Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2

Commentary moved from main page NOT directly related to the article

@Homeostasis07: I really appreciate your level of passion for this nomination. Despite pinging multiple people to try and get a third opinion at the last nomination, you were the only editor who replied, and I won't forget it. That being said, it's my nomination, and I don't think your disputes with other editors is helping, regardless of whether you are correct or not. If you'd like to help me further, can you please clarify whether you support this article on the issues of prose and comprehensiveness in addition to sources? After that I'd appreciate it if you just left addressing the concerns of others to me, both here and on the Project Video Games talk page. Leave me a message on my talk page the next time you need something reviewed and I would be more than happy to return the favour and help out. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has a lot of support already, as it did last time, but we usually keep articles open for at least two weeks to give everyone a chance to comment. Also, in the interests of transparency (I believe the nominator already pinged both of these editors, but as there was some controversy in the last FAC, I'd like to see a note on this page too) pinging Ealdgyth and SlimVirgin who opposed the last FAC, to see if their concerns were addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I did contact everyone who either supported or opposed the first nomination. I'm confident I addressed all of Ealdgyth's concerns, but naturally only she can be the judge of that. Sarah I'm not so sure about. She specified seven reasons for opposing at the first nomination [1]. The first was the fact I wasn't the original author and at the time of nomination the article hadn't changed dramatically from what the original author wrote, which I don't think is a valid reason to oppose, and the fourth reason was due to how the article looked at one point in the past, which I also thought was an absurd reason to oppose over. Three of her concerns (dead urls, unchecked sources and clarification over a particular source) have all undeniably been addressed. I believe I've improved the article regarding the remaining concerns of analysis and development, though that remains to be seen. I will mention that it was particularly difficult for me to address some of her concerns throughout the review, since despite requesting clarification on them it was never given. For instance, this query of mine never received a response [2]. Freikorp (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(which ultimately derailed the candidate). Though I'd hate to tread old ground and spark another drawn-out debate here, I don't feel that the issues raised/rebutted there have been properly addressed, and as such we still haven't reached a consensus. (Snip) We also definitely need to hear back from Ealdgyth and SlimVirgin. I have to say that, even though this candidacy has received strong support thus far, you would've been better off going through a WP:RFC or WP:PR process to reach consensus before going through with a second nomination, which I'm not seeing evidence of. Anyway, I'll have a more thorough look at the previous nomination, and say that it more or less hinges on Ealdgyth and SlimVirgin. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments CR4ZE. I am aware my prose writing ability falls short of FAC standard, which is why I always nominate articles at GOCE and wait until they have received a copyedit prior to FAC nomination. In this case the article received some significant changes between nominations, so maybe I should have done that a second time. I've fixed most of your prose concerns, and will let you know once I believe I am finished.

As you have noted, Ealdgyth and SlimVirgin were the two people who opposed. Ealdgyth opposed on the grounds of sourcing and some comprehensiveness issues. After the nomination was closed we continued to discuss the issues on my talk page. I removed every single source she questioned as not meeting the high-quality standard, and I used her advice in searching for new sources. I also made several expansions to the article, which I hoped would address her concerns regarding comprehensiveness. Once I believed I had addressed all of her concerns, I pinged her back to my talk page asking her to take a look at the article, but she appeared to be too busy to do so. That is fine, she is under no obligation to continue to assist me, my point is I made efforts to make sure her concerns were addressed prior to renominating the article. Incidentally I'd be very happy to hear your opinions now Ealdgyth.

If it wasn't obvious from reading the first nomination, I found it quite difficult to work with SlimVirgin. I was hoping to avoid talking about this entirely at this nomination but my disagreement with her keeps being brought up by others. Now that it has been broached, I'll mention a couple things.

(Snip) Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments CR4ZE. I am aware my prose writing ability falls short of FAC standard, which is why I always nominate articles at GOCE and wait until they have received a copyedit prior to FAC nomination. In this case the article received some significant changes between nominations, so maybe I should have done that a second time. I've fixed most of your prose concerns, and will let you know once I believe I am finished.

As you have noted, Ealdgyth and SlimVirgin were the two people who opposed. Ealdgyth opposed on the grounds of sourcing and some comprehensiveness issues. After the nomination was closed we continued to discuss the issues on my talk page. I removed every single source she questioned as not meeting the high-quality standard, and I used her advice in searching for new sources. I also made several expansions to the article, which I hoped would address her concerns regarding comprehensiveness. Once I believed I had addressed all of her concerns, I pinged her back to my talk page asking her to take a look at the article, but she appeared to be too busy to do so. That is fine, she is under no obligation to continue to assist me, my point is I made efforts to make sure her concerns were addressed prior to renominating the article. Incidentally I'd be very happy to hear your opinions now Ealdgyth.

If it wasn't obvious from reading the first nomination, I found it quite difficult to work with SlimVirgin. I was hoping to avoid talking about this entirely at this nomination but my disagreement with her keeps being brought up by others. Now that it has been broached, I'll mention a couple things.

(Snip)

Even after I added it she cited the fact it hadn't already been in the article as criticism against me on two further occasions, and later cited the fact it wasn't used at the time of nomination as a specific reason for opposing the article's promotion. She also seemed very offended by the "sexist language" in the article at the time of nomination. She proposed a re-write of the offending section in order to address her concerns [3], which I accepted. Even after I accepted her changes, she still opposed the nomination on the specific grounds of how the section looked in the past. Let me write that again so as to make it clearer. She re-wrote the section herself, then opposed the nomination on the grounds of how it used to look. How can I work with a person like that? As mentioned above, she also completely ignored several of my requests for her to clarify how she wanted the article modified. I can't fix things if you don't explain how you want them fixed.

My point is I didn't see the need to take this to peer review or request for comment on the grounds that I had already taken considerable effort addressing all the concerns of one of the two editors who opposed, and the only remaining criticism came from one editor who appeared to have a strong bias against it and also refused to respond to my requests for clarification on how to fix the issues. Nevertheless, I still took her reasons for opposing into consideration (at least the ones I can fix; I can't change how the article used to look) and made relevant changes to the article before renominating it.

Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, if you're able to, can you please provide me with diffs demonstrating how the article looked prior to the first nomination, large-scale changes you made in light of both Ealdgyth and SlimVirgin's comments, and any other major changes you've made in the interim between the nominations? (Say half a dozen or so diffs). I'm interested in seeing how the language and sourcing changed as this debate raged on. Would help me a great deal in making sense of everything, and allow me to formulate a better-informed opinion. Feel free to do so on my talk page if you don't want to clog up this review any further. Greatly appreciated if you can. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: Since you've raised 1C and 1D as possible issues, and before Sarastro1 uses your comment to hold up this article's promotion – s/he used a similar tactic in the last FAC – could you expand on your comment more? As the source reviewer of this article, I've provided above what is arguably the most detailed, comprehensive source review FAC has seen in quite a long time. I detailed, point-by-point/ref-by-ref how every reference satisfies FA criteria; verified the content used by each reference; I used community-based consensus – where relevant – to establish if the references can be considered high-quality sources, and then pointed out when authors were published in other high-quality sources (Nintendo World Report author also wrote for The New York Times, etc.—done as a result of comments made by Ealdgyth on Freikorp's talk page). So I'm perturbed that you would raise 1C as possibly being an issue here, because it clearly isn't. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record I left a message on CR4ZE's talk page. Freikorp (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now onto the elephant in both rooms. Let me start by saying that while this article’s journey has been anything but a smooth and easy road, it’s a good thing that as a community we’re at least able to have discussions like this, even when the stakes are high. I’ve spent some time trawling through diffs (thanks for your help in streamlining this for me) and looking through the comments at the previous FAC. It goes without saying that much of the article’s coverage has been a lightning rod for debate among editors. (Snip) (Snip) at the whim of one or two commenters (snip) CR4ZE (t • c) 08:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I'd ask that you please remember AGF principles in your conduct with other editors. Believe me, I understand the high emotion attached to this article, but I wouldn't be getting involved if I didn't want to see its improvement and (hopefully) successful candidacy. I would consider it unwise to suggest that a delegate is employing "tactics" in their FAC coordination, but if you have issues with Sarastro1's conduct, we can always ask Ian Rose for some insight. While your source review above was indeed thorough, your review of Feminist Frequency was merely a note that it had been added during the previous FAC, and for reasons I've already stated, I'd have to say that this was an oversight.

@CR4ZE: Apologies. I misread something you wrote in your initial comment here, which made what you said sound very loaded against the article on principle. My stupid mistake. I apologise for that. Regarding the Feminist Frequency source, yeah, that was the one source I intentionally skirted over during the source review, mainly for the reason you pointed out above—SlimVirgin/SarahSV specifically demanded that author/source be added to the article during the last FAC and, to be honest, I knew she'd be back at this FAC, so I didn't really wanna touch it with a bargepole. With everything you pointed out above, perhaps she'll agree to it being removed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CR4ZE that this should have gone to PR. Something is not adding up about how the article is being evaluated. The early FAC1 version sought out every low-quality sexist source available, yet it was supported, including by Casliber. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, It's really rich for you to be asking for responses, since at the first FAC you frequently ignored my questions seeking clarification regarding your concerns, which also made it extremely hard for me to address them. But then I'm pretty sure making it too difficult to actually address your concerns was the whole point of ignoring me in the first place. But naturally, I will respond to all comments whether I am asked to or not; it's my nomination. (snip) As I explained to CR4ZE on his talk page, the reason this version of the article is so similar to the version when the previous FAC was closed is because I was addressing concerns the whole time it was open, and the reason I didn't take this to peer review is because only one person had a problem with the article. You. I addressed all the issues regarding low quality sources, so the only outstanding concerns before this article was renominated were your own. One must ask themselves, how much should you butcher an article that has overwhelming support in order to address the concerns of a lone editor? Also Casliber was reviewing on prose, not sources. I don't think it's fair to attack/attempt to shame him. And bringing up how the article looked in the past is not a valid reason to oppose its promotion now.

Freikorp (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll bite. SlimVirgin, I echo pretty much everything that's already been said about your conduct in both reviews. You clearly have an intrinsic bias against this article, and Freikorp has done almost everything to satisfy your agenda-driven commentary to no avail. As per above, I've made my own detailed comments on how this article can improve, much of which is in direct contravention with your own comments, because unlike you, I want to move to a position where I can support the nomination. (Snip) You don't like any coverage of women (either real-life, or animated ones) that doesn't fit your feminist worldview. I get it. (Snip) If we're going to continue along this path, we'll have had this article's nomination derailed for the second time. That's the last thing I'd like to see happen, but if it does, I'll 100% support any motion to take this to mediation. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet she went through the entire source review, and the 6 sources she complained about were easily proven to be of high quality. If I weren't approaching this as a competent reviewer, she'd have found something more significant to complain about. And, here you are, busy insinuating that you've been personally threatened instead of replying to very serious allegations from two separate users that you're on the verge of derailing two FACs. Oh, this has indeed descended into farce. I won't be providing you with anymore ammunition this time. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through what happened in the last nomination and it seems like the only reason it didn't pass was because a feminist had to ruin everything. Cognissonance (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's just not helpful at all. Can we get someone not involved with the various FACs to remove the rather pointed comment on editors that has nothing to do with this FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I too would have preferred that comment to be phrased more diplomatic and less blunt, as quite frankly I don't need any more drama, I think opinions on what happened at the last FAC are relevant. It's also my opinion that one editor was out to fail the nomination, but I don't feel the need to debate this as I just want to move forward now. Thanks for your support Cognissonance. Freikorp (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the heart to participate further, partly because comments like "it seems like the only reason it didn't pass was because a feminist had to ruin everything", "you're going to oppose the nomination because you're so triggered", and "because unlike you, I want to move to a position where I can support the nomination" are disheartening, indefensible, and worth retracting. I'm embarrassed for those comments, but frankly, I'm more embarrassed that no one else from WP:VG has stepped up already. Learn to take criticism on its face and accommodate your fellow editors' concerns before castigating them in a public forum. The majority of the issues raised are structural and surmountable, but more volume (in this forum and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Jill Valentine FAC) has been given to ad hominem than to hearing out the issues. (not watching, please {{ping}} for response) czar 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: To be clear, I don't find accusations of SV's comments to be "triggered" or "ruining everything" helpful either, but I stand behind my earlier comment and have no intention of retracting. It seems to me that much of her commentary in the last FAC review was highly politicised and focused more on content that she found "problematic", rather than being made in adherence with the criteria. I'm also not satisfied that some of the material (read: Feminist Frequency) she mandated be added was appropriate "high-quality, reliable sourcing" (1c). As Freikorp pointed out, SV's grounds for opposition were made in part on how the article used to look prior to the nomination, which I can't see as being helpful. Freikorp has gone above and beyond to accommodate her concerns, so I can't really blame him for being at his wit's end, though I agree that we need to observe civility and respect for others' opinions. I'm not disregarding her recent comments either, as she's made perfectly actionable comments regarding structure and flow (which have been echoed by yourself, and below). CR4ZE (t • c) 02:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrenchment is definitely the wrong reconciliation here, but okay. However traumatic the last FAC was, SV's not the one lingering on it. It's perfectly reasonable (expected?) for a returning FAC reviewer to mention which of their concerns have not been addressed since last time. The FAC delegate already recommended moving on, so I'd focus on the bullet points. czar 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a cursory look at those links: the majority of the usable references there have already been used on the article (E MacCallum-Stewart; S Harper - Jump Cut). The majority of others are either completely irrelevant to the character (ie, the top 3 results: Impact of gene patenting on R&D and commerce; Opinion: Gene patenting and medical research: a view from a pharmaceutical company; A companion to political geography, etc.). Delving into some of the others reveals some eye-rollingly incorrect information (Return to Darkness: Representations of Africa in Resident Evil 5: "Jill is thought to have died in a climactic confrontation during [Resident Evil, 1996]." I'm not sure that this is a rabbit hole worth venturing down. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis07, please don't refactor or change my comments as you did here. Re what you wrote, I refuse to get into a back and forth re sources because this is not the place. The research has to be done, the nominator has to evaluate sources appropriately - that is always the very first step when starting an article. I merely linked the results a search string brought back. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I was pointing out above that this research has, indeed, already been done, and posted evidence to support such. FAC is indeed the place for discussion, as the process in and of itself inherently requires discussion and debate of an article's content. "The research has to be done"... "this is not the place [for] a back and forth". That is not true. And please don't attempt to paint me as if I was attempting to completely alter the content of your previous message: You bolded your opposition as if you had provided a thorough review based on the article's content and reached the conclusion that the nomination deserves opposition, whereas you merely say that "If I were here to give a full review, I would oppose". What's that about cake and eating it too? This page is off my watchlist, and I will not respond. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the article's current state, that's a thorough review. The coordinators are well aware of my reviewing style; perhaps you're not. Regardless, given your objection to the wording, to be clear: I oppose the promotion of the nomination based on the reasons provided above. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis07 please stop messing with my comments in a dedicated subsection. You've refactored, you've directly edited my own text, and now you've collapsed. Pinging @FAC coordinators: . I would like the comments to be visible unless or until a coordinator decides to move to talk. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done exactly as an FAC coordinator has done in previous subsections: collapsed irrelevant discussion before removing to the talk. Please stop trying to derail the entirety of the FAC process with accusations of victimisation. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, please don't edit other reviewers' posts, and if someone objects to their posts being collapsed, just leave them. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

Re: citation 91, the short cite is now Platz 2004. The edition I can see on Google says 2014, and page ranges use an en dash not a hyphen. The long cite is in the Bibliography. Author, article title and location have been added, but now the editor is missing. It's also standard practice to add the pages to the full citation. Not a requirement (see WP:CITEHOW), but if you're doing it for journal articles, you should be consistent. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I made an error with the date while shortening it. I've fixed that now and I think I've fixed everything else you wanted in regards to sources now. I assume this is how you want the bibliography? As in, all page numbers cited throughout the article mentioned there? Freikorp (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When citing an essay within a book, it's standard practice to add the page range of the essay to the long citation. If you're using separate short citations, you don't add the pages cited to the long citation; they belong only in the short citation. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: OK, so earlier you said "It's also standard practice to add the pages to the full citation" and now you're saying "If you're using separate short citations, you don't add the pages cited to the long citation", but here's the deal, I had separate short citations for most books to begin with. I added page numbers to the bibliography after reading your fist comment about long cites and now I've just removed them after reading your second comment. I'm trying really hard to get this section the way you want it, but now I'm more confused than when I started. I feel the need to state I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive; I'm genuinely really unsure with what to do. Can you please explicitly state, using as few words as possible, whether or not you want page numbers in the bibliography section? And are there any outstanding issues with this section? Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full Platz citation (in the bibliography) refers to a chapter, so the chapter's page numbers should be added there, in case someone wanted to read it in full. The short citation "Platz 2014, pp. ..." should refer to the specific page that verifies the content, unless the reader needs to read seven pages to verify the citation? czar 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice to add page ranges when citing journal articles and articles within books. So:

Short citation in References section: Jones 2017, p. 5.

Long citation in Works cited/Bibliography section: Jones, Paula (2017). "Article Title", in John Smith (ed.). Book Title. London: Publisher, pp. 3–30.

SarahSV ^(talk) 17:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Two pages of the source have to be read to verify the citation. Page 126 defines how women can be desexualised in media and page 133 cites Jill as an example of said definition. Freikorp (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been determined – by extensive WP:Consensus – to be reliable, notable publications within the gaming industry (see: WP:Video games/Sources, WP: Video games/Reference library and Video game journalism#Publications of note). Also see the extensive source review above regarding your comments on "low-quality sexist source[s]". Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point, which is that they're being used in that section as primary sources for their own lists. Are these lists notable? If so, I'd expect to see independent sources reporting that Jill Valentine has been voted 10th best something on X's list of whatever. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these lists have been compiled by notable publications and authors with established reputations within the gaming community, and are being used on the article as references for the appearance of the character in lists compiled by aforementioned notable publications and authors with established reputations within the gaming community. (?) Homeostasis07 (talk)

Resolved

Sarastro1, thanks for the ping. The article is similar to the later versions of FAC1 (15 August 2017), so it's hard to know what else to say. (moved to talk) This version is better but still problematic. There is no sense of how the character developed over time, and whether that development was responsive to the scholary criticism about the portrayal of women in video games. This is a crucial point, which I made during FAC1, but it has been ignored.

The worst of the earlier sexism has been removed, but some more has been added, e.g. that she is half-French, half-Japanese and ~~"this detail 'doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her'".~~

Perhaps by supporting, reviewers are saying that video-game articles are held to a lower standard, but I don't think we should accept that. The way women are represented on the main page matters. I'd like to see these issues discussed during a peer review to which people are invited who might not want to involve themselves in an FAC review. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author and article title are missing from citation 91. (The editor has been confused for the author.) It's a book, so it needs location (not a requirement of CITE, but it's usually added for FA), and year of publication is sufficient rather than a date.

I'd like to see secondary sources for the 10th-best this and 30th-best that. At the moment, this is sourced to the primary sources, with nothing to indicate that these lists are notable. A primary source is fine for the Guinness World Records, but I'd like to see secondary sources for GameDaily's "tenth favorite Capcom character of all time"; Complex's "greatest video game mascots"; Complex's "30th on the list of greatest heroines in video game history"; "tenth-best female protagonist in gaming by the staff of GamesTM"; one of Joystick Division's "Top Ten Sexiest Video Game Characters"; and Complex's "15th-most ass-kicking game duo". That is, independent sources that show these are notable lists within the industry or that Jill Valentine is on them.

Striking the above because most of the lists have gone.

~~Three books are listed under Bibliography, but Perry 2012 is listed under References.~~

The Reception section is poorly written and organized. It has improved since the first version of FAC1, but it has the same flavour—journalese and PR-speak, repetition, words without function, poor flow.

The first sentence of the second lead paragraph announces that the director "was opposed to the frequent sexual objectification of women", then changes the subject, then the third paragraph returns to sex and sexualization. Why is that aspect split up over two paragraphs? It gives the impression of a lead focused on sex. Re: the final paragraph of the lead, it isn't clear what the "classic example" quote means. Attractive to whom? It doesn't make sense to say that her sexualization has received praise. And this is weak writing: "has received favorable critical reception ... has received both praise and criticism". The "damsel in distress" sentence has to be contexualized. ~~The final sentence is weak and should be removed as trivia. It would be odd if she hadn't been used in merchandise.~~

Striking the above because I rewrote the lead.

The Japanese Wikipedia has an interesting article, with lots of detail about the character, moves and weapons, very clearly laid out. Japanese Wikipedia; Google translation.

Please add responses after my post. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by 'after my post' you mean here. Are you still sticking with your request for secondary citations for lists? Did you read the impartial response from AdrianGamer below? If you still want this request to remain open I'm going to have to ask you to post a reply to his concerns first. I'm not going to be able to access my computer for for about a day after I post this message, so I'll reply to the rest of the concerns later. Freikorp (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, please stop trying to "other" me. Anyone supporting you is impartial, but my criticism, and mine alone it seems, is biased. As for the independent sources, I would prefer that the lists be removed, except for the most notable. If you want to retain them all, I'd like to see evidence of notability from independent sources. The problem is also the way that section is written, with the unnecessary quotes. Why "GamesRadar included the 'highly capable officer' and not "included her"? But please note my main objection: the section needs a rewrite, as arguably the whole article does. What do you make of the Japanese Wikipedia article? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant impartial as in he came here just to comment on that issue; he's not for or against either of us in general (to the best of my knowledge at least). Anