Talk:Mona Sax/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm reviewing this article. My practice is to check articles against the GA criteria, then if necessary, I make suggestions for improving text below. Also know that I'm not a gamer by any means, so please excuse my ignorance if and/or when I ask stupid questions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I see a great deal of issues with the prose in my first read-through, almost enough to quick-fail it for this alone. I recommend that you get this article copy-edited. It's often my practice to do it myself, since I find that it's easier and a better use of everyone's time to correct grammar errors myself rather than write out requests for you to fix, with accompanied extensive edit summaries.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I have a few questions/issues with the refs in this article, which I'll go into more detail below. Most of my issues will be resolved after you address them and answer my questions.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I will AGF that this article is as comprehensive as possible, and that although it's short, it includes all that's out there about the subject. Seems mostly focused; perhaps addressing the prose issues will make it more so.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems stable, with one main editor making most of the contributions to this article.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Just two images, but they seem to fulfill the free-use requirements. I wonder if you could add one more of Kunis, to illustrate the quotes about her appearance and how they thought she didn't fit the character.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
See below for issues that need to be addressed before I pass it.

I'll have some time over the weekend to work some more on this review. Stay tuned! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also prefer if you did the copy-edit yourself, because English is just not my first language :) --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and other issues

One of the major issues with this article's prose is its overuse of present to-be verbs. The lead contains two instances of it out of the first three sentences. Not only is this practice not the best English usage, it's repetitive. You say English isn't your first language, but we all, even native speakers, have things to work on in our writing, so I suggest that you work on that and on making your language use more formal. I won't reproduce it here; instead, I'll copyedit the first paragraph of the lead now to demonstrate what I mean and one way to correct it. Since this happens throughout the article, I'll correct for it as I go.
Your sentences also tends to be a little long; short sentences, in encyclopedic writing, is often better than one long ones.
You put the "s" outside the wikilink in "video games". This is unnecessary. If you're unsure, test it by using the preview function. For possessives, such as "Mila Kunis'" or "Mila Kunis's" (both usages are correct), they show up as red links, so you have to separate them with the pipe.
The verb tenses don't agree all the time, so I'll fix that.
The word "assassin" redirects to "Assassination", so you don't have to pipe it, either. Lots of entries are like that, so check for them.

In games

You never but an article before a placename like "New York City". Removed.
The second sentence in the first paragraph is unclear; I'm not sure if Lisa or Mona is the abused wife. I know from looking at your sources that Lisa is, so notice how I clarified it.
I have a question about the last sentence in the first paragraph, which I need to know before I can copyedit it correctly: Does Mona literally disappear in the elevator after being shot in the head? If she literally disappears, that's one thing, but if she dies or it's her last appearance, that's another.

Lisa was abused (Max finds her beaten to death, actually).[1] She disappears literally. She was shot in the head at point blank, but returns in the sequel: [2] --Niemti (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I think the copy-edit I made should stand. Ah, it seems that games are like soaps in that people die more than once and if there isn't a body, don't believe the character is really dead. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the 2nd-to-the-last sentence in the first paragraph: Again, it's unclear about whom Max kisses. Yes, I know duh it's obvious, but please look at what I've done and make sure that's it's accurate. And who is Lem?
I know that the source uses the same language, but when you say that Mona "lives on", does she re-appear during the hardest level, or does she come back to life, or doesn't actually die? Maybe you can say that she "appears" to die in Max's arms.
When you say that Mona became playable in "the sequel", are you talking about the second game? If so, I suggest naming it here since you mention it immediately again, in the following sentence.
What is Valkry? I think you should explain.
Do Max and Mona meet while the end credits are running, or is it a post-credits scene with them as many movies are doing these days; i.e., the final scenes in the Marvel movies, like when they're eating hamburgers at the end of The Avengers?

Character Design

I know that the source calls Tong "a Hollywood model", but what does that mean? If you can't find out, I suggest quoting the phrase. Are they any other sources (see comment below) that identifies her profession?

Remember, the period is placed after the end quote when you're quoting someone.

I don't think you need the final quote in this section. Its tone isn't encyclopedic, and it doesn't really add new information. I think it's enough to say that Kunis didn't like her wardrobe as Mona and that her clothes were different in the games.

