Talk:Ling Xiaoyu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm too familiar with the Tekken series, but it looks like an interesting read. I'll be glad to give this a review. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Upon review, it looks like there's a lot to be done here. I can't even honestly feel comfortable putting it on hold, to tell you the truth, because as it stands the article currently has notability concerns and is missing important pieces. As such, I have to fail this article. I'll give it a full comprehensive review below in order to assist with its development.

Content and structure

It's commonplace for fictional character articles, video game or otherwise, to have a section on the character's development and design. I don't see anything here about the way Ling Xiaoyu was designed, who designed her, etc. This is actually a requirement on the basis of notability for fictional characters: development and reception are the two essential categories for establishment of notability of a fictional character, not just reception.
The design and gameplay subsection should likely be its own full section, but after reviewing it, it does not serve as a development section. Organizing it as a subsection of appearances in video games reads awkwardly.
A majority of the "in video games" section is unsourced. That's a huge WP:OR problem - a lot of video game articles do have unsourced plot sections, but that's because they're assumed to be sourced to the game itself. In the case of a character with multiple appearances, references are a must, even if they cite the games themselves. If the latter is done, care must be taken to ensure that no opinions or speculation is assumed to avoid adding OR.
Given the high plot content in the Appearances section, plot is very unbalanced in this article. Addition of a development section will help with this, but some of the plot may need to be reduced in order to give due weight to each section and add a level of focus to the article.

References

In the publisher fields in cite web templates, list the publishing website, not a url. In other words, list IGN, not Guides.ign.com. 1UP.com would be an exception, as that is the official name. Don't list web.archive.org, list the site that originally published the article.
Checklinks indicates several dead links. Someone needs to go through and archive any broken links and ensure the sources are corrected.
Reference 17 lists the title as "Internet Archive Wayback Machine". Again, list the actual article title being cited, not the Wayback Machine.
Ditch the YouTube links; YouTube isn't usually considered a reliable source, and one of the videos is listed as private, anyway. Can an alternative be provided, such as an article mentioning the appearances?

Images

In the official image of Ling Xiaoyu, the fair use rationale isn't quite up to snuff. The purpose of the image isn't just to serve as the main image of the article, it's to serve as a method of identification of the character and is not replaceable because the character is copyrighted and therefore no free image can exist.

Prose

"Ling Xiaoyu has always loved amusement parks." Why is this an appropriate leadoff for this paragraph? Any paragraph should start with a good topic sentence that introduces or glances over what is contained in the paragraph. This would also seem to be irrelevant in the way the paragraph is structured. Starting it off by leading about it being her background story in one of the games would be a better approach.
On that note, appearances should be organized by game, as the character appears in several games. This isn't necessarily required by the criteria, but I'm of the opinion it's organized better that way and makes more sense.
"Original video animation" should not be capitalized.
This article could use a full copyedit from an experienced editor after the necessary sections are added and other tune-ups are made. It's not in bad shape, but organization is the biggest issue here, and the deal breaker in terms of this review.

Overall, I don't feel I can stick this article on hold because it's missing a significant amount of structure. A development section is, in my opinion, necessary for the notability of this article, and the appearances section is rather "scattershot" with OR and should be organized by game (a paragraph per game, but not a subsection). The missing pieces are going to take a while to compile, but hopefully the notes provided here will help to develop this article, which certainly does have potential. I am willing to adjust it to C-class, in light of this review, but it's not GA material just yet. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This is actually a requirement on the basis of notability for fictional characters: development and reception are the two essential categories for establishment of notability of a fictional character, not just reception." Citation needed.

From WP:FICT: Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see anything here about the way Ling Xiaoyu was designed, who designed her, etc." And where did you see such information?

