Talk:Pharah/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)