean "ended in 1961"?
No, it is not directly recorded in any of the references when such work ended, but there is no further reference to new machines after that date. So it might have ended anytime between 1958 and 1961, but definitely by 61. That said, ZETA itself continued on to 1968, so I'm not sure what that means.
  • "and was later".
Fixed.

And after the lead, flicking through at random:

  • "Arthur Eddington's 1920 suggestion that the sun was fusion powered"—It's stopped being that since? Why not use present tense?
Because the suggestion is in the past.
  • "The news was too good to keep bottled up and tantalizing leaks started as early as September." Two different propositions. Comma?
Grammarly says no, but I'm not sure what the rule is in this case.
Grammarly??? Please no. I do not want to read: "The news was too good to keep bottled up and tantalizing", and then have to disambiguate in reverse. Tell that to Grammarly. Tony (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October, Thonemann, Cockcroft and William P. Thompson hinted that interesting results would be following, and in November a UKAEA spokesman noted "The indications are that fusion has been achieved".[55] Based on these hints, the Financial Times dedicated an entire two-column article to the issue."—First, Thompson hinted, the spokesman noted, but this becomes "hints". Why not "based on this"? "To the issue" in that context grates against a newspaper issue (daily).
Fixed.

Needs a detailed run-through on the surface. 45-minute job by a third party. Tony (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can I just check if the nominator plans to respond to Tony1's points here? I'm a little concerned that this has been open for over two months, but seems to have stalled. It would be unusual, but not unheard of, to archive with two supports, but I think it might help matters along if these concerns were taken care of, and if we asked someone to take another look. Maybe John would oblige as he is very good at the kind of run through that Tony thinks is necessary. In any case, I think if we are still in the two support situation at the end of the month, we might have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

Thanks for the ping, Sarastro1. I have been working through this; I confirm that it was not ready for promotion as I found a couple of things already. --John (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First one, then the other. I've clarified.
So the first was in kelvin, and the others in Fahrenheit? Kelvin would be preferred on a science article. I wonder how we should handle this. --John (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "first one then the other" is a little physics joke. When something is being heated up (or cooled), any number will be met on one scale and then the other. All temperatures in the article are in K.
Thanks for clarifying, and for the joke. --John (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: When we say the older systems "suddenly looked old fashion" do we mean "old-fashioned"? I am unable to inspect p70 of the Bromberg source to check myself. --John (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She's american, no dash. Great book BTW, she gets the political side that I would generally gloss over. Only really has the US program in it, sadly, but that was what she was paid for.
If the book writes "old fashion", that would be wrong in either version of English. This article is written in British English. --John (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting I change this?
I suggest "old-fashioned" would be better, depending how the source describes it. --John (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is quoted directly.
I see. Well, I don't think we can run with it the way it is at the moment. --John (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still not sure I understand your position. Are you stating that we should not include a direct quote because the original author used different hypenation? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less concerned with the hyphenation than with the grammar error. --John (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Yikes, I was so focused on the hyphen I didn't even notice the other issue. Interestingly, the print version I have, which is the 2nd edition, does not use that exact term, so I've simply copied the new one out of that text instead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maury, how about "suddenly looked [old-fashioned]"? The square brackets would allow for a slight tweaking of the original words without being a misquote, and at the same time would correct the non-standard grammar. Or you could paraphrase and not use a direct quote here. Or (possibly least elegant option) use sic. I agree with John that even if it is a direct quote, it should still flow as correct grammar within the surrounding prose. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this FAC has stalled. As I said above, I don't like to archive with two supports, but that third support is proving elusive and both Tony1 and John have picked up a few issues. It's worth pointing out that Tony1 does not do full reviews, but looks for problems in one or two sections; given that he found little issues, there may be others elsewhere. Also, given that the pace has slowed to a crawl, I think the best option would be to archive this now. It can be renominated after the usual two week cooling-off period, and I'm sure that John would work with the nominator away from FAC in that time. When it is renominated, it is perfectly acceptable to contact the two supporters to inform them (as long as a neutral note is left), and hopefully that should mean that things move much faster second time around. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2017 [4].

Nodar Kumaritashvili edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A break from ice hockey player nominations from me, this is about the Georgian luger who died on the eve of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. It went through GA years ago, then I updated it a few months ago with some more information, and recently had it looked over at WP:COPYEDITORS. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Nodar_Kumaritashvili.jpg: suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}}
  • File:Nodar.png: who is claimed to be the copyright holder here? The video from which this is taken appears to be a derivative work, but other than the music the original source(s?) is unclear. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the first image's status. In regards to Nodar.png, I removed it from the article. While I'm fairly certain it comes from an IOC video, I can not confirm it, and while the image is a key component to the story, it can be restored if/when the proper information is found. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Interesting story. I remembered his death, but had forgotten the story behind it. These are my comments after a full read-through:

  • Life and career: Minor point, but you might consider putting refs 8 and 6 in numerical order at the end of the sentence in which they both appear.
  • I have some bad news for you: it looks like the Vancouver2010.com references are dead. I tried looking at ref 16, to see if I could find the name of the Italian luger who died in 1975, and it redirected to the home page. You'll have to check the Internet Archive to see if they have copies of the pages (I count four of them cited here).
  • The last sentence of Accident and death is uncited; try moving the cite in the lead, which covers a similar sentence, and see if that will be adequate here.
  • Georgian response: "that it would consider skipping the opening ceremonies or withdraw from the games entirely". Should "withdraw" be "withdrawing" here?
  • For formality, the part that says "who was to compete with Nodar" should probably be using his last name.
  • Coroner's report: The November 13, 2009 date appears to be in different formatting than the others here. I'd imagine it should be DMY for consistency.
  • I'm not providing a full source review, but note that the publishers of refs 15, 19, 24, and 26 should be italicized, as they are all print publications. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate that the Vancouver2010.com site is gone. However a quick look suggests it shouldn't be too hard to find replacement sources, you'll just have to give me a day or two to have time to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was waiting for Pbsouthwood's comment to be resolved. Now that it has been, I'm confident that this meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Pbsouthwood

  • Medics were at his side within seconds of the crash. Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation began within one minute, and a plastic breathing tube was inserted into his mouth. While not improbable in any way, this is not supported by any of the references in that paragraph. The description suggests this may have been added by someone who saw the accident on video, as the claim of within seconds, and within one minute and the layman's description of an airway as a plastic breathing tube inserted into the mouth all suggest information observed from a recording. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a try rewording it to be more accurate, but as I'm not familiar with medical terminology, if this is not accurate please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 11 actually supports most of what you have there, except the airway. Airway is standard procedure with many emergency response organisations , but it is not mentioned in the sources specified. I do not see that it is very important to mention as the coroners report notes that standard procedures were followed although he was apparently beyond help. However ref 11 also appears to have a title ("Officials perform CPR after luger wrecks") which is not evident in the link, which is titled "Kumaritashvili killed in luge training". The date also differs between the linked article and the reference, so it is possible that the title also changed. Not sure what to do about that. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that ESPN has since changed the title and date of the article; I updated the reference here, and used it to remove the note about the airway, as you noted it isn't apparent in the other references. Instead I added that mouth-to-mouth was performed, as the ESPN article states. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

No spotchecks carried out. The sources – mainly press accounts or official reports – seem reliable and appropriate, and references are consistently formatted. A few issues:

  • In the cases of refs 6, 25 and 29, the links do not go to the source article
  • Ref 10: the link goes to a different NYT report
  • Ref 28: The headline in the source article is differently worded.

Subject to these, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything here, they should all be fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All well now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

  • Luger ... rather than relying on diversion to the link target just as we start the article, I wonder whether a brief glossing inline is possible? Not easy, but perhaps start second para: "The luge is one- or two-person sled."
I modified it to note he was a one-man luger, which hopefully should be sufficient.
Not really. I'd never ever encountered the word. "... was a one-man luger (sled rider)"? Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside of luge, Kumaritashvili had been a student at the Georgian Technical University, where he earned an economics degree in 2009." I levy huge fines for writing redundant "in order to" and "outside of". Would you like my bank account number? But why is the first phrase necessary in the first place?
Addressed
  • "The region Kumaritashvili grew up in"—why not "Borjomi"?
He was born in Borjomi, but grew up in nearby Bakuriani, which is where the ski hills are. This has now been clarified.
  • "after having taken 25 previous training runs"—is something redundant there?
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here, but I think I addressed it.
You didn't. "... after 25 previous attempts, ...". Remove one word. Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early in morning of" ... um.
Fixed
No, "on", not "in". Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping. My take is that the prose is not yet at featured standard. Tony (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed everything here, and if you have more to comment on I'll gladly go over it, though as its been here at FAC for two months, so I'd prefer to have it sorted out quickly if possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Any FAC nomination that lies here for two months suggests it was prematurely put forward. Reviewers should not be the port of call for copy-editing: that task should be more adequately performed before nomination. I hope your writing is improving—it needs to for FAC preparation. There are basic errors and a need to weed out redundant wording and to simplify the grammar where possible. Here are more, which indicate there's quite way to go just to edit normal articles well in English:

Remove three words from this (contextual redundancy ... the reader knows it already): "He lost control in the penultimate turn of the course and was thrown off his luge ...".
"Early on the morning of 17 February 2010, Kumaritashvili's body arrived in Tbilisi. It reached his hometown of Bakuriani later that day, and he was buried on Saturday, 20 February, at the church he attended."—we have the body called "it", and then suddenly it's personalised as a "he". Two commas can go. "he had attended". (Apparently praying to his god before the practice run was when a cruel joke played out.)
Generally, too many commas. This bump needs removing: "... Kumaritashvili family, at the request of the ..."

Everywhere I look there's something.

But there are some good things about the article. I don't want to dishearten you. Keep going, but DO concentrate on improving. Me, I'd have sunk this nomination six weeks ago, suggesting it be worked up properly with the assistance of copy-editors and resubmitted. Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, should have things dealt with in a day or two. If you have more to identify, please do so, as I'd rather get it sorted out now instead of go through the FAC process again. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given Tony1's concerns, I am going to archive this FAC shortly. It has been open two months and has just the two supports, but I think there may be issues that need resolving away from FAC. I would recommend finding a copy-editor (I can recommend Corinne if she is available) to look at this before renominating. In any case, it cannot be renominated for the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017 [5].

German destroyer Z39 edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a German destroyer made under Plan Z, which served two years in the Kriegsmarine, before being used for experiments by the US, and later as a pontoon by France. I believe it meets all the criteria, even though it is a bit short for a FAC article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal edit

  • There is one Z39 image in the article. It is well-relevant, has no copyright issues, ALT text, and no issues whatsoever. It is good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review = spotchecks not done

  • Further reading should be a separate section
     Done
  • Ordered date differs between infobox and text, and for a couple of other dates the text is unclear - captured, and commissioned by the French. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I have removed the unclear dates, as its not clear that they were actually done on those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Do you have any further comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sourcing otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the yard number "G629" is not mentioned in the body and is therefore uncited in the infobox

 Done

  • "After the modifications, she carried 14 2 cm" --> "After the modifications, she carried fourteen 2 cm" (to aid readability)

 Done

  • "between 13–26 April" --> "between 13 and 26 April" per MOS:DASH (please check for similar constructions)

 Done

  • same as above with "from 13–14 April" --> "from 13 to 14 April"

 Done

  • "British Air Force" --> "British Royal Air Force" (proper name) or "British air force" (common name)

 Done

  • there is a mixture of British and US English spelling, for instance "Draught" and "Harbor"

 Done, I believe I have changed all to British spelling. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "where Schlesien was deliberately grounded her" (typo: "her")

 Done

Comments from Ranger Steve edit

Sorry, but it's an oppose from me. Additionally, and I know this will appear harsh, but I'd suggest considering withdrawing this nomination so that it can be improved. I only say this because I feel it is far from complete and FAs aren't the place to make major changes. What's there is good, but what's missing is, in my opinion, quite a lot.