Reception

Ok, I'm breaking my rule about not wasting time here with grammar suggestions, but this is the only way I can think of to address this issue. You use too many quotes in this section. I realize that quoting reviews is necessary here, but you could paraphrase them a little more. For example: In 2012, David Sanchez of GameZone proposed a "spin-off starring one of the sexiest femme fatales in all of gaming, Mona Sax": "The fact of the matter is that Mona Sax is one hell of a character — one that hasn't starred in her very own game, but one that could very well do so and deliver an unforgettable experience." This is what I'd do with these sentences: In 2012, David Sanchez of GameZone proposed that Mona appear in her own game series, calling her "one of the sexiest femme fatales in all of gaming", and added, "The fact of the matter is that Mona Sax is one hell of a character — one that hasn't starred in her very own game, but one that could very well do so and deliver an unforgettable experience".

You use the British spelling of "favorite" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section. I don't see any other instances of British spelling anywhere else. Pick one format and go with it, but I suggest that you choose American, since this game is an American product.

I cut the phrase "among other reasons" in the second paragraph because there aren't any other reasons for Mona's appeal as described in the paragraph.

Sources

Your citation format isn't consistent. For example, all the refs in the "In games" section use a stripped-down format (actually, I've come to prefer it; it's simpler and easier to read in edit mode) and the refs in the "In film" section use the traditional cite template. I'll leave you to correct this; just pick one format and go with it, please.
Are you certain that the sources you're using are the most reliable? For example, ref 4's source is UGO, and I can pretty much guarantee that you can get the same information in more mainstream, non-gaming sources. I'd bet The New York Times has a review about the movie that mentions Kunis playing Mona. I recommend going through your sources and looking for more reliable ones than gaming websites. It's okay to use these sites when you need them to be comprehensive, but if you can find better, more reliable ones, it's better to use them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lem is Vladimir Lem from the previous sentence (in-game he is refered to as "Vlad", not "Lem"). [3] Mona's uncanonical survival/resurrection (and Vlad's death) looks like that: [4]. (Canonic plot in 60 s: [5].) "Valkyr drug" is a fictional drug from the first game and in a different form in the film [6] (its mystery is explained in the plot sections of their articles, it's a pretty complicated conspiracy). Yes, it's a coda scene. It's just a (very) popular misconception that citations need to be "perfected in any way ("Perfectly formatted citations are not required."). UGO is (was) actually a general entertainment website. --Niemti (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to address your responses and look more closely at the refs tomorrow. If not, definitely by Tues. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know I really meant Thurs. (well, for me it's still Wed.), right? Sorry, it's kinda been a busy week. Thanks for your clarifications, and sorry for the oversights. I don't think we need to go into any detail about the deaths and the drug conspiracy, since they're plot points. I was honestly unaware of the easier requirement for citations in GAs, so I'm okay with them as is. See, I review GACs with the mindset that eventually they're go to FAC, so many of my suggestions are in light of that. At FAC, you'd have to make the format consistent, so if you're able to expand it to the point that you're nominate it there, I recommend that you think about making the refs consistent. I get you about UGO, but there are better sources; again, not something I expect at this level, but I don't think it would be acceptable at FAC. Now I'll look at the sources, finally.

Sources (part 2)

Ref 4: Here's an alternative source, from the Chicago Tribune [7]. It's totally up to you if you want to use it or not.
Refs 7&8: Using Rockstar's website feels an awful lot like OR to me. Are there other sources to support the statement that Mona was a playable character in these games? Same goes for ref 10. Again, if you have to sacrifice reliablity for comprehensiveness, using these sources is acceptable.
Ref 9: Very cool, but I wonder if you could find a secondary source about Mona in this comic book, and then put the book in the "External links" section.
Ref 12: Incomplete citation.
Ref 29: You could also use this to replace ref 4, since it credits Kunis with playing Mona, but make sure you link page 1.
The rest of the refs could be upgraded to more reliable sources, I think, or should remain for comprehensiveness.

Ok, that's it, it was fun to work on a new topic. I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address my issues, and then I'll pass it. Good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's "a Hollywood model" exactly, but it seems a legit thing, possibly Hollywood Model Management (but that's my guess).[8] Are you sure coma goes after a quotation? It's like that in Polish, but in America I see "words," "words." all the time. Rockstar is the publisher's website (Rockstar Games), Xbox.com is also official (Microsoft's). The link is straight to the comic and it's free. The interview was undated. I was actually concernd about it because it's just a fan site.[9] I personally don't doubt it, but that's what it is. --Niemti (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP policy about punctuation inside quotations: MOS:LQ. I'm satisfied with how you addressed my concerns. I'll go pass this article now. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]