Talk:Lady Dimitrescu/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My lil' gay heart fawns over this woman. I'll take this one. I see you're a brand new editor, just fair warning that these thing can get intense and even experienced editors can fail these. Do you have any prior wiki experience? Also, Please please please used edit summaries; makes everyone's life 10x easier, and avoids an annoyed talk page warning. When you've fixed something, please used a Done, ~~strikethrough~~, or some other means of indicating an issue has been resolved Etrius ( Us) 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-vios

Earwig only flags the same sentence over and over. Each example appears to be a verse copying and not a copy-vio. Also, there is a concerning amount of porn in there.
I'll tag any examples if I catch them on spot checks.

Sources

"Maggie Robertson on Twitter". Twitter. May 6, 2021. Archived from the original on May 29, 2021. Retrieved May 24, 2021. "…THRILLED to finally announce I was the voiceover and performance capture artist behind our beloved Lady Dimitrescu in Resident Evil Village…" No, just no. This is completely redundant anyway. WP:TWITTER
FN 6 checks out under WP:BLOG
Yaya Han (April 17, 2021). "Cosplaying Lady Dimitrescu from Resident Evil Village... for Capcom!". YouTube. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021. Cut, WP:YOUTUBE
Nightingale, Ed (April 26, 2021). "Dominatrix explains what would happen if Resident Evil's 9'6" Lady Dimitrescu actually trampled you". PinkNews. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved May 6, 2021. The first instance of this source is citing a Twitter post, cut.
Plunkett, Luke (February 1, 2021). "Capcom Says Resident Evil Village's Very Tall Vampire Lady Is Nearly Ten Feet Tall". Kotaku. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved February 2, 2021. duplicate source, just add the whole ref and removed the bullet.
[1] I have no words for what I just read, this isn't an edit, just an observation
All sources have been manually confirmed to be live. All, save for the above, are reasonably reliable.

Me after reading all these sources. I may be a simp, but oh lord these people are down bad.

Images

One image, fair use rational given, check out

Prose

'Village' say the whole title
' portrayed ' voiced and motion captured by, specify

Will finish probably tomorrow. Etrius ( Us) 05:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for butting in and being a jerk/spoilsport, but I object to this GAN. Specifically, I object to the drive-by GAN by an editor who has registered literally two days before, and who then created this GAN after making less then 15 edits on the entirety of English Wikipedia using this handle. Even assuming that the small amount of edits made by an anonymous IP on the article could be credited solely to GlatorNator, this person is certainly not anywhere close to being the primary contributor to this article, when much of the prose and sourcing was actually contributed by me, Masem and a few other regular editors. I'd like to point out that this practice is frowned on by the established editing community: see the page history of this article's talk page and specifically the guidelines under Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions about editors who are not significant contributors as an example. I also disagree with the reviewer's rationale on their opinion as to the suitability of some of the sources used in the article, nevermind the fact that the good article assessment criteria does not appear to be quoted or followed by the reviewer as the basis for their GAN. Their comments seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the contents contained within the guideline that defines what a reliable secondary source is. For one, just because a reliable and independent secondary source (news media or self-publishing subject-matter expert) decides to comment on, or react to a self-published source as the basis of their reporting or analysis, does not in any way invalidate their reliability by default. It is not original research. Haleth (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw User:Etriusus. Apologize. GlatorNator (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]