My principal problem is that this article is far too brief in its coverage. You mention above that the destroyer was part of Plan Z, but even that isn't in the article. Per the FA criteria, specifically 1B (comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context), I would expect to see a comprehensive background section. This would obviously include a summary of summary of Plan Z, but I would also expect to see some information on German destroyer use prior to Z39's commissioning and their high attrition rates. The cause of the lengthy construction times is relevant as well, as it is alluded to briefly in the article, but not explained. By the time Z39 entered service, fuel shortages were acute and training was poor (Z39's crew even took training voyages to teach seamanship in Jan '45); these are factors I'd expect to see in more detail in the service history section. Additionally, the impact of these factors and the course of the war in the Baltic and how they ultimately affected the employment of the destroyers (ie. how Z39 came to be principally a minelayer and not a combat vessel) should be in there for context. Somewhere, Project Barbara should be explained as well; why it was felt necessary and the extent of modifications made (Z39 received a full Barbara refit, others did not). Although there's plenty of detail about the voyages made in support of Operation Hannibal, there's no explanation of the evacuation of East Prussia and Courland - not even a link to the articles.

I'm also concerned that, partially through this lack of context, the service history reads as a list of short sentences listing dates and summary events. This is particularly true here: "On 25 March, Z39 finished repairs, while in Swinemünde, and resumed operations on 1 April. From 5 April to 7 April, she escorted transports and parts of Task Force Thiele around the Bay of Danzig.[18] From 8 April to 9 April, she provided naval gunfire support for the German army.[24] On 10 April she and T33 escorted the German destroyer Z43, which had sustained damage from both mines and bombs,[25] to Warnemünde and Swinemünde.[26] On 15 April German destroyers Z5, Z34, and Z39, German minelayers T23, T28, T33, and T36 escort German steamships Matthias Stinnes, Eberhart Essberger, Pretoria and Askari to Copenhagen, with a total of 20,000 refugees.[25] On 2 May she shelled Soviet Army forces from the Oder estuary. On 3 May she, alongside the battleship Schlesien, moved to protect the bridge across the Peene river at Wolgast." For this reason I feel it fails FA Criteria 1A.

I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but you're right, this is short for an FAC and I feel that's because so much is missing that could and should be there. Regards Ranger Steve Talk 18:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranger Steve: I'll take a look into this, and see how hard it would be to fix what you've said. If it looks like it will take a long time; I'll withdraw it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for 6 weeks now, and there is an oppose outstanding and no support for promotion. As the nominator has not responded since 23 September, I think we have little choice but to archive this. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, but I would recommend working with Ranger Steve in that time to address the concerns brought up here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 [6].

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a medieval kingdom in Central Europe. It received two reviews and underwent a comprehensive copyedit. Thank you for all comments during the process. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • "the introduction of new taxes and their farming out to Muslims and Jews": I don't know what "farming out" means here.
  • "The Mongols "burnt ..."": Don't mix quote marks and blockquotes, because usually, it's not clear what the quote marks mean. Is someone else being quoted in the middle of a quote? Who?
  • "four or two": two or four? And, was one number much more likely than the other?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank:, thank you for your edits and support. I hope I fixed the problems you addressed above ([7]). Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, check my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your edits. "Tax farming" is the practice when tax revenues are leased to individuals. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now I understand. What difference does it make to the history of Hungary exactly how the taxes were collected? What would be wrong with "Royal revenues decreased, which led to the introduction of new taxes"? I doubt that a description of the financials is relevant ... but if it is relevant, then you'll need to explain it, rather than just relying on the term "farmed". - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. I tried to provide a context for the relevance of the sentence ([8]). Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The article seems excellently sourced. A couple of points:

  • I'm getting repeated error messages from the link in ref. 2. Maybe it's a temporary fault, but please check it out.
  • The Spinei book is lacking publisher.

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I fixed the above problems ([9] [10]). Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best add a retrieval date to ref 2, since you are citing an online copy rather than the magazine itself.
Fair point. Retrieval date added ([11]).

Closing comment: For some reason, this seems to have struggled to attract reviews. As there has been no progress for over two weeks, despite this being on the urgent list, I'm not sure we can achieve consensus to promote in a realistic time frame on this FAC. I would recommend taking this to back to PR and asking some experienced FAC reviewers to take a look at it away from FAC; the previous reviews were not much help and I think you need more eyes on this. Reviewers are often more willing to engage when work has been done away from FAC, and when there has already been substantial review. I will be archiving shortly, and the article can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2017 [12].

Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show) edit

Nominator(s): — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about, arguably, the most popular American kids' TV game show ever, Double Dare. It helped jump-start the media behemoth known as Nickelodeon and, 30 years later, still has a long-lasting effect on a generation of young adults. I crafted this article from the bottom-up, practically by myself (with assists from Bcschneider53 and Twofingered Typist), taking a mess with very few citations six months ago and turning it into what I feel is a very well-crafted and cited article on how Double Dare worked, its history and current evolution, and the impact it has had on television and culture. The GA process went really well and even though the first FA nomination stalled, I'm optimistic about this time around. I took some comments from the first try into consideration and have bettered it further, I think. Thank you! — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over a month, and has been on the urgent list for nearly two weeks, but has not attracted any support or anything other than an image review. Therefore, I think it is best to archive this now. I would recommend taking it to PR and asking some experienced FAC reviewers, or even a mentor from the mentoring programme before renominating. That might get things moving more quickly next time around. In any case, this can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2017 [13].

Jill Valentine edit

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a popular character from the Resident Evil video games and films. For the sake of transparency I will mention that the article's original author no longer edits Wikipedia. I 'adopted' the article in January 2015, making a series of improvements before successfully nominating it for GA. In early 2017 I made another round of improvements, then nominated the article for peer review and a copyedit through GOCE, both of which were completed. After implementing suggestions made at peer review, I nominated the article for FAC two months ago. I received seven supports on prose, however, two unfinished reviews opposed on issues of sourcing and comprehensiveness, and the nomination was closed. After having made another series of improvements, I believe the article meets the requirements for FAC on these issues as well, and accordingly have renominated it. Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to co-ord: the images in the article have not been modified since passing the image review at the previous FAC. Freikorp (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I stand by my verdict from the last FA review, now more than ever as multiple improvements have been made since the last FA nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have commented during the previous FAC and my view holds: this article is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of the subject, should be ripe for promotion. SLIGHTLYmad 10:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: This looks huge, but you know the deal. Parts in green represent an issue that needs addressing. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

I'm satisfied every source is reliable and of high enough quality to meet the featured article criteria, and that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. There are a total of seven off-line sources used on the article: I managed to access five of them. There is no issue with close-paraphrasing with any of those, although two of them are used on the article to source direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

Support based on my comments that were resolved in the first FAC. -- 1989 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

  • I am glad that I could help. You have done a wonderful job with this. It was a very interesting and informational read. I fully support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as a really well-written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was an interesting and well-written article. I support this nomination. Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I'd be happy to look at your nominations. Freikorp (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

  • Support on 1a only, and stepping far, far away from this review. Some copy edit work done; Freikorp, you may not like all my changes, so feel free to change back whatever you don't like (my humble apologies for the delay with this, life is extremely busy for me, main reason my WP contributions are historically very sporadic). It's clear from some of the comments over the past few days that the article is never going to satisfy editors for what it can be versus what they subjectively want it to be. How you've had the patience to try and work with certain people would certainly be beyond my capacity. I've said my piece on this and copped flak for it, and I simply don't have the time or energy to get further involved. Your diligence and work ethic is outstanding, and I hope the fruits of your labour on this article will be a nice, shiny star at the top of the page. Anyway mate, I wish you all the luck in the world. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin edit

  • Oppose, per 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). This an explanation of the oppose for the coordinators.
  • After seven weeks at FAC1 and three at FAC2, the article still isn't ready. The writing is choppy, there's no flow from one thought to the next, the structure isn't right, sources are misunderstood, or key points in those sources are overlooked. It looks as though sources have been quickly skimmed. Sources are almost certainly missing, because just about every academic source in the article (with one exception, I believe) was found by a reviewer after a quick search.
  • There is no sense of how the character developed. The article needs to be organized around the character. I've had to go through adding dates of games and films just to get some sense of the timeline for myself. What happened to the character (clothes, things she was capable of, relationships, whatever else matters about characters in games) between 1996 and 2012? I'd like hear more from the directors and developers too. Yes, it depends on sources existing, but it seems highly unlikely that they don't.
  • The article was a quote farm. I've managed to get rid of a lot of them, but the nominator has a tendency to restore, and will probably keep on adding them. The result is journalese/PR. Typical: "GamesRadar staff included this 'highly capable officer' among the 30 best characters."
  • I'd expect to see the games themselves used throughout as sources, but they're barely referenced, so I wonder whether material about the gameplay is missing. jp:ジル・バレンタイン (Jill Valentine on jp-wiki; Google translation) contains a lot of details presumably sourced directly to the games.
  • Space is taken up with issues not relevant to understanding the character or games. For example, Jill Valentine is played by Sienna Guillory in the films. Then: "At first, the films' director Paul W. S. Anderson chose Natasha Henstridge, but she was unavailable;[26] he then considered Mira Sorvino though she declined."
  • The article needs a summary-style section on the scholarship on women in games, so that the discussion of gender roles, physical movement, costumes, etc, is contextualized. A few sentences would make all the difference.
  • I found several examples of sources that weren't summarized well. Example:
"The journal noted that due to the nature of the survival horror genre, in which pleasure is attained through feelings of vulnerability, Jill was frequently running away from enemies, and proposed that Jill was chosen for this role as it was more 'natural' to cast a woman as being in distress."
This implies that the authors (Trépanier-Jobin and Bonenfant 2017) were saying it's more natural. In fact they were referring to Karen Boyle's Media and Violence: Gendering the Debates, which discusses essentialist conceptions of women as weak. Violent women are often cast as "unnatural". Boyle's theory explains why survival horror games have more playable female characters. Given that the characters are often running from something, and the sexism within the industry means that masculinity is viewed as incompatible with victimhood, it seems "natural" to the developers (scare quotes in the original) to have the women constantly running for their lives.
  • As I've said since FAC1, this should have gone to peer review. There's no point in trying to make the kind of fixes usually made at FAC when the issue is structural. And trying to find and quickly read sources while at FAC risks compounding the problem. SarahSV (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to oppose from Freikorp
I mention the following bullet points as a rebuttal to the oppose for the attention of Sarastro1.
  • Sarah came here with five bullet point complaints about the article. She has struck four of them. Her fifth bullet point concern was the quality of the reception section. I have completed a major restructuring of that section, to the point where another editor withdrew their objection over that issue. I have, and will continue, to address any specific concern regarding the wording and flow of the article.
  • Sarah removed content she perceived as being problematic, even though there was no consensus to do so and nobody else stated they shared these specific complaints. I did not revert the changes. [14] She has the right to make bold edits; that's not why I am mentioning this. I am just trying to highlight the lengths I have gone to to try and appease her concerns.
  • Sarah complained about some of the wording in the article, so I openly said she could reword whatever she wanted. She has actually already addressed the specific concerns she mentioned in her oppose (such as the "classic example" and "damsel in distress" issuess). My point is that, once again, she is opposing over issues that have already been addressed.
  • I always take an article to peer review before FAC in order to get outside opinions, and this nomination was no exception. I didn't see the need to take it to peer review again after FAC as Sarah was the only person who had a problem with it (I was almost finished addressing Ealdgyth concerns before the first nomination was closed and I completed this shortly thereafter). I'm not saying peer review isn't a good idea. I'm just saying the situation didn't deem it necessary. When seven people say the prose is fine and one person does not, that does not indicate a dire need for a peer review.
That's all from me. SlimVirgin, thank you for your comments. For what it's worth, I do believe this article is better following both your reviews. This process has been stressful for me, so I assume it has also been unpleasant for you also. I hope we can simply agree to disagree over the remaining points. I do not wish to keep debating anything with you. Now that you have stated you oppose the nomination, I would like to focus my attention on addressing the concerns of other editors. Freikorp (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to co-ord: Sarah has modified her existing reasons for opposing and added additional ones since I posted my response. Based on her previous actions, it is my opinion that even if I address the new concerns, she will still oppose the nomination. Accordingly, as previously stated, I am going to focus on the concerns from other editors at this time. I will probably return to focusing on her concerns once all other editors have finished saying their piece. Freikorp (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sarah has modified her reasons for opposing again. In response:
  • The key word in "The article was a quote farm" is was. The specific quote she complains about now ("highly capable officer") had already been removed. For the third time, she is opposing over things that have already been fixed.
  • I find it ironic that Sarah cited the fact I had assumed good faith regarding some offline sources as a reason for opposing at the first nomination (as already stated I checked them all before renominating), whereas now she's citing the fact that I haven't harvested from a completely un-referenced wikipedia article on the good faith it's "presumably" sourced to the games as a reason for opposing. This strikes me as the hallmark of an editor who is looking for excuses to oppose.
  • Sarah said I have a tendency to add back information she removes. In reality, despite the fact she removed multiple pieces of content during this nomination without consulting other editors and despite the fact nobody else was complaining about the specific things she was removing, I have only restored one of the things she removed.
  • Niwi3, who also opposes this nomination, has told Sarah that the games provide very little information about the character. Why she still thinks I can expand this article significantly by sourcing the games, I do not understand.
  • Sarah has previously told me I summarised two sources well; my apologies that I have also summarised one poorly.
Sarah, I hope this concludes your review. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk

Sources edit

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

Coordinator comment: I'm keeping a fairly close eye on this. If the nominator wishes that I recuse, I am happy to do so but personally don't see the need as I have no opinion one way or the other on this article. However, just a couple of points: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Any other commentary is unactionable and can be disregarded; I'm happy to provide clarification if there is any disagreement as I don't want this one to run away from us. I also notice a little personalisation creeping into this once more, and I will move anything that is not about this article to the talk page. I've no intention of closing this any time soon, and there is zero danger of this being archived as it has not been open two weeks yet and has a lot of support. I think we should be able to reach a consensus here this time, and my personal inclination is to leave this open until we do. Finally, it would really, really help the nominator, who is trying really hard to compromise here, if everyone could try to focus solely on the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Sarastro1. I don't see any need for you to recuse yourself. I'd really appreciated it if everyone moved forward and focused on the article like you said. Now that more than one editor has raised concerns about the reception section I will make changes to it, though I stand by my opposition to the request that high-quality best-of lists need secondary sources commenting on them. As AdrianGamer stated, that's a bizarre idea. Freikorp (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cognissonance edit

The article has come a long way since the peer review. (moved to talk) I agree with CR4ZE's concerns, but show my support under the circumstances. Cognissonance (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

Comment from czar edit

I wouldn't support this as it stands. SV's bullet point concerns are solid. The Reception needs to be reorganized. First, it doesn't describe a Reception, but mostly the character's Legacy in the series and as a female character. There are a few different ways to organize that, but I would start by organizing along those themes within the paragraph if not splitting to separate sections. The problem with the listings/listicles isn't primary sourcing, but the attention called to the list. "In 2013, Complex's Michael Rougeau ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines in video game history, describing her as the most likeable woman in the Resident Evil series" gives heat without light: What's the importance of 30? 30 out of what? The rank signifies nothing (especially here), so it only clutters the prose. Along the advice of Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, combine the sentiments: "Multiple video game journalists ranked/listed [your choice] Valentine among the greatest heroines in the medium.[ref][ref]..." Then follow with the specific, clarifying comments ("X described her as the most likeable", though that's not very descriptive/helpful either). This presents the importance of the citation without overstating the individual list's importance. It also makes for better prose.

This isn't even to touch the sourcing, though I agree that the development could use connective tissue not just describing but explaining why the character has developed, if those sources exist. SV makes the point that the "supports" above may reflect video game articles being held to a lower standard. She's right. The article assumes familiarity with Resident Evil and isn't smooth reading for a general audience. Worth addressing and not a big deal for a normal article (last 20% is 80% of the work, etc.), but we expect more of FA status. Sometimes video game articles pass (I've seen many...) without reviews external to the topic area. It means we should be even more grateful when outside editors show us endemic blind spots. The goal, though, should be nothing less than to make this article a model for its type, and we sorely lack model fictional character articles. (moved to talk) czar 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar: OK, I've just taken your advice and have reworked the reception section, making the mention of all the lists disappear. Better? Freikorp (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Sarkeesian on Valentine, I wouldn't call Fem Freq a RS without more assurances on their editorial processes, but its RS status is irrelevant if we're not citing it for fact but for opinion (with due weight). Sarkeesian's noteworthiness as a commentator on sexualization in video games is well established (cf. her whole article) so while I'm not finding RS that note her commentary specific to Valentine, there is plenty of coverage specific to any of her videos by theme. I'd cite one of those RS on the video related to the Valentine coverage to establish the theme and noteworthiness of Sarkeesian's opinion, and as necessary, use the primary source transcript (WP:SPSAS) to (briefly!) flush out the crux of her position as commentary/opinion. This can be done without delving into factual, challengeable claims, which should instead be backed by a RS (with editorial reputation for fact-checking/accuracy). That's at least the rationale—it would have taken less time to just write it: [15] czar 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, having someone neutral decide how much weight this particular source is given works for me. My end-goal with this nomination is to improve the article, and I think it would be best for the article if neither myself nor SlimVirgin has any say on how much weight it is given. I am happy to leave this entirely up to you and then I'll just reorganise what you've added around the other content when I restructure the whole reception section. Freikorp (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, ping me when you've done the reorg and I could take a stab at a concise copyedit but caveat emptor, my edits are brutal (hence my usual lack of participation) czar 15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy for you to do a copyedit now that I've finished with the section. I have no problem with anyone performing brutal or bold edits (assuming they don't push a particular POV of course). Freikorp (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a compelling reason to use Uproxx or CheatCodes.com as a source. Having an edit staff listed is not the same as having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or editorial credibility. For what it's worth, the Virgin Media site is low-grade too, despite its corporate pedigree. It's 2008-era Buzzfeed with "Hot PC games", "Top game babes", "Get your geek on!", not high-quality content, no author bylines or signs of editorial credibility, etc. czar 16:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no qualms with ditching the CheatCodes or Virgin Media sources, since they're not being used for anything of real importance. Unless it's literally going to make the difference between you supporting and opposing the nomination, I'm going to keep the Uproxx source. I accept that it's probably at the lower end of high-quality, but firstly, we're not citing it for fact but for opinion. Secondly, it fills in an important blank in the history of the character's portrayal. Only one actress has portrayed the character in live-action cut-scenes, and if we don't use this source, we can't give the reader any idea of who it was. I really think the information this source backs adds something valuable to the article. Freikorp (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's exactly why I wouldn't trust it. If Uproxx is the only source that repeats the otherwise unsubstantiated, fan-researched claim[16][17] that "Una Kavanagh" is the voice actor, then it's as good as the claim being unconfirmed. I wouldn't trust Uproxx's editorial process/pedigree for even simpler facts, nevertheless one that requires investigatory work. We shouldn't view the actor identity as case-closed-rumor-confirmed on the basis of a site like Uproxx. That's the beauty of source reliability. czar 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: OK. Would you be OK with me using the source to verify the first sentence only? So just to say that the original actors used pseudonyms? I really think that's beneficial to the reader. I've already made the change, and I ditched the virgin Media and CheatCodes sources. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a good reason to trust it with that either, but if you want, you can request an outside opinion at WP:RSN czar 14:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I even need a source to say they used pseudonyms? Or is this obvious from the fact all the characters are credited by first names only? Or in other words, can I delete the inline citation from Uproxx supporting the current line and just source everything as it is currently written to the credits of the game? Freikorp (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Original claims require secondary sourcing (e.g., that the name is a pseudonym), but another method is to present the information ("actor was credited as X") and leave the reader to presume what they want about whether it's a pseudonym, as they likely will conclude on their own, though you didn't make the claim yourself. But if no source mentions the voice actor, is it even necessary to include? czar 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "Critical analysis" section (formerly "Reception"), apart from an official strategy guide ref at the beginning, is entirely about the character's sexualization. I think something more to that effect would be a more fitting title.
    • What do you suggest I do with the first paragraph then? Should I give it its own header? I understand most of the content is based around sexualisation, but I'm inclined to leave it how it is so as to not complicate things. Freikorp (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just odd that the section is called "analysis" but it really only includes analysis of sexualization, apart from a brief description of her in-game use, which could easily be moved to an earlier section, if the source is good for it at all (primary sources should not be cited for analysis). "Sexualization" makes a suitable header, but perhaps someone has a better phrase in mind. czar 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does the character have any specific link to Japan or Japanese culture apart from being created by a Japanese company and (in-universe) designed as half-Japanese? (Doesn't appear so in the article.) Since she has an official, well-used English-language name, the name by which she is primarily known, I don't see a need for the {{nihongo}} (Japanese translation) in the lede. (WP:VGG#Lead) czar 14:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that's a good point. I never thought about that. Removed accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video sources tend to have poor longevity—either the company goes down or their video portal after some time, and the videos are tough/illegal(?) to archive. I'd rely on them as little as possible for this reason to save the trouble of finding replacement sources later. czar 14:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know :). I actually cited that as a reason for not deleting multiple sources from the Appearances section at the first FAC nomination (see 'Comments by Finetooth' section). I've tried to rely on them as little as possible. If they go dead though I guess I'll just cross that bridge if and when the time comes. Freikorp (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Just following up my queries to your two points above. Re: renaming the 'Critical analysis' section and whether you think it's adequate to cite the credits of the first game to say the actors used pseudonyms. Also do you have any outstanding concerns? I've attempted to address all of SV's original bullet point concerns. Keep in mind you are most welcome to make more 'brutal' edits. I was actually quite pleased with how you summarised the memes section. Freikorp (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded above) The credits wouldn't be proof that the name is a pseudonym, but does the name need presentation at all? If so, you could cite the source and it would be quite apparent that the name appears to be a pseudonym, though you need not stake the claim yourself. I'm hoping to give the article a fuller pass soon, but need to get a few things out of the way first. czar 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niwi3 edit

(Resolved comments moved to talk)

@Freikorp: @SlimVirgin: After going through the whole article again, I think the article fails criteria 1a (engaging and professional prose), 2b (appropriate structure), and especially 4 (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail). Although several improvements were made to the article over the past few days, it still has major issues that I think are not easy to fix; the article doesn't stay focused on the main topic, lacks context, has too many irrelevant details, and its prose is very average. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose this nomination. Here are some examples of its current issues:

