Jump to content

Talk:Pharah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Converted from a redirect by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 14:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Soulbust: Good article! Hooks are interesting and cited, article is sourced and the QPQ is done. Good job. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational struture

[edit]

@Kung Fu Man: Maybe we can put the Appearances section above the Dev and design section? I don't think it necessarily needs to be formatted like a fighting game character, but I looked up Juri (Street Fighter) and think that has a formatting similar to the one you're talking about in your edit summary. Please link me a better example if that one doesn't seem to match what you're referring to.

For the merchandising/promotion info, I feel like it's too small for Pharah to warrant its own section but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#For characters lists Merchandising as going below Appearances, which is why I've usually combined merchandising into appearances since my take is, it's the character appearing in officially licensed (or even fan-made) merchandising. And often times, it seems disjointed from Reception discussion because unless we can include some critical commentary on that merchandise, it really doesn't have anything to do with Reception about the character(?). I think that's applicably true for Pharah here, since only the Hasbro packaging of Mercy + Pharah figures can really be tied into what's included as reception of the character (I think somewhere between source 41, currently the Rude Out source and source 42, the Knoop Daily Dot source, would work).

I think I'd rather have Merchandise as its own section, as per the MoS suggestion. I'm not sure though; I get MoS is offering an effective, but ultimately simply only one possible formatting. Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really wanting to keep it to the structure I normally work with, just because it's easier to flow. It's not so much a fighting game thing as wanting to keep a particular structural format I've found works best for the reader. I do plan on rewriting the sections above reception to better flow but also understanding. Like for example the reception section on her gampelay as it is feels out of place, but it can still be worked in while discussing it (i.e. informing the reader what a thing did, and if necessary what the reaction was or some possible cited outcomes of it).
I want to keep the merchandise info as part of the reception wording because that's what it tends to be: trying to list merchandise on its own I've noticed in the past can get the ire of some editors who feel that info is 'cruft', but working it around (i.e. talking about Blizzcon 2014 for example and how people reacted to her reveal, hopefully there's a source on that) and working other smaller things as mentions (such as bringing up that rather odd cookbook as an aside) should give an alright paragraph to illustrate how the character was introduced to the public via the creators. That's a big part of where I go when it comes to that, because it can be seen as impacting reception.
I got a plan here, I just need to work. And if I can solidify this here maybe we can use the structure to improve some of the other articles later. A side note, do you have a source repository your keep handy? I've been running across stuff discussing the other characters, such as Widowmaker's and Bastion's design in the grand scheme of the game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some examples of the formatting I'm talking about:
Hope this gives a better idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Like I've said I don't really think one formatting is necessarily better than the other, so I'll just leave it the way it is for now, and probably for long-term since it has developed well and does indeed have good flow.
I get your pointabout the merchandise section maybe being considered cruft, but that'd be a legit excessive assertion by such editors. I think the Tracer article's formatting about merchandising and promotion works where it is.
So I'm just a little concerned (maybe more curious than concerned) in regard to what you mean about using this structure to improve some of the other character ones. I think this can be useful on ones that haven't been developed firmly and fully like Brigitte, Hanzo, Doomfist, Wrecking Ball. Maybe Soldier: 76 and Mei fit this bill too? But there are some like D.Va that don't really need full reworks. Maybe just tweaks. I don't know, I just think the differences Overwatch has with other games (no story mode being the biggest and most glaring, but also considering the FPS/hero shooter genre versus fighting games aspect of it) mean that we don't really need to follow the "Conception and design" -> "Appearances" -> "Promotion and recepetion" structure on every character article. Though some it can work for, especially if it's an article that is already underdeveloped, like I said. But those examples are good ones, they definitely help me get a better picture of what you're going for. Especially the Poison one since it offers a more extended (is that fair to say?) discussion about her than the other three. Soulbust (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On source reliability

[edit]

@Kung Fu Man: I agree a good article nom will be imminently deserved for this article, and thank you for the hard work on it and for collaborating with me on this one even if we haven't agreed on some things.

