Talk:Hanzo (Overwatch)

Merge

I don't see the sourcing that warrants a split from the main character list article. Everything said here can be said (with more concision) in the existing Hanzo section. czar 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know too much about Overwatch, but I can tell that the content of the page looks too lightweight for GA status. I mean, Gordon Freeman is a B-class article and it's much more extensive than this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Gordon Freeman article also has a citation needed tag on it that would prevent it from moving up to GA. Don't know if there's a length requirement for GA status, but yeah the Hanzo article looks a little to light for now. Got Tracer to GA status so this article would need just a bit more to get there, I think. Soulbust (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I recently did a GA review concerning a film character where I practically had the nominator redo the entire thing. The length wasn't much different, but the substance was enhanced, so I felt confident. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've put the GA review on hold until this is resolved. I've added merge templates to this page and the character page to draw more attention to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a year old discussion, shouldn't impact GA as this was never pursued or actioned. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right - I thought it was from last month, not last month + a year. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

It may take me several days to complete this review. It is not necessary to wait for me to address all points before starting updates. All of my comments are up for discussion. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lead

   The opening sentence needs to be rewritten. The current structure implies related media helped develop the game.

   Done.

   Each type of "other media" is significant enough to get subsections but not to be mentioned in the lead? The character's debut was in an animated short.

   " is of Japanese origin " - wordy. Why not just "is Japanese"?

   Changed.

   "only goes by his given name in the game" - is the really lead worthy?

   Changed.

   "a defense character and one with a high difficulty ranking" - wordy. Why not "a defense character with a high..."?

   Changed.

   "especially his ultimate ability" - in addition to being a poorly worded addition to the list of reasons fans like him, the qualifier especially seems unwarranted. It's mentioned exactly one time in the reception section, where it "has also been well received."

   Changed.

   "noted that he is a character who requires practice" - wordy. why not "noted the character requires"?

   Changed.

   "used effectively in matches" - Why specify matches? The word doesn't appear anywhere else in the article and its use here implies there are other uses which do not require practice.

   Changed.

   Development and design

   The first sentence is wordy. I recommend "Hanzo was one of 12 Overwatch characters revealed at Blizzcon 2014. He was described as a lightly armored character who could..."

   Changed.

   I think the information about the original concept being split into two characters and bit about where his name came from should come before the Blizzcon reveal, unless there's a reason to keep this material out of chronological order.

   Changed.

   "Hanzo's story arc along with Genji's was inspired by " - wordy. I suggest "Hanzo and Genji's story arc was"

   Changed.

   "Michael Chu, lead writer of Overwatch..." - see 2D for a note on this sentence.

   Changed.

   that Hanzo's real interesting" - This contraction should be written out - "Hanzo is"

   Changed.

   Gameplay

   "Hanzo is classified" by whom?

   That's his class in-game. It's also stated in the article, which discusses "Defense" characters.

   "Hanzo's ultimate ability" - what does this mean? If you don't want to define it in the body, it should be added as a note. Overwatch (video game)#Gameplay has almost a paragraph explaining how it's utilized. This page doesn't need the same level of detail, but it shouldn't assume readers are familiar with how the game is played. (Until I researched it, I expected it to be more similar to a Fatality combo from Mortal Kombat.)

   Appearances

   The first sentence is kind of dry. I suggest stating the biography information more plainly and removing the colon. (example: According to the character's biography, Hanzo Shimada is 38 years old and was formerly based in the fictional Japanese town...)

   Re-written.

   "In Overwatch lore," - Is there other kind for this character? If not, this is unnecessarily purple.

   Removed the extract information.

   "instructed Hanzo to straighten out his younger brother" - please clarify this. What behavior needed changing, and how did Hanzo try to do it?

   I explained the kind of behavior Hanzo was trying to "straighten Genji out" from. But it's never stated exactly how Hanzo tried to do it.

   There's no citation for the bulk of the Overwatch section. I assume all information (and the quote) come from the same source as the first sentence. If so, that citation needs to be moved to the end of the paragraph.