Note to coordinators: I will be on holiday from Friday 29, September to Thursday 5, October, so I won't be able to verify any fixes during that period. I still think the article is far from reaching FA status (its prose hasn't really improved and it still contains unnecessary details). I find it difficult to review because its content is constantly changing due to the ongoing edits, and I think several parts need to be smoothly rewritten to accomodate the gradual (yet small) improvements. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues
  • A special-operations agent, she made her debut appearance in 1996 as one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists, in which she and fellow Special Tactics And Rescue Squad member Chris Redfield are trapped in a mysterious mansion. -- I don't think this is gramatically correct; "In which" should point to a place, not to "one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists".
  • Fixed by SlimVirgin during copyedit. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too long and confusing: In the 1998 novel Resident Evil: The Umbrella Conspiracy, Jill is said to be professional thief Dick Valentine's daughter and accomplice prior to her career in law enforcement (in apparent conflict with her supposed Delta Force background), explaining her infiltration and "master of unlocking" skills. - It also assumes the general reader understands the "master of unlocking" meme.
  • Shortened, and removed mention of meme. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sienna Guillory portrays Jill in the live-action film series. - This should be merged into the Design and portrayal section, along with the image.
  • Just to clarify, you want me to move the entire 'Film' subsection from 'Appearances' to 'Design and portrayal'? Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want you to merge the entire section into the Design and portrayal section. The issue is pretty obvious: you mention who portrays Jill (in the video games) in the "Design and portrayal" section, yet actress Sienna Guillory, who portrays Jill in the film series, is not included in that section. Why? In my opinion, it would make much more sense if you include all the actresses in the same section. The image about Guillory portraying Jill should also be moved, because it's a portrayal thing.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In merchandise and attractions" section should be merged into the cultural impact section, maybe in a "promotion and merchandise" subsection?
  • Would you be satisfied if I just moved the entire sub-section as is and renamed it 'Promotion and merchandise'? I will add the information about Voth cosplaying to the section if so. Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to move the section, rename it, an offer a better context. The picture about Voth cosplaying Jill should also be moved there, along with the corresponding info from the "Design and portrayal" section: In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character.
I've relocated the information. Rather than giving it its own sub-section, I just shortened the hell out of it and added it to the legacy section. Freikorp (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character. - This would fit better in a promotion and merchandise section.
  • Within the Resident Evil universe, she's invaluable to her Alpha Team; competent, clever and professional, she's the resident bomb expert and, of course, the master of unlocking. - Again, the general reader will not understand the "master of unlocking" bit without reading the last paragraph of the article. The highlighted quote also assumes the general reader knows Rebecca, Claire and Ada's individual strengths.
  • Removed mention of the meme as well as Rebecca, Claire and Ada. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Appearances section, there are too many fictional details that are not properly introduced (Alpha team, Arklay Mountains, Spencer estate, Racoon City).
  • I've removed the Aplha team designation. I think the remaining ones work. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem now is that general readers won't know what the "Alpha Team" is in the quote box. I would personally try to paraphrase the whole quote and merge it into the first paragraph of the critical analysis section, as they both analyze the gameplay. Then I would start the second paragraph with the bit from Participations: International Journal of Audience Research.
I've dropped the quote box and used the source to expand both the analysis on gameplay and the analysis of gender roles. Freikorp (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is wrong: Eventually, she and Chris discover that STARS commander, Captain Albert Wesker, has betrayed them. After defeating the monster Tyrant released by Wesker, Jill escapes the self-destructing mansion in Brad Vickers' helicopter along with Chris, Barry and Rebecca Chambers. - The game has several endings, depending on the players actions.
  • Yes yes, but only one of those endings fits in with the series' continuity. The player is supposed to get the good ending. Accordingly that is what is mentioned in the secondary source. I will happily add the other endings citing the game itself if you would like. Freikorp (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two "good" endings and the Tyrant can be killed by either Jill or Chris, depending on which character the player assumes the role of. This is another problem of this article: you mix gameplay (player choice) with fictional details. The first Resident Evil is a stand alone game that was developed without a sequel in mind, so don't try to "connect" its story to the rest of the series, per Wikipedia:No original research. The series is very inconsistent, so don't try to make it more consistent just because you are a fan.
Yeah OK, that's a fair point. Done. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jill is infected with the T-virus, though Carlos is procures a vaccine from a nearby hospital. - the article assumes the general reader knows what the T-virus is. Grammatical error in bold.
  • Grammar error fixed. Given the T-virus a brief introduction. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article assumes the general reader knows what the "Uroboros virus" is.
  • The article repeats content from other articles: Jill is a playable character in two Resident Evil 5 downloadable content (DLC) scenarios: Lost in Nightmares shows the events leading up to Jill's disappearance,[14] and Desperate Escape shows her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. - As a result, it loses focus.
  • I disagree with your opinions on content forking. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree and I won't turn my oppose into a neutral vote unless the article stays focused on the topic. These DLCs are simply episodes that are part of the story of RE5. A proper summary of the general plot of RE5 should be more than enough. If readers want to know more details about how the story of RE5 is structured, they can go to that article. This article loses focus if you start talking about features/subject_matters of RE5. You confuse the general reader if you start adding unnecessary details.
I've shortened the mentions and reorgansied the section so it stays focused. Freikorp (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant trivia: She appears as a bonus character in the special edition of Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds (2011).[22] In addition, she makes a guest appearance in the action-adventure game Under the Skin (2004),[5] and appears as a playable character in the crossover tactical role-playing games Project X Zone (2012)[23] and Project X Zone 2 (2015).
  • I really don't think that's trivia. If she appears in another game, and I didn't mention it, I think that creates an issue regarding a lack of comprehensiveness. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Before adding information, you need to make sure you have a proper context. Details without context are irrelevant to the general reader; they are only relevant to fans.
I really disagree strongly. This article is about a video game character. I would argue that mentioning video games that a video game character appears in is of high relevance. Going into detail about these less notable mentions would be fancruft; I removed the gameplay section describing how she plays in Marvel vs. Capcom at your earlier request, but I believe a brief mention of where the character appears is relevant. Freikorp (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a fair point. The good thing is that you removed the gameplay, which belongs to the video game, not the character. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More content forking: At first, the films' director Paul W. S. Anderson chose Natasha Henstridge, but she was unavailable;[26] he then considered Mira Sorvino though she declined.[27] - This should belong to the corresponding film article.
  • This should be moved to the critical analysis section: In a negative review of Resident Evil: Apocalypse itself, Cinefantastique described Guillory's performance as the film's only "saving grace"
  • Yeah, I considered that. But it was the only high-quality source I could find that specifically commented on Guillory's portrayal of Jill. I placed it where it is because I think it improves the reading flow. I thought a single sentence on this in critical analysis might look too out of place. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be moved to the reception section, and if you cannot find a proper context there, then it needs to be removed from the article. In my opinion, it feels completely out of place in the "In films" section. Again, too many details without proper context.
Removed. Freikorp (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic: Guillory was set to appear in the sequel, Resident Evil: Extinction (2007), but she had commitments to other work.[30] Instead, producers Anderson and Jeremy Bolt decided to have Claire Redfield appear alongside the film's lead, Alice.[31] - This material should belong to its corresponding article.
  • I've since reorganised how the information about film's is presented as per your other comments. I've shortened the mention of this information, however, I do think mentioning this is relevant. It conveys to the reader that Jill's absence in the sequel was not based on a lack of popularity, rather her actress was simply unavailable. I really think this information conveys a message about the character's popularity, thought I will delete it if doing so changes your oppose vote. Freikorp (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I've decided to just delete it, though let me know if you think my justification for its inclusion has any merit in your opinion. Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made the right decision. This content belongs to Guillory's article, not here. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jill is the main antagonist of the fifth film, Resident Evil: Retribution (2012),[32] where she ultimately regains control over herself during a duel with Alice. - Lack of context. It does not explain why.
  • Jill was not featured in Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016). Her character disappears from the series' ongoing story-line, along with several other reoccurring figures, without explanation. - Why is this relevant in an appearances section?
  • Secondary sources comment on her unexplained absence from the final film in the series. I wouldn't have just stated she didn't appear if there was no secondary coverage. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it need to be moved to the reception section, because it is an opinion from a critic, not a fact. Keep in mind that the reference that backs up Jill's "mysterious" disappearance is a review.
I'd rather keep this. Firstly, it is a fact that several ongoing characters from the film and the explanation for this is not explained in canon; I specifically searched for secondary coverage of this in an attempt to convey to the reader why a popular character was dropped from the films. But as with your other concern about film appearances I will remove it if doing so will change your oppose vote. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've decided to just delete it, though let me know if you think my justification for its inclusion has any merit in your opinion. Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really add anything to the article. It's basically a review that criticizes the film for not giving Jill (and other characters) a formal farewell. If anything, it should be mentioned in the film article with proper context, not here. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jill has been featured in various Resident Evil merchandise, including action figures, such as one made by NECA in 2011. - is the "such as one made by NECA in 2011" bit really necessary?
  • More content forking (already covered in the RE3 article): Mikami, who served as the producer for Nemesis, said that Jill became the protagonist as they could not use any of the characters from Resident Evil 2 (1998) for reasons of continuity, and Claire Redfield had already been chosen for Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000), meaning Jill was "the only suitable character remaining.
  • Irrelevant fancruft: and has a "control device" on her chest which players must remove in order to free her from Wesker's influence."
  • I disagree, the control device forms a focal point of her appearance. Now that I've expanded on this device appearing in the film also, I think it is even more relevant to mention it's original appearance. That being said, if removing this information will turn help turn your oppose into at least a neutral vote I'll remove it. Freikorp (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Freikorp: This is partially correct: Jill's facial and physical appearance for the remake was based on Canadian model and actress Julia Voth,[46] and her likeness has continued to be used for Jill in several other games in the series. - But you should note that her facial appearance in Revelations was redesigned, according to this source. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good find. Thanks. Updated. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexism: Because the skirt was so short - It is previously explained that she wears a miniskirt. No need to put more emphasis than neccessary
  • Reworded, though I really fail to see how this constituted as sexism as opposed to just generic repetition. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Freikorp: I think that the fact that the article describes her RE3 costume in great detail but completely ignores her military outfit in the original Resident Evil makes the article sexist. Her outfit in the original game should also be described in great detail, especially because Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games, and I think it would add more context to the following sentence: While subsequent games in the series not directed by Mikami have continued to portray strong female characters, they have featured more revealing outfits. I would add a description of her military outfit right after the opening sentence: When questioned on how he chose to portray women in the original Resident Evil, the game's director Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Niwi3: Right, this is a general problem SlimVirgin didn't seem to understand either. The reason the RE3 costume is described in great detail is because so many sources comment on it. This is a reflection of sexism in society; I'm building the article with the sources that actually exist, not the sources that should exist. Of all my sources, I can only find one that mentions what Jill's original costume actually consisted of, and it only describes the top half of it: [18]. Even the feminist sources that complain about the original costume being inappropriate don't actual mention what the costume consists of. I can't add information balancing out the inherent sexism of the video gaming industry if the sources don't exist. I didn't even have to try and look for sources commenting on the RE3 outfit; they were everywhere. I'll keep looking for a source that describes the original costume in full. Freikorp (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the actual game instead. It's not an opinion, but a simple descriptive fact, so you can use a WP:PRIMARY source. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp, you wrote above "My honest assessment is that her design process consisted of slapping an inappropriate military-ish outfit on a pretty girl." This is your own sexism getting in the way here (and she's not a girl), not only that of some of the secondary sources. The games should be cited directly for lots of facts that are missing about the character, including the original costume, especially given Mikami's comment. SarahSV (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cite the information to a primary source later today when I get the chance, but the fact I need to resort to using a primary source to counter the "sexism" in secondary coverage proves my point emphatically. SlimVirgin, considering you cited the use of the fully referenced word "appreciated" as an example of sexism that was apparently so heinous you felt the need to compare it to white supremacy, I'm not going to value your opinion on anything you deem to be sexist. Freikorp (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: It seems that you still don't get it. You could probably keep the word "appreciated" if the article offered a better context. Why was the costume "appreciated"? because fans liked it? because the author was being sexist? I said it before and I'll say it again: context is key; you can't randomly throw words like "cock tease" or "appreciated" around and then expect a NPOV just because they are sourced. If you offered a reason (a context) for their inclusion in the article, then that would be a different story. Also, the primary source is simply there to add context (to explain to general readers how her outfit looked in the first game), not to "counter" or "attack" secondary sources. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I played all the games where she appears and sadly they don't include much information about her. However, I have two official guides of the 2002 remake and they both include a small biography: --Niwi3 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Position: Machine Specialist
Age: 23
Height: 5 ft 5 in
Weight: 111 lbs
Blood Type: B

Valentine is an intelligent soldier, usually fine under pressure, who has saved many colleagues in past operations. With Chris Refield, she has been reassigned from an out-of-state S.T.A.R.S. unit, and her exceptional skill in using mechanical devices (from APCs to Lockpicks) make her an excellent team member. She has strong moral convictions for which she fights. She also has a propensity for storing items, and she tires sooner than Redfield.

