Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kain (Legacy of Kain)/1

Kain (Legacy of Kain)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • of Kain)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article overrelies mostly on listicles, and some of the cited sources that do not entirely say what they are cited for. It also contains WP:Refbomb and a lot of the sources were primary. I am concerned that almost entire article, especially at reception needs to be rewritten to fulfill its GA criteria unlike other articles. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Does not meet the GA criteria at this time, as the reception of the article actively needs cleanup. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The reception section has a valid cleanup tag, disqualifying this article from being a GA. Ping me if this changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, Zxcvbnm, and Greenish Pickle!: could someone please point me in the direction of the relevant WP policy/guideline for listicles? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy, but the biggest concern of the listicles are, they arent talking to the character directly. Some are quite useful, but most of them are not. So yeah, they are required to be heavily trimmed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if there is no relevant policy, which part of the GA criteria are violated Greenish Pickle!? And which of the listicles don't "talk to the character directly"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I leave that to Zxcvbnm, since he is more familiar. There a lot of listiciles arent talking to the character directly and is written mostly about rankings, top ten and a passing mention from a game reviews, which isn't a reception at all, like for ex. "A 2000 GameSpot readers' choice poll to determine the top ten video game villains ranked him at #10, and the same site's 2010 All-Time Greatest Game Villain contest included him as one of 64 candidates. He featured in IGN's 2005 Battle of the Badasses, surviving to the "Elite Eight" stage before being eliminated. A 2008 IGN Reader's Choice poll determined that he ranked among ten heroes most desired to appear in a Soulcalibur game, and he appeared in an IGN list of gaming's most notorious anti-heroes, sharing both honors with Raziel. He ranked as #34 in IGN's top 100 videogame villains list, was showcased as #2 on a 1UP.com list of the top five videogame characters named Kain/Kane, and ranked as #4 on the latter site's list of top ten vampires." GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would mostly see the over-emphasis on listicles as going against the "well-written" criteria of Good Articles. An entire paragraph listing one minor award after another pulled from lists would not be of interest to someone who was not a gamer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, a believe a more succinct way to put things is that the reception doesn't adequately describe how the character is important and relies on weaker sources. While Notability isn't outright covered as part of the GA process, there is a paradox in how can an article be "good" if there's a lack of adequate sourcing to illustrate it should exist separate of the main subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a paragraph is of interest to someone who is not a gamer is irrelevant to the GA criteria Zxcvbnm. See this essay—I don't think any non-gamer would find this article incomprehensible. If you feel that the article does not show sufficient notability to stand on its own, nominate it at AfD Kung Fu Man; alternatively, if you feel that it is just this one paragraph that relies on non-RS, why not just delete that paragraph? Would that solve the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of those sources talks about detail, but are cited for a ranked entry on a list, while others are bare mentions + needs to be cleaned up/rewritten. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pushed this to GA status ten years ago. At the time, "listicles" were a nonexistent concern on articles such as these to my knowledge. The reception section was modelled on other articles with GA status. Anyway, I see somebody already dealt with the issue cited. If there are other specific concerns, I'd be interested in looking into cleanup. "I am concerned that almost entire article needs to be rewritten" would not be realistic feedback for me, though. LoK Wiki (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] was done poorly. There are some usable sources that was removed, it can be reworded like this [2]. It should be restored and be rewritten. For example, there are so many lists that praised the character for being the best, we just need to simply wrote "Magazines has described Kain as one of the best video game villain", rather than "Kain was listed as the best villain" or "Kain was ranked as top 9 of the best video game villain" with zero commentary. For other article ex. there are so many lists that praised the sex appeal of Jin Kazama that the user simply wrote "Jin was often praised for his sex appeal regardless of clothes he wore". Right now, the article is not yet broad on its coverage after the removal of the contents, even thou it should be rewritten instead. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else has attempted an edit in the meantime. There isn't an abundance of usable character feedback to salvage from those listicles. Some, but nothing dramatic. They're primarily used to help establish notability/popularity. I think reintegrating them with what little can be used or doing away with them entirely would be a trivial task with next to no impact on article quality either way.

With listicles included, there were around twelve distinct sources and eighteen different writers cited in that section. If all listicles were completely nuked, still around eight distinct sources. That's on par with e.g. Mr. X (Resident Evil), a GA character who appeared in 1998 and 2019. The almost complete lack of historical coverage of that character was waived at GA review. I think the historical coverage for Kain is far, far stronger here in comparison, but you have to bear in mind this character hasn't been used in twenty years. VG coverage from the turn of the millennium was generally more niche, less rich in character studies, thinkpieces, etc, and probably more rich in shallow lists like those. LoK Wiki (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just need reword some of the valuable listicles that was removed here [3] and replaced all the texts "ranked as top X" into a commentary. That's it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence does not make grammatical sense, Greenish Pickle!. Could you please rephrase? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. It happens when you edit at 4am. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing the rewording to your satisfaction, Greenish Pickle!? 20:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol no. That's why it was sent to GAR. Any Rewording/adding commentary seems fine. If they have time no yet, the GAR could wait until they have fixed it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my POV, read above, i.e. 1) there isn't really too much more commentary to extract from those links and 2) the good article status never hung its hat on that particular section anyway. What I'm asking at this point is, what are we currently identifying as major problems to solve under GAR now that the listicles are resolved, regardless of how they are resolved. LoK Wiki (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reload this page again since I reworded. The only problem is the artucle isnt broad on its coverage after the removal. There are some usable sources that was removed [4].You just need reword some of the valuable listicles that was removed here and replaced all the texts "ranked as top X" into a commentary. I already said this like 3x. it can be reworded like this [5]. There is a conmentary akl of the sources, the irrelevant one shall be discarded. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Greenish Pickle!, you believe that the article is now in violation of GA criterion 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"), keeping in mind the note stating "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.", and should be fixed by adding a few paragraphs of extremely obvious close paraphrasing disguised as "commentary"? You will forgive me if I disagree. In any case, I should ping @GAR coordinators: (the GAR coordinators) since I usually close GARs but am obviously now WP:INVOLVED. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because TNT shouldn't be the option on some of those "listicles" sources. Some of them can be usable and would be again written like this [6]. Folks should go through the sources and seeing what could and couldn't be saved from them. The "can you show me where the policy says not to use listicles?" I mean, can you not see that dude? And the fact your answer was "just delete it" shows even less effort. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary in terms of the GAR criteria to reword and reinsert those listicles? I can't see how this feedback relates to the good article reassessment. Whether they are removed entirely or parts of them are salvaged, it satisfies the issue. Minor improvements like this can be dealt with after GAR. Bear in mind I'm the person who originally put these sources there ten years ago and it makes little difference to me. LoK Wiki (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has cleaned up and I added some of the removed content that can be usable. Its not that hard, and it looks like you're using most of time arguing instead of fixing issues. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.