   Since some of the info come's from Genji's biography, I've added that in there as well.

   "In May 2016, made his first appearance" there's a word missing here

   Shit. Added it.

   "his first appearance in Dragons, the third in a series" - As far as I can tell, this short is the first time the character appeared anywhere. Is there a good reason not to list it first? Reference #16 indicates this trailer was meant to "set the stage" for overwatch.

   why does he need to kill the guards?

   He actually doesn't kill the guards, I think. But considering that he abandoned the clan, it's not surprising he would be considered an outcast.

   why is death in quotations? Did Hanzo know Genji is not really dead? The biography section in Overwatch didn't hint at anything but actual execution.

   Explained the situation better in his biography section.

   "It's in that moment that the assassin reveals himself " - Aside from the contraction, this is another example of purple prose. Why not just "The Assassin reveals himself"?

   Changed.

   "Hanzo was left to contemplate everything he had just found out" - is this stated plainly in the animation? If not, the interpretation should be cited or removed.

   Removed.

   What, precisely, is source #17 being used to cite? Looking through it, I can't find anything in it to support the plot summarized since reference #16.

   Switched them.

   "Hanzo's first appearance in Overwatch's tie-in digital comic book series occurred in the December 2016 story..." - wordy and awkward. I suggest "Hanzo made a minor appearance in the digital Overwatch comic in December 2016." The rest of the comic seems pretty incidental. Is it at all significant to the character?

   Considering how his appearence is highly different than his in-game model, I'd say it's worth mentioning. If you'd like however, I could add it as alttext to the image. But I definately think the sentence about what his does should stay. I understand that when it comes to character articles, this isn't a Wikia, and we can't write every single appearence a character makes. Having said that, this is his only comic appearance. So it's definately worth mentioning.

   The reference for the merchandise section links directly to a webstore selling it. Unless a third party commented on it, this isn't worth including. If a third party has commented, it should be expanded or relocated (maybe to reception) since one sentence sections are not ideal.

   Removed.

   Reception

   The quotes in the first sentence are sourced, but they need to be attributed inline. ([writer] called Hanzo a "fan favorite" in a [year] article for [website].)

   Done.

   "competition of "Gaming's Best 2017 Archer"" - I think for would be a better preposition than of

   Changed.

   "Hanzo ended up being the winner, winning it two out of four categories;" - wordy. Why not "Hanzo won in two out of four categories, __ and ___"?

   Changed.

   The sentence about winning the 2017 Archer awards makes it sound like Hanzo was the one saying the quote at the end of the sentence. I recommend splitting the quote into its own sentence and attributing to a writer.

   Changed.

   "On the character, Matt Whittaker" - wordy. The previous sentence was also "on the character", so there's no reason to qualify Whittaker's quote.

   Changed.

   "Despite these, he believed" - not the best segue. The previous sentence had two points, and one was overtly positive. The other is restated in this sentence ("needs a bit of practice time" vs "player who practice with him"). I suggest combining these sentences.

   Fixed this.

   "His ultimate ability, Dragonstrike," - this was introduced in gameplay, so it can be simply "His Dragonstrike ability..." here.

   Removed.

   "being able to kill the opposing team in seconds" - the source cited qualifies this as a team moving a payload. I suggest adding "under the right circumstances" to the end of your sentence.

   Added it.

   "Within the player community, players " - repetitive. I suggest changing one instance of player to gamer

   Changed to "gaming community".

   "other players typically do not feel that most Hanzo players contribute well to the team's effort due to Hanzo requiring a great deal of practice to become skilled with the character." - wordy. I suggest "other players typically feel the Hanzo mains are not sufficiently skilled with the character to contribute to the team's effort."

   Don.e

   "Such "Hanzo mains" are frequently ridiculed, told to switch to other characters, or even have been reported through Blizzard's system for selecting Hanzo." - I can't put my finger on the exact cause, but this sentence seems off. I suggest "Such "Hanzo mains" are frequently ridiculed or told to switch to other characters. Some have been reported through Blizzard's system for selecting Hanzo." I also suggest on expanding on what reporting means. I assume it's meant to report some type of abuse?

   Added some info on what the reporting system is.

   " several players that frequently" - should be "players who"

   Done.

   "frequently play Hanzo; these players felt that Hanzo was one of the more well-balanced characters once one becomes skilled at playing him, and the hate towards Hanzo is more likely from other players feeling a Hanzo player makes for a good scapegoat when the team is otherwise not cohesive." - this is an overly long sentence. I suggest breaking it up somewhere, but I'll leave the placement to you.

   Changed.

   "The term "Hanzo main" has extended beyond Overwatch." - suggest "has been used outside of the Overwatch context as well."

   Done.

   "US presidential election of 2016" - suggest rewording and linking to 2016 US Presidential Election

   Changed that.

   "playing Overwatch that reads " - unless it's still up, it should be read.

   I wish it were still up.

   "became popularized in a viral news story" - suggest "became further popularized by a viral tweet in March 2017"

   Done.

   "In Brazil, a church in honor of Hanzo was created called Hanzo National Church." - suggest "[Founders name] created the Hanzo National Church in Brazil in [year] to honor the character."

   Added founder's name.

   " popular; the data " - no need for a semi colon here. Just use a period and start a new sentence.

   Added period.

   "Hanzo and McCree (McHanzo) were shipped 35% of the time" - what does shipped mean? Who was doing it? Is 35% a lot compared to the other popular choices?

   Added some more information to make the whole thing clearer. I also added a note explaining what shipping is.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no concern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I'm not familiar with all the video game journalism sites, but most of the sources look reliable. Could you please tell me more about the Youtube source PlayOverwatch? What makes this one reliable?

   Oh, that one is Blizzard's official Overwatch YouTube account. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

   That works for me. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig returned weak results, but this one stood out to me: discussing Hanzo and his "will-he, won't-he fall to darkness storyline", stated The quote starts at will, but it matches the source word-for-word beginning with Hanzo. Since extending the quote doesn't work grammatically, I suggest re-writing this as described Hanzo's storyline as "will-he, won't he...

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   According to Characters of Overwatch#Hanzo, the character is voiced by Paul Nakauchi. Why is that no mentioned here?

   Who wrote the comic? Who drew it? Where was this digital comic available?

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no conern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   I count 5 examples of vandalism in the last two months (back to Dec 7). Some were reverted within minutes, but one remained on the page for nearly an hour and one was up for two hours. Per note 8 at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, "Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold."

   Furthermore, there is a discussion on the talk page to merge. The nominator has not yet responded to it. Putting this on hold to see how it develops. Striking this part - I read the date wrong.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The infobox image has two "n/a" answers in its rationale. Those need to be completed. Same for File:Hanzo - Genji.png and File:Hanzo (Overwatch) Reflection.jpg.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The infobox image needs better WP:ALTTEXT. The caption should clarify which game this image is from. The Hanzo-Genji image needs alt text. The caption for the Reflection image should identify the artist.

   Struck the first part. This infobox template doesn't support alt text. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After starting this review, it's clear the article needs significant work to meet GA status. I'm tempted to fail it based on item 5 (stability), but I'll give the nominator time to respond. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

   @Argento Surfer: Item 5, stability, excludes vandalism (as well as merge discussions). Read the note at the end of that criteria. The merge discussion should be considered stale at this point. It's from over a year ago and was not actioned. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

   Yeah, I guess it is 2018 now. Whoops. I have struck that portion. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Sorry for the late reply. Was dealing with some family issues. Will start working on the article soon. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: no worries. I've completed my notes. Just let me know when you get through them and I'll take another look. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Alright, now I'm sure I've changed everything you wanted. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of these notes. I'm happy to pass the article, and I hope your family issues all worked out for the best. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)