Resident Evil (2002) Prima's Official Strategy Guide, page 22

Jill is an experienced S.T.A.R.S. member from a unit in another city, recently reassigned to the newly-formed unit of the Raccoon Police Department. WIth years of tactical training and certification, Jill knows how to open 126 varieties of locks without a key and has trained with a wide variety of weapon types. Jill is an intelligent officer; she thinks on her feet, and her bravado has saved lives of countless citizens and fellow S.T.A.R.S. members. Her strict sense of loyalty and duty make Jill a great asset to the team.

Resident Evil (2002) Official Strategy Guide by Bradygames, page 5

Niwi3, thanks, that's helpful. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niwi3, I also have the a copy of the BradyGames source. I actually just used page 5 to cite what Jill's uniform looks like before I even looked at what your sources were haha. Do you suggest I add this information and the information from the other source into 'Design and portrayal' along the lines of "The official strategy guide for X described Jill as a intelligent officer ..." Or should I just present this as fact without attributing it?
I also have a completely different source that lists the exact same age, measurements (though in metric) and blood type for Jill. Do you think any of those details are relevant? Personally I thought stuff like height and weight would be considered fancruft, and assumed that adding her weight to the article would (justifiably) make SlimVirgin pretty upset as there's no real reason the reader needs to know this. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think some information about her biography can be included in the "Appearances" section, as long as you renamed it to something like "Character biography" (example). Measurements and blood type details should be avoided if you can't find a good reason for their inclusion. I wouldn't attribute the guides as they are quite reputable in the video game industry. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so I've written a paragraph I'm quite happy with, however, I think it's a bit out of place at the top of the Appearances section. I tried renaming the section 'Character biography' as per your suggestion, however, that didn't really work as then I didn't know what to do with the 'Other media' section, since the canon of the games obviously is not one in the same with that of the films. Also I haven't read the comics and they're not presented with any information regarding what happens in them so in their current formatting they wouldn't belong in a 'Biography' section. Any suggestions? Also does the Resident Evil (2002) Prima's Official Strategy Guide contain any other information that you think might be useful? Freikorp (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: The Prima's Official Strategy Guide contains a Characters Relation Chart as well as a Resident Evil Timeline covering events from 1953 to 1998. The timeline also says that Jill was born on February 14, 1975, but other than that there is nothing else about the actual character. Ideally, the Appearances section should act as a plot section, covering fictional details from the character's first to last game. As a result, detailed primary sources should be favored. The section should be treated as a biography rather than a video game history. I think Lightning does a pretty good job at this, so I would use it as an example. I would even remove the release years as most of them are already (or should be) covered in the Design and portrayal section. I think the new paragraph you added is perfectly fine. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant fancruft: The outfit also appears as the alternate costume for Jill in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D.[16] Jill appears dressed as a pirate for her alternate costume in Resident Evil: Revelations.[57] In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked: one in her catsuit from the game, and one in her BSAA uniform.
  • It's a brief and comprehensive account of all costumes, and expands on the "sexualized costumes as rewards" issue that is touched on later. How is a pirate costume relevant to series? Answer: it isn't. Between the lines message: Sarkeesian might have a point. That being said, if removing this information will turn help turn your oppose into at least a neutral vote I'll remove it. Freikorp (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many gameplay details that are not of importance to the general reader: She has two more inventory slots, access to stronger weapons, and is armed with a pistol and a survival knife at the start, whereas Chris begins with only a Bowie knife. She carries a lockpick to open doors and caches, whereas Chris must find keys. Against this, Jill runs slower, takes more damage from attacks, is less accurate with firearms and has less reach with her knife. - Saying that she is physically weaker than Chris, but noting that she can carry more and better items should be more than enough.
  • No context: Writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research, Samantha Lay argued that Jill lacked depth as a character in the original game. - It does not explain why she lacks depth in the original game.
  • Unnecessary trivia/fancruft: The memes have been referenced in subsequent Resident Evil games, such as a poster in the mobile game Resident Evil : Uprising (2009), which advertises a recipe for a Jill Sandwich,[86] and Barry asking "Who’s the master of unlocking now?" after physically destroying a door in Resident Evil: Revelations 2 (2015).[91]
  • @Freikorp: This should be removed: wearing a costume based on her character's clothing in Resident Evil 3. It is already noted in the picture of Guillory portraying Jill. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Freikorp: Since Jill is predominantly a video game character and both the "In films" and the "In literature" subsections are very short, I would combine them into a 2-paragraph "In other media" section. The first paragraph should include the novels, while the second should discuss the films where she appears. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the four mentions have been removed, I believe that is sufficient. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the first paragraph has too many unnecessary details, especially because it is essentially a plot summary of the first game. Readers generally want to know information about the character, not info about the first game where she appears. Another big problem is that now the lead contains little information from the "Design and portrayal" and "Cultural impact" sections, so it doesn't offer a proper summary of the article. In any case, it's better to wait until the body of the article is fixed before making substantial changes to the lead.
I've removed one more fictional detail from the lead. I'll wait until your concerns about the body are fixed before expanding information about design and reception. Freikorp (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a minor addition to the lead. If there's any other topic in particular you'd like covered in there let me know. Freikorp (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I haven't even reviewed the references. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has received a thorough source review. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be sure until I personally review it.
  • @Freikorp: I'll try to go through all the references before I go on holiday on Friday. As a start, ref 16 ("Nintendo 3DS hands-on report") must be removed as it does not say anything about Jill. It's essentially a pre-release article about the 3DS, and its details about Revelations are shallow. Why is it even used in this article? Also, I think you should use more WP:PRIMARY sources in the appearances section. Primary sources, which can only be used in Wikipedia to describe simple and descriptive facts, are the best type of sources to cite plot details (example). --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Niwi3: Thanks so much for following up your concerns. To be honest, I won't be too bothered if you can't get a source review done before you get back from holidays. I don't think this is danger of being closed within a week, and I've got plenty of other things I can focus on, such as a university assignment I've been neglecting to address concerns here haha. When you do comment on this again though please reply to my comment about the new paragraph at the beginning of the appearances section. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've since removed that offending reference. Just to clarify, do you think the appearances section needs to be expanded at all? (Personally I think it is detailed enough as it is) Or just sourced more to the games? I did have one direct source to a cut-scene when the article was first nominated but ironically a reviewer asked me to cut back on the amount of citations in the section on the grounds it was oversourced, so I got rid of it and specifically didn't add any more. Freikorp (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: No, I think it should be rewritten and condensed to retain focus and relevance. Currently, its prose is very choppy, mainly because you try to cover every single release where she appears (that's why I think the RE5 DLCs and other spin-off games should be removed). I left a comment above with some ideas on how you can improve it. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Niwi3: I've reworked the section. Let me know what you think. I note Lightning (Final Fantasy) also contains a paragraph mentioning minor appearances in games. If you'd like me to move or add Jill's DLC and spin-off mentions to a sub-section, just let me know. Also now that I've reworked the section do you think the information about the four different endings in the first game is still appropriate to mention? I'm happy wither way, just let me know what you want. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Ok, I'm back from my holidays. The Appearances section is much better, but I found the following issues (please see below): --Niwi3 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is wrong: In Resident Evil: Revelations, set prior to the events of The Umbrella Chronicles and Resident Evil 5... - Revelations is actually set between RE4 and RE5, per this source. The last scenario of The Umbrella Chronicles is set in February 2003, whereas RE4 is set in 2004. You need a secondary source if primary sources don't specify when the games take place.
  • This is very confusing: She first appears in the second film, Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004), where she is a former STARS member (having been suspended for filing "false" reports about zombies), and a foil to the main character, Alice. - As a person who hasn't watched any of the Resident Evil films, I find it very hard to understand what the films are about. Also, who is Alice? She is not properly introduced and the article does not explain why Jill is a "foil" to her.
  • This should be removed: Wearing a costume based on her catsuit from Resident Evil 5 - If you want to include it in the article, then it needs to be moved to the Design and portrayal section with proper context. If you can't find a proper context, then it's fancruft. The fact that the article focuses on how she dresses without giving readers any explanation makes the article sexist. It also assumes that general readers know how her RE5 outfit looks.
  • Removed. I really believe motivation is 9/10's of everything. I was trying to convey that the character's appearance is based on the game, as I really think that's relevant in an article about a video game character. I would have done exactly the same thing if I had of been writing an article about a male character in the same situation. If I just had of mentioned what she was wearing without any context I can see how that might considered adhering to a male gaze, but since I specifically said it was based on her outfit from the game I can't see how it is sexist, though at this stage allegations of sexism are literally stopping other reviewers from wanting to get involved so I'll remove anything that other people think is sexist just to keep the peace. Also the reader did know what her RE5 outfit looked like when the article was nominated. There was an image, though SlimVirgin requested it be removed on the grounds it might not be justified under fair use. I wasn't convinced that was the case, but once again, I was trying to avoid an argument. Freikorp (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of context: and the remaining human survivors - Who are the remaining human survivors? Overall, I think the first paragraph of the "In other media" section needs to be completely re-written.