One question I think may be posed at a GA review is the reliability of BlizzPlanet. Currently isn't listed over WP:VG/RS under any status, and this was the only mention or reference to the source I could find when searching on all the project's talk pages. And that would probably and should probably be disregarded too, considering it was nearly 15 years ago. I'm wondering if we should maybe inquire about the reliability of BlizzPlanet over at WP:VG/RS? Soulbust (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be fine, they're cited in at least two books and multiple papers, and we're citing them just for the transcription of the events in this case. Blizzard themselves seems to count them as reliable given the number of interviews they've given the site so I'm pretty sure I could argue it at a GAN.
By the way touching base with you, plan for the Gameplay section is to have two paragraphs: one discussing her gameplay and skill set (we need to aim for this too in a way the everyman who has never touched Overwatch can get it) and another discussing developer comments and to a lesser extent how she changed through patches. Want to avoid GameGuide ultimately but still inform the reader of what she does and intentions.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good on both fronts. Perhaps at a later time we could bring up BlizzPlanet on WP:VG/RS and mention the points you brought up right now as reasoning for its inclusion under the Reliable sources.
Gameplay section being two paragraphs makes sense to me rn. As they currently exist, first four can be combo'd into one since they are all about the base gameplay functions, while the last two can be about the sort of development history of that gameplay. Might have to move June 2015 previewing of her abilities into that latter paragraph. Soulbust (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also not sure if we necessarily need to cut any of the current info included outright, but some restructuring or tweaks to the wording can definitely be made. I tried to get a little bit of a start on that already, but I'll be heading to bed for the moment.
Have a busy day offline ahead, so will be able to check up on the article in like ~15-20 hours or so. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checked on it right now and see you have gone through and submitted it for a GA review. Hopefully it goes through, and I think it easily will pass. I'll see if I can add myself as a co-nom on the listing at WP:GAN since I'd like to help out with the process of addressing reviewer comments and GA status was always a long-term goal of mine for this article when I began adding to the article back in October. Glad to see it be at the state it is now. Soulbust (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]
@Kung Fu Man Dont really care to revert again, but is it being uncommon a strong enough reason to include it in the lede? Doesn't it have to be (not so) lowkey a defining part of her characterization/reception (as per sourcing)? Soulbust (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize it's done terribly on the part of the devs...but it feels like something we'd get dinged for *not* mentioning in the lead, akin to if we omitted the voice actress. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ig that's fair enough. More of a maybe to me, like I think there's a solid chance we wouldn't. But maybe one of those things to include unless we get dinged for including. Everything else in the lede just seems way more defining of her character (at least at this point in time I suppose). Soulbust (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the media more or less went "Oh, you guys did this again" and then quickly moved on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pharah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's do it in parts due to the size:

Lead
  • I would expand the lead a bit to explain more the creation section and thus either balance the two paragraphs or split it into a third one.
    Done, how's that?
  • "In a 2023 short story by Blizzard, the character was revealed to be a lesbian." is this necessary for the character's story to be in the lead? Maybe add some context in regards to the importance.
    Same comment as below, but despite how offhandedly Blizzard handled it, it is a significant enough aspect for wikipedia to include her in the related categories, and I have checked with other editors if it should be included with most agreeing it's better to.
Conception and development
  • There are several comments about the early design. Is there an artwork that could show this look?
    We'd likely get dinged for two fair use images showing the same things is my worry, especially since the Thunderbird artwork helps illustrate more what that controversy was about.
  • Look what I found. While not obligatory, commentary from the actress might be helpful to expand every aspect of the character.
    Unfortunately in this case nothing there I'd cite, she's more talking about her experiences in voice acting, how big the game was, and the fact porn exists
  • Maybe explain what's a Gundam. The "mecha anime"
    Fixed.
Apppearances
  • Does Overwatch 2 have any story?
    It does not. It really doesn't, it's really bizarre how they've gone about things. All the story ended up in the expanded media outside of the game.
  • So the lesbian thing is kinda random. I would then suggest removing the lead section unless this becomes the subject of discussion.
    It's significant enough to the character to be included in the related wikiproject...Blizzard definitely dropped the ball with it, but they are running with it (case in point the pride promotions would be weird to mention without it...)
Gameplay
  • I'm not sure about having a gameplay section in Wikipedia. From a creation point of view it does look more fitting in as subsection from creation.
    It's actually pretty commonly in Appearances in other articles, partly because it ties directly to the appearances they make in games.

That's all for now. Ping me after solving this and we move to reception.Tintor2 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)[reply]

Thought the review would a bit annoying due to the length but it's well organized so I'm passing it. Everything looks well but the gameplay commentary could count as a gamecruft unless there is a bigger detail.Tintor2 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharah&oldid=1218453848"