That's not my responsibility. I don't see such information here, and that's what's missing. See above quote from WP:FICT. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to a popular meme, the only things that are needed to be sourced on Wikipedia are the things that were challenged or likely to be challenged, and things like quotes and statistics. Applies to GAs too. Sources: Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria, Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Assessing the article and providing a review. Exact quote: provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;. If you see any "counter-intuitive or controversial statements", you need to point them out specifically. --Niemti (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You're interpreting the guideline in a way that gets around the spirit of the project, a violation of WP:GAME. We're not here to publish original research, per WP:NOR. We're also not here to create plot summaries, and if it's material from a game, credit needs to be given where credit is due. "No original research" means we don't publish original thought, and we have to credit those who publish the thought we put together for these encyclopedia articles. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you wrote is completely irrevelant, this article isn't all "simply plot summary", and "such as its development and reception" does not mean "development and reception are the two essential categories for establishment of notability of a fictional character, not just reception" as you implied (see the definition of the English language phrase "such as" in a dictionary).

For revelant guidelines regarding what needs to be referenced in GA type articles, see:

Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria (what does it mean "likely to be challenged"? it links to the essay Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged)
Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Assessing the article and providing a review

I'm well aware of the criteria and how to write a review, thanks. I've got several GAs of my own and have done several GA reviews before. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any such statements "likely to be challenged" anywhere in Ling Xiaoyu#In video games, you should identify and point them out "based on your experience".

And if you information that is "not your responsibilty" does not exist, do you except people to magically create it how exactly?

You do the research and you find it. That's your role as the primary contributor is to improve the article. I'm not going to spend the time to research it for you and create a section. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In the publisher fields in cite web templates, list the publishing website, not a url. In other words, list IGN, not Guides.ign.com." Tell this to Wikipedia-approved reference filling bot Webreflinks (clickable from the bareurls template). Also, citation needed for this statement, too. --Niemti (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti - If you continue to game the system and are going to keep arguing your points instead of taking the advice in stride and working on the article, then I have no further business with you. Right now you're WikiLawyering and I don't appreciate it. You seem to think you're entitled to something here and refuse to take the review as an attempt to improve the article and give you the tools you need to make that happen. I've done 18 GA reviews before; I'm sure I know WP:GAC pretty well by now and also know the purpose of a GA review is to improve articles that are ready instead of applying a template to it and say "Yeah, it technically meets this or that". The point is it's not a good article, and I've made myself clear above. Until you're willing to drop the lawyering and stop trying to apply the letter of the policy to get around what I've given you to improve this article, I will leave this be as a failed GA nomination and provide no further advice to try and help you, as I have repeatedly done above. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "gaming" anything. Do you reject Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Assessing the article and providing a review in favour of your all guidelines or something? In that case, please read this: Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Imposing your personal criteria. --Niemti (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you didn't get it: info about the creators, development, etc just isn't available for Tekken characers. There's nothing even in my artbook I just checked out. As a part of your personal criteria (Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria.), you demanded Kokoro magically provide you something that doesn't exist. --Niemti (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, all this debating happening while I was off of Wikipedia. I'm going to have agree with some of the things Niemti pointed out. However, I won't argue against this not being a good article. While I didn't succeed in bringing this to good article status, at least I tried. Kokoro20 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd recommend talking to Red Pheonix about the nomination, if you feel that you are able to address the initial concerns- Niemti did not nominate this article, you did, so he had no business bullying the nominator into rejecting the article. In fact, Niemti is topic-banned from the GA process for exactly this reason (here), so he doubly had no business being involved. --Pres N 03:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than glad to help out wherever necessary in terms of guidance. @Kokoro20:, I wouldn't let it get you down. Just because the GA nomination was failed at this time doesn't mean there's not potential for this article or for your skills as an editor; it just means there's a little more to be done, and I'm always glad to teach good methods to video game based Wikipedia articles. Feel free to contact me on my user talk page at your will if you'd like. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I may nominate this again in the future. I'll just have to see what happens from here. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, speaking broadly from both a fictional works and a video game editor, if a character lacks both development and reception, the chance for it to be notable is clearly unlikely. At minimum, a "reception" section with significant coverage of the character's reception by secondary sources is good enough for notability (specifically the GNG); we'd really like a development section but not all fictional characters can always support that. So the lack of this article's development section should not immediately be a strike against it for good article status or notability, but it also depends on the strength of the reception section and all other parts of the article. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]