Niwi3, you've raised some valid issues, and you are in any case entitled to your opinion on this. Nonetheless I confess I am baffled by your complaints about content forking. This article should discuss the character Jill Valentine at what the community decides to be an appropriate level of detail. That will of necessity involve including details also present elsewhere, and is not a violation of any policy. Objecting to a detail because it is too much detail is reasonable; but I do not find it reasonable to suggest that a detail shouldn't be present because it should be covered elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the content forking and off-topic issues are the reason why the article does not stay focused on the main topic and violates criteria 4. The problem here is not that the article repeats some info from other articles, but the fact that subject matters from other articles are brought into this article. Of course, this is my opinion; the FAC process is about reaching consensus, so my opinion is not the only one that matters. I won't object if the general community thinks the article meets the FA criteria. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niwi3. I've responded to all of your specific points. I also disagree with your opinion regarding content forking, and for the sake of brevity have only mentioned this underneath your first point citing forking as a problem. Some of my responses seek additional clarification from you. I am very interested in turning your 'oppose' into at least a neutral vote, so please mention any further specific problems you find with the article and I will continue to try and address them. Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Left some comments above. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Niwi3: I've replied to all of your concerns again. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sergecross73 edit

Just another one jumping in to say that I can't support it unless/until the reception section is cleaned up a bit. Some of that stuff is just really low grade stuff. Comments about sexuality can be done well, sure, but there's too much bare-bones "Website X called her the (number) hottest character. Not FA level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Rest assured I will make changes to the reception section and will ping you back here once it is done. Freikorp (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, I've made some major changes to the flow of the reception section. I still plan to tweak it around a bit, but this is basically how it is going to look. Do you have any major concerns about it now? I agree the section shouldn't be peppered with "Website X called her the (number) hottest character" stuff. However, I have several high-quality sources placing her on such lists (and several more I could add to the article but I think five sources backing up the single sentence that she's been placed on many lists is sufficient). At the last nomination, an editor seemed to think fleshing out one of the list mentions was all that was required. I agree with this. I've chosen to only have one in depth mention of her appearing on a list, and I've also deliberately chosen it to be a list of the sexiest "characters" (as opposed to women; the list includes men also). Freikorp (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I approve of your changes - it's all handled much better now. I no longer have any objections. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I've just gone through the whole FAC page and moved anything which I do not consider relevant to deciding if this article meets WP:WIAFA to the talk page with this edit. I've also moved what I consider to be comments about editors, and not the article. I am not passing judgement on what I have removed, it is simply that I don't consider it relevant and it is material that the coordinators will disregard in judging consensus. It is also material that is likely to deter new reviewers. If anyone has any huge problems with their comments being removed, they are welcome to put that particular comment back if they feel it is moving this review forward. I also apologise if anyone's comments have been mangled when they were moved to talk. But we really must focus on the article from this point. Any irrelevant commentary will be moved to talk immediately.

To reiterate what I wrote earlier: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Any other commentary is unactionable and can be disregarded; I'm happy to provide clarification if there is any disagreement as I don't want this one to run away from us. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde edit

When Freikorp invited me to comment here I did not expect a slugfest of 14 (?) reviewers. I believe that more scrutiny can never be a bad thing, so I will offer a few comments as well, though given the nature of some of the objections above, I think I will limit myself to general observations at this stage. If the general issues are resolved, perhaps we can return to specific prose questions. Though I do have concerns vis-a-vis neutrality/portrayal of gender, I think these are the result of the industry to a fair extent, and that the nominator has made a genuine effort to address these. Though that isn't necessarily enough, it should be acknowledged.

  • The lead says "She is widely regarded as one of the most attractive female protagonists in video games, though her sexualization and role in relation to gender stereotypes has received both praise and criticism." This is the right sort of balance to strike, but we could make this more nuanced. Who regards her as the most attractive? It isn't Sarkeesian, that's for certain. Similarly, who praises, and who criticizes? Or at the very least, what were their criticisms and praise about?
  • I think I made a good addition to the lead. Happy to hear alternate suggestions if you think this could be better. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm uncertain if the generic "attractive" is the best adjective here, but there's problems with the alternative "sexually attractive" also, so maybe there's no easy way out of this.
  • I think the paragraph beginning "For the 2002 remake of Resident Evil" needs to be slightly reworded, so that we're distancing ourselves a little more from the words of the producer. I'd suggest something like "Kobayashi stated that ... which, according to him..."
  • That quote about her ethnicity is strange at the moment. If it is actually referring to the phenomenon wherein Asian women are portrayed as "exotic" in Western popular media, this is a relevant comment to make, but needs to be made a little clearer. If we're referring to something else, I'm not sure what that is.
  • I can only assume the comment was about the exotic appeal of Asian women, but the source only stated exactly what I said in the article so I can't expand on it at all. In the meantime another editor has removed the information from the article anyway, and I'm too over it to argue so I'm just letting it go. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess that the "critical analysis" section as it stands here does not strike me as problematic. I will investigate other reviewers comments in more detail, because I am familiar with some literature on fictional characters, but not so much with video games.
  • With respect to a concern raised above that the article needs to discuss how her portrayal changed in response to scholarly critique: yes, ideally, we would have such a description. But that presupposes that such a change occurred at all, ie that the developers cared what analysts (rather than the market) were saying...I'll take a look into the literature if I'm able, but I guess my point is that we cannot expect the article to cover stuff that is not covered by reliable sources, even if we would like it to be.
  • Thanks so much for your comments Vanamonde93, I really appreciate them. I've addressed your concerns that required a response. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen that concerns about sexism have been now raised by at least three folks. It is my belief that the best way to deal with problematic media is to describe it in detail, and then describe the critique in detail, which I believe is a direction this article is headed in, thanks to good work on the part of reviewers and of the nominator. That said, I am ignorant of the many issues specific to video games, and so in the interests of not blundering about making life difficult for other folks, I think I am going to sit out until these complaints are sorted. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from bridies edit

I've been involved with this article, I think copy-editing and GA-reviewing with the "original author who no longer edits Wikipedia" (and is the elephant in room, perhaps; although I haven't bothered to check out all the stuff removed collapsed/redacted from this discussion, I assume it involves that editor and his style/obsessions). I would casually state that the article is nowhere near as sexist and biased as it was at one time, but that there are some sentences/quotes that (even if are merited, because a reviewer said it) not as put as professionally NPOV as is possible (pretty much as I think Serge said above). I would also stress that I don't formally oppose on those grounds atm and that I currently have no specific instances to point out (atm), because I haven't read the article (atm...) and I'm not familiar enough with the secondary discourse on the subject matter (if it's all about attractiveness, and one thinks that's crass, what is one to to?). The familiarity I do have is with the original game (and only that, really). I also used to edit old video game articles and got several GAs and an FA in that area. So my question/borderline beef is there why nothing contemporary on critical reception of the original character? There appears only to be only 1 indirect reference (cited in later work, referenced). The sources appear high quality and definitely merit inclusion, but some are up to a couple of decades after the Jill first appeared. Overall I'm not sure there's a good picture of how the character was perceived initially. Sure, the whole franchise is much bigger now than that first game (and first Jill), but the original (game) is looms inordinately large because of its influence, no? Whatever the case, IME at video game FAC, there must be multiple quality contemporary reviews (difficult to obtain though they be, due to being print magazine) which provide a representation of criticism at that time, It may be that the nominator has checked contemporary reviews and found that Jill is not discussed (though if that's the case, one would expect the later academic research to have noted and mentioned this, and that it should in turn be mentioned in the article, no?); otherwise that contemporary discourse has to be included. I'm not outright opposing because I have not followed all the previous discussion(s) and I don't what research the nominator has done in the contemporary media and what he got or didn't get from it. Just a question/concern. (After previewing, I cannot seem to format this correctly; can some current-FAC person fix it for me; much obliged.) bridies (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bridies. Thanks for your comment. I too would prefer to have more reception of Jill from when the original game was released. As you and every other video game editor is aware, it is very difficult to track down printed video game reviews from the mid 90s. I only found one that said anything about her as a person, and that was that "Gill" (the source misspells her name, lol) is half-French, half-Japanese and "this detail 'doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her". I added the information to the article but another editor removed it on the grounds it was sexist. I have tried to locate other relevant reviews in printed magazines, though have proven unsuccessful. There are currently two magazines from 1996 that review the original game for sale on eBay, [19], however, I am very hesitant to spent upwards of $50 (postage fees to Australia from the UK/US are typically more expensive than the magazine itself) on a magazine that might not actually have any information that is relevant. The article Resident Evil (1996 video game) cites several magazines from the time of the game's release, however, none of them are used to cite anything about Jill. If they had of been, I would have been willing to spend the money on tracking them down. As Jill was obviously a brand new character at the time of the game's release, it's extremely probable that sources reviewing the game will concentrate almost entirely on game-play and not really think twice about the avatars. Does this answer your question? Freikorp (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made a similar search before nominating, but just to clarify; searching the Internet Archive for video game magazines printed between 1995 and 1997 containing the text "Resident Evil" gets 12 hits.
  • These ones don't mention Jill at all: [20][21][22]
  • This one mentions Jill is a member of STARS, is one of two playable characters, and is better equipped than Chris due to the addition of her lock-pick and handgun. Nothing we don't already know: [23]
  • This one has a profile on Jill, but it only describes gameplay, like the stuff above. It does mention than Barry Burton is her "Secret admirer"; that's about all that's new here: [24]
  • The only thing this one mentions that is new is that Jill is able to pick up a rocket launcher wheres when playing as Chris this weapon is unavailable: [25]
  • This one only confirms the rocket launcher as well: [26]
  • This one only comments on the differences betwwen Jill and Chris in terms of gameplay: [27]
  • This one only mentions that Jill does not appear in Resident evil 2: [28]
  • This one does mention Shinji Mikami saying why Jill didn't feature in Resident Evil 2. I could use if for a brief mention in the development section: [29]
  • This one mentions the differences between Chris and Jill in gameplay, and also gives a walk-through of the game: [30]
  • This one only recommends first time players start with Jill: [31]
There you have it. Sources from the time the first game was released just don't give any reception of the character herself. Freikorp (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read your first comment earlier, and was coming back to say that while I empathise (having brought pre-web 2.0 games to FAC and GAC), a statement that information exists (or even, might not exist but you haven't checked it out) but is difficult or expensive to obtain and thus has not been included, will not play well at FAC. You obviously then added those archive links which are (taking you at your word, didn't read them) consistent with your assertion that there will not be anything substantial to be found in contemporary coverage of the first game. That gives pause for thought; nice effort. But still: those articles seem to come from 3 publications referred to multiple times (correct me if I'm mistaken; can't be far wrong, though). Not a great sample IMO, especially for a multi-platform game. Nothing from Edge, formed a few years prior? That would be the place where serious discussion could be found if at all (if there were nothing pertinent in an Edge review, I'd probably assume/agree there likely isn't anything at all). Edge is/was (and these days there may be similar publications; not of course relevant to a mid-90s game) a go-to source for serious rewrites of articles; and could be got from other editors. That's another thing: you got those articles via internet archives (which is fine), but really I'd like to see a broader spread of sources (other magazines, but also perhaps newspapers, non-English language sources - this being a Japanese-made game, etc too). I understand you don't want to shell out serious money to take a look at sources (again, empathise...), but others do, or have kept their magazines. It was the norm for me and anyone else editing this sort of material to look for collaborators at WP:VG. There used to be other avenues/people around the web to take a look at maybe a page or two of a magazine; I actually used to be able to acquire whole magazines (this may no longer be the case due to copyright policing or whatever). Tried doing that at the WP:VG (as a starting point even)? Anything come up? I'd again stress I don't outright oppose or want this rejecting on my account, but just not convinced about whether the above could be represented, or whether it's really established that it couldn't. bridies (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Internet Archive's collection consists of only three magazine series in the relevant time-frame. Accordingly, I had already made a comprehensive search of Sega Saturn Magazine, GamePro and Computer and Video Games. While there are, of course, many more magazines I could search through if I was willing to spend the time and/or money on accumulating them, searching through these three has consistently shown the magazines do not care much about the character herself. As I indicated to another editor, one of the first things I did when I decided I wanted to improve this article to FAC level was search the Japanese Wiki article for sources, however, it had none; I would have attempted to contact Japanese editors to get sources if they were in the article. I then searched the wiki article for the original Resident Evil game, though none of the sources there were used to say anything about Jill. After the first nomination ended I searched the wiki article for Resident Evil 3, and after noticing some sources there may be used to support information about Jill, contacted the editor. He gave me three digital copies of magazines, two of which I used as they had information I thought was relevant (1999 issues of Edge and Official US PlayStation Magazine). I've also spent a fair amount of my own money on sources to write this article. I have purchased the physical books Biohazard Official Navigation Book, Resident Evil Official Strategy Guide and Resident Evil 5: The Complete Official Guide and also the digital copies of Unraveling Resident Evil, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Conspiracy, and issue 133 of GamesTM. Anyway I know you are not currently opposing, but just to clarify for future reference since it looks like this nomination may not pass now, on top of everything I've already done, if I did track down all the relevant copies of Edge from the game's first release, would you consider that to be sufficient research for the purpose of FAC? Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bridies. Just following this up as I'm not sure if you realised I replied. Cheers. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I did see the reply and was mulling it over; I don't get much time for wiki (and ergo maybe don't have much business commenting on FACs, but this popped up I think through the GAC history I had on it). Ideally I'd look like to look into it a bit myself, (re-)familiarise about what might be out there, how useful it might really be (I've used young copies of Edge, but don't really recall how the quality was) and how it could be got but, putting me on the spot: I've thought about this, how to put it, but now I'm typing it, it's just clicked that you stated above that you actually did see the relevant issue of Edge, and one of the official PS magazines to boot (or are we talking about reviews for the second, maybe third game?)? And nothing noteworthy there? Either way, all sorts of caveats (say someone turns up something obscure that we didn't think of – although I think that'd help rather than hinder you – or someone asserts with some basis that there's a whole other view and discourse in Japanese sources that'd haven't been WORLDVIEW represented – although this could be the case for many articles, not only games, and is perhaps just not a realistic demand, even for FAs), but: yeah, while it would be a sad, frustrating thing, if you referred to Edge and one of the big official magazines (if you've actually managed that, wouldn't say no to a look myself, just out of curiosity...), in addition to the 3 (contemporary sources) cited in the article, and found nothing of substance, that'd make me seriously doubt there is/was anything of the sort I thought should be included. And it would incline me to agree with your assertion that hunt as one may, not going to find anything. Really one would think later sources on the character/franchise would note and state something to the effect that the character was initially ignored, and that info could be used. But if they didn't they didn't. bridies (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bridies. The copies of Edge and Official PS magazine that I tracked down were for the third game. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Edge, issues 33 and 52 of Edge contain reviews on the original Resident Evil and the Director's Cut respectively. I've contacted the editor, who according the the reference library, has the offline issues, but I haven't gotten a reply yet. If I don't get a reply at all, I'll try and track down the issues myself since you would consider that to be adequate searching for FAC, though I'm not thrilled at my chances of being able to find them. Freikorp (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bridies. The editor I contacted has since emailed transcripts of the two Edge magazine reviews I requested. I can confirm that neither goes into detail about Jill as a character. I'll add the shorter of the two reviews below, issue 52, page 97:
"Cynics will no doubt view Resident Evil Directors cut as either an attempt to keep players occupied until the sequel finally arrives, or a shameless cashing in exercise. There may, of course, be some truth in both statements regardless, this title offers new players a lot of game for their money As well as a fantastic, substantial playable demo of Resident Evil 2, the package offers three versions of the game: the standard US and European interpretation; the easier Japanese version; and an advanced mode which will be the most interesting offering to players familiar with the original. The plot remains the same, but in addition to a collection of new camera angles, Capcom has placed most of the items in different locations, as well as changing the enemy arrangement, the result being that even Resident Evil veterans will get the odd surprise or two. The difficulty level has been increased, too, so that even as Jill, players should find it a worthy challenge. Although early reports claimed this version would also include the uncensored intro and cinematic sequences found on the original Japanese release, an alleged miscommunication between Capcom's international offices has resulted in the US version retaining the censored scenes. At the time of writing, there is no confirmation whether the UK version will suffer a similar fate. While it may only attract die-hard Resident Evil fanatics, any player who, for some inexplicable reason, hasn't experienced the original, is now faced with a truly essential purchase."
I hope this information addresses your concern. Freikorp (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Victoriaearle edit

There are four problems here: structure, sourcing and prose. The fourth I'll address at the end.

  • Structure: character analysis articles are the most difficult type of Wikipedia article to write, and must adhere to MOS, writing about fiction WP:WAF. Nancy Drew and Kenneth Widmerpool are the only two examples I know of that have passed FAC. This article doesn't follow the guidelines in terms of structure. Instead the structure, before it was nominated for FAC1 is very similar to something like Mai Shiranui (sans the bouncing boobs), and subsequent changes simply overlay the existing structure. All of the tweaking in the world won't fix what needs to be fixed. What's necessary is to explain succinctly in a "Background" section that the character is of the Resident Evil world/franchise. There's no reason to provide unnecessary detail of that world; it's not necessary for the reader already familiar and confusing the reader not familiar. The focus should be only on the character and her actions, relationships, developments, etc., within that world. A description section is required to describe the character and if there's no direct analysis in the section it's okay to lean on primary sources, i.e the games, books, films. Then we need an analysis section, sourced to the best secondary scholarly sources, of which there are plenty. Next is a short and succinct Reception section. Since Jill Valentine appears in games, books and films, it's appropriate to have a section towards the bottom briefly mentioning that, and mentioning various actors, etc. That's all. Keep a tight focus on the character.
  • Sourcing: there's not an overwhelming number or sources but good secondary sources do exist and need to mined and leaned on heavily. A search on Google scholar with "Jill Valentine" as a search term returns these sources. A search with ""Jill Valentine" video games" these sources. These are the sources that drive the content. The same searching needs to be done on Google books - there's a fair amount there, certainly enough to cobble together a decent article (in fact even the jumpsuit is mentioned in a book, but that's a distraction for the purposes of this comment).
  • Prose: it's very difficult to read the article, partially because of the structure and also because the prose is choppy (which happens when things are cobbled together too quickly and without leaning on proper sourcing). But the prose can't be fixed until proper sources are used and the appropriate structure put in place. Once all of that is done, it needs a good copyedit.

The fourth issue is this: a reviewer shows up and essentially says what I've written above and is labeled as a "feminist" and told her review is POV. The scholarly secondary sources are labeled as feminist. We don't do that and we don't get to cherry pick which sources we like or do not like, especially for a featured article. We search for the best sources available, we lean on them and they drive the content. Furthermore we don't label reviewers. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I'm clearly female and, although I've had my eye on both FACs (Jill Valentine is a catchy title and caught my eye months ago), I have absolutely zero wish to engage. At first I dumped some links on Sarahs page, but it's not fair to do that to her and expect her to take the heat, so I'm posting this. My opinion is that the coords should archive and the nominator take a big step back, do a thorough source search and review, read the sources, restructure the article appropriately, etc. All of that takes time but it will result in a much better article and much less stress. If I were here to give a full review I'd oppose based on the above comments, but I refuse to get into a situation where the nominator either tries to fix the extremely deep problems mentioned during the course of a FAC, and in which I might be badgered. Plus my schedule is such that I'm not always online, and can't really follow up. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Off topic moved to talk)

@Victoriaearle: You've stated your reasons for opposing and they don't give me any room to address the concerns while the nomination is open. That's fine; thanks for your input. After reading your "Fourth issue" paragraph I feel the need to say a couple things though. Your account is not an accurate description of what happened. I did not cherry pick sources. Sarah's opening comment on the first nomination suggested I add two sources to the article. I added them to the article straight away; I said "thanks for finding that it improves the article and was very interesting." She replied "Thanks for adding Harper and Sarkeesian. You summarized them well." The first Jill Valentine nomination was my fourteenth featured nomination; several people have opposed previous nominations of mine and I never labelled any of them. I lost my patience with Sarah because it is my opinion, an opinion voiced by other reviewers here as well, that while many of her concerns were valid, many were also not based on the actual FA criteria, but by her own set of standards of what was "problematic". I was also infuriated by the fact she opposed the nomination based on several issues that had already been fixed, and on how it looked in the past. I don't want to debate the issue, I'm just making my motivation clear. We don't label reviewers? I've lost count of how many times she's labelled me a sexist now, for such offenses including referring to Jill in passing as a 'girl' (as opposed to a woman, I assume; my apologies). Furthermore I don't see any issue with labeling sources such as "Feminist Frequency" as feminist sources. And I don't have a problem with feminist sources anyway; I've added feminist sources to several of my featured nominations without being asked to. If you look at the talk page for my featured article The Fifth Element, you'll see someone criticising me for adding too many feminist sources to the article; I stuck to my guns and would not remove them because I thought the feminist opinions were valid. My problem was not with the fact Sarah is female, or the fact she wanted me to add feminist sources to the article. That's all I have to say in response. Have a nice day, I really mean that. Freikorp (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 edit

I'm not really an expert in video games but I would recommend using the FA Lightning (Final Fantasy) as an example. The first paragraph of "In video games" sounds more like a description of the character. Maybe it could be used in the parts of the article that they are used. In the first Resident Evil, the canon sentence is a bit controversial, so I would suggest adding a source that tells that. The downloadable content of RE5 could be expanded a bit to let the reader the premise of what Jill does in the the game. Same with the other games. Also, I don't why do we refer to every character by their last name. I thought it was per common name that we should use Jill instead of Valentine.

In the creation section "GamesRadar's David Meikleham commented on how much the character's appearance had changed between the original game, Nemesis, Resident Evil 5 and Revelations, saying she had been completely redesigned so many times it was "getting ridiculous" this could be used in the reception section instead since in the present article feels redundant.

Other than, I find to oppose. I'll give it my support if the nominator fixes these issues. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Tintor2. The first paragraph in the video games section is supposed to come across as more of a description. I added it at the request of Niwi3 (see above), who said the section should appear as more of a biography and less of just mentioning what the character does in the games. They actually cited the Lightning article as an example of how this should work. I have added a citation regarding the series' canon, and have expanded the DLC content for RE5 and have fitted this around the information from RE5 so that the paragraph flows smoothly. Most of the other games in that paragraph that collects her less notable appearances do not have a plot, rather they are fighting games. The two big exceptions appear to be the mobile games Resident Evil: The Missions and Resident Evil: Genesis, however, neither of those games is notable enough to even have an article written about them so I don't think they should be given much weight. I refer to the character by her last name as per the guideline MOS:SURNAME. I've also reworked the comment on the character's appearance into the reception section. Let me know if you have any further concerns, or if the changes I've made haven't adequately addressed your original ones. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giving my support. One of most recent FAs from the anime and manga project, Naruto Uzumaki, was also given this type of description but outside the appearances. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Despite this late support, I think it is time to put an end to this FAC. Archiving has perhaps been inevitable for some time now, as I think most of us realise. Although a bumpy ride, I think some very useful review has come out of this FAC. I've let it run longer than would normally be the case with several opposes as I think the article was improving on the basis of the review. However, I can't help but agree that PR may have been a better place for this discussion. I hope the nominator has an idea of what needs doing to address the concerns of the opposers. In terms of moving forward, my advice would be to open a PR and invite all those who opposed here to comment there. I think that would be the best place to have the inevitable back-and-forth over the issues raised. The fact of the matter is that if/when this is renominated, the same discussion will take place over these issues, and unless there is a consensus of reviewers that this article meets the FA criteria, it will not be promoted; there is clearly no such consensus at the moment but one may be achieved at PR, given time and away from the FAC spotlight. Any future FAC will need to run for at least two weeks (so that quick, pile-on supports do not derail the review) and, as the nominator did this time, all those who opposed should be informed and invited to comment (as should all those who supported). In any case, and whatever the nominator decides to do, this can be renominated after the usual two-week cooling-off period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 [32].

Benjamin Banneker edit

Nominator(s): Corker1 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a biography of Benjamin Banneker, a historically significant person. The article has a concise lead section and infobox, consistently formatted inline citations, an extensive list of verified references and two relevant images with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. A number of references contain direct quotations from their sources to enable readers to easily access this information. Where possible, all references are archived. The article has a number of links to other relevant Wikipedia articles.

Because the article has many inline references, a number of references contain subsidiary reference lists (i.e., (1) ...(break) (2) ... (break)... (3) .... (break)). By reducing the number of inline references, this enables the article to be more concise and readable than if the article had listed each inline reference individually.

As the article states, many biographies of Benjamin Banneker contain undocumented information that published reviews have questioned. Therefore, although the article mostly relies on information from secondary sources, the article contains a number of direct quotations from primary sources that confirm the accuracy of the article's information. As a result, the article has more blockquotes than do many featured articles. The article therefore provides examples of the appropriate use of blockquotes in a Wikipedia article.

The article cites only the most reliable secondary and tertiary sources, except where identifying significant secondary sources that have information that either published or on-line reviews have questioned. The article does not contain any original research.

Images are appropriately licensed. However, I'd suggest taking another pass through citations, as there are some inconsistencies - for example, sometimes newspaper names are italicized (as they should be) and other times they aren't. Similar sources should be similarly formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Nikkimaria: I have italicized all newspaper names in article. Please identify any other inconsistencies in the article's citations that you may find. Corker1 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mix {{citation}}, the {{cite}} family, and untemplated citations. Date format is inconsistent. Hyphens are used where dashes belong. Locations are presented inconsistently. Also, some of your references appear questionable - for example, what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

This looks like the nominator's first FAC; the article appears to have undergone no prior review process, and as a result seems somewhat underprepared.

  • The last paragraph of the article is uncited. At least a couple of other paragraphs end without a citation.
  • By contrast, there are numerous instances of over-citation, sometimes of apparently simple facts, leading to lengthy unsightly citation strings.
  • The prose is often fractured and jerky, with too many short single-sentence paragraphs.
  • There is too much use of lengthy direct quotations, when simple paraphrases would make for much easier reading.
  • Many of the citations are hugely over-complicated. Their function is to pinpoint the sources used, yet in this case ref 35 incorporates an essay of several hundred words, and ref 44 list fifteen different sources. These are just two examples – there are many others.
  • I have not checked out the sources themselves, although I see that Nikki has highlighted a few issues above. One link that I tried, ref 57 – Phillips, pp. 116-117 – went to a different source.

I would seriously consider withdrawing this nomination, and working with a mentor before resubmission here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your thoughtful comments. My response to each comment follows:
  • The last paragraph of the article is uncited. At least a couple of other paragraphs end without a citation.
  • Response: The last paragraph of the article ends with a link to a section in a subsidiary Wikipedia article, i.e., (see Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker), that contains many citations. There are too many of these citations to place at the end of the paragraph. No single citation can encompass many of these citations.
  • Statements made in this article need to be cited within this article; you cannot simply refer a subsidiary Wikipedia article. Since you have a hatnote link to the subsidiary article, I see no need for the uncited paragraph, and the simplest solution might be just to delete it. But it cant be left as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could find only other one paragraph outside of the lead that ended without a citation. I have removed that paragraph's last sentence, which enables the paragraph to end with a citation.
  • By contrast, there are numerous instances of over-citation, sometimes of apparently simple facts, leading to lengthy unsightly citation strings.
  • Response: As stated in the justification for the nomination and in the article itself, there are many publications about Benjamin Banneker that lack adequate documentation. Many secondary and tertiary sources cite other sources that lack adequate documentation.
Some of the article's secondary and tertiary sources state that there are actually only a few "simple facts" about Banneker's life and accomplishments that primary sources have documented. The apparent "over-citations" enable readers to determine for themselves whether "simple facts" are well-documented or whether they are not. While some of the longer citation strings are indeed unsightly, they do help the reader determine whether the cited "facts" are adequately documented. The article's subordinate reference system ((1) ... (break) (2) .... break (3) ...) reduces the length of citation strings, but cannot eliminate all of them.
  • Hmmm, up to a point. But I rather doubt that a simple fact like "After his father died in 1759, Banneker lived with his mother and sisters" needs a double citation to prove its accuracy, or that "During the following year, Banneker sent George his work calculating a solar eclipse" requires triple citation, or that the hiring of Banneker "as a replacement to assist in the initial survey of the boundaries of a new federal district" requires four separate citations. Where multiple sources are properly necessary to support a statement, they can be bundled into a single citation in the form <ref>Smith, p. 1; Jones, pp. 2–3; Brown, p. 88; Robinson pp. 4–7</ref>. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is often fractured and jerky, with too many short single-sentence paragraphs
  • Response: Please identify the "many single sentence paragraphs" that you found. I can only find two (the last sentence in the "Death" section and the article's last paragraph). The remaining "single sentence paragraphs" are sentences that introduce blockquotes, which complete the paragraph.
  • It isn't so much the single-sentence aspect as the "short, fractured and jerky". For instance, three of the first four paragraphs of the "Notable Works" section. The prose flow isn't helped, either, by the profusion of blockquotes, each preceded by a short introduction, but see below my further comments on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is too much use of lengthy direct quotations, when simple paraphrases would make for much easier reading.
  • Response: The lengthy quotations within the body of the article are from primary sources (the writings of Banneker, the editors of his almanacs and Thomas Jefferson). Secondary sources that have paraphrased these writings have often altered their meanings and intent. While paraphrasing (which often occurs in tertiary sources such as Wikipedia) can enhance the readability of an article, the paraphrasing dilutes the impact of the primary source.
One of my justifications for considering the article to be a "Featured article" is to illustrate methods of presenting a subject whose secondary and tertiary sources have inadequately conveyed the language and intent of the original writers. The inclusion of direct quotations (even when lengthy) is one such method.
  • "Secondary sources that have paraphrased these writings have often altered their meanings and intent" reads as a personal opinion, but anyway I'm not sure that it's relevant here. If you have citations to the full texts, the reader can easily check your paraphrase against the original meaning. Whether your paraphrase "dilutes the impact of the primary source" depends on the care with which you do it – a paraphrase can of course include short in-text phrases from the original. My other concern is the number and proximity of the blockquotes – eight, I think, in the "Correspondence" section alone, comprising the great majority of that section's text. I think you need to consult WP:QUOTEFARM to apprise yourself of recommended WP practice. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the citations are hugely over-complicated. Their function is to pinpoint the sources used, yet in this case ref 35 incorporates an essay of several hundred words, and ref 44 list fifteen different sources. These are just two examples – there are many others.
  • Response: Ref 35 is perhaps the best review in the published literature that relates the confusion about Banneker's life that his biographers have produced. The reference contains the following quotation: "Recent biographical accounts of Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), .. have done his memory a disservice by obscuring his real achievements under a cloud of extravagant claims to scientific accomplishment that have no foundation in fact. The single notable exception is Silvio A. Bedini’s The Life of Benjamin Banneker (New York, 1972), a work of painstaking research and scrupulous attention to accuracy which also benefits from the author’s discovery of important and hitherto unavailable manuscript sources." However, the reference goes on to state: "In consequence, Bedini’s otherwise reliable biography accepts the version of Banneker’s role in this episode as presented in reminiscences of nineteenth-century authors. These recollections, deriving in large part from members of the Ellicott family who were prompted by Quaker inclinations to justice and equality, have compounded the confusion."
The review thus points out that even Silvio A. Bedini, who many reviewers consider to be Banneker's most thorough biographer to date, has contributed to the confusion surrounding Banneker's life. If the Wikipedia article simply pinpointed the source (as many Wikipedia articles do), few readers would read the source and appreciate the extent of this confusion.
Reference 44 does indeed list 15 different sources. Each of these is a primary source (an almanac that Banneker authored). Each citation contains an OCLC number, which enables readers to identify a library that holds the primary source. No secondary or tertiary source contains this information. While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a secondary source, a Wikipedia article needs to contain such information when no secondary source contains the information. This is also true for other references that contain multiple sources; they may appear "hugely over-complicated", but they also contain important information that enables readers to locate the sources. That is the real purpose of a reference list. regardless of how complicated the list appears to be.
  • These arguments I think suggests a view of Wikipedia articles well beyond what is intended. Perhaps you should read the policy document WP:NOT. Essentially, our articles are written for general readers as summaries, not academic analyses, of the topic. Your approach seems more directed towards a specialist readership. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not checked out the sources themselves, although I see that Nikki has highlighted a few issues above. One link that I tried, ref 57 – Phillips, pp. 116-117 – went to a different source.
  • Response: Ref 57 does indeed link to Phillips, pp. 116-117. See the header at the top of page 117, which states: "Phillips: The Negro, Benjamin Banneker".
  • The link on Phillips goes to the cover of Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington (1917). I can't get the archived link to work, but I'll take your word that it goes to pp 116–117 of the Phillips article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am presently in the process of correcting the issues that Nikki highlighted. Bots that edited the article created some of these issues; unfortunately, bots will continue to do this.
I would seriously consider withdrawing this nomination, and working with a mentor before resubmission here.
  • Response: I nominated Benjamin Banneker to be a featured article candidate because it contains elements that can serve as examples for others to use when describing the lives of people whose published and Internet biographies are largely based on unreliable sources. The article is therefore rather unique; few mentors are likely to have had experience with such biographical Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand the nature of FA mentoring. The mentor is not required to have subject expertise; the article will still be subject to review by other editors. The mentor's job is to help steer the article through the shoals and rapids of the FAC process, based on his/her experience of that process. My original judgement stands: I believe this nomination should be withdrawn pending reconsideration of the points raised here, and should not be resubmitted before it has undergone a full peer review. A mentor could be a considerable help here. I also concur with the point raised by RL0919, below. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Corker1, since you have not addressed my own comments directly, I will insert myself here to reply to some of your remarks. Banneker would hardly be a unique subject for having conflicts or errors in the secondary sources. Yes, controversies among the secondary sources should be discussed where appropriate. For a positive example in this case, the article has what seems like a good summary of the question of his ancestry in the body text. But that does not mean it is necessary or desirable to bombard readers with lengthy citation lists for things that seem well established, or quote sources at length to prove they really say what they are summarized as saying. There could be some cases where a quote is needed in a citation or an unusual number of citations is appropriate, but usually not. Instead, questions about why one source was preferred over another or disputes about what sources say typically belong on the article's Talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919 edit

I will start by saying that this seems like a good subject for an FA -- an interesting, historically notable person from a time and place that should provide lots of reliable, accessible, English-language sources. Unfortunately I concur with Brianboulton's assessment that withdrawing this FAC is probably the best plan. In addition to the items already mentioned, I wanted to call out a few other points:

  • The "Murdock" source in ref 88 is a customer review on Amazon.com, which is not a reliable source for any article, much less the quality expected for FA.
  • Beyond having too many lengthy quotations (which I agree is a problem), it is unusual for an article to quote correspondence in full with headers and footers included (such as dates and signature lines).
  • In general there seems to be an excessive focus on primary source material. There are secondary sources, but they are often concentrated in the citation strings that are mentioned above, while other parts of the article are based mostly on his own publications and correspondence. An encyclopedia article should mostly come from secondary sources.
  • There are some additional images of Banneker on Commons, although the copyright status of some of them seems dubious. If no better image can be found, it may be appropriate to use woodcut image of him in the infobox.

My suggestion would be to withdraw and work on the concerns already raised, then submit for a peer review to shake out additional improvements before returning. You might want to post at WT:AFRO and WT:USA to solicit WikiProject input. Use of a mentor for the next FAC nomination is also a wise suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As there have been two suggestions that this article should be withdrawn, I will be archiving this FAC shortly. I would recommend listening to the advice given by Brianboulton and RL0919, consulting a mentor and at the very least going to PR before renominating. In any case, this article can be renominated after a two-week cooling off period, as stated in the FAC instructions. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2017&oldid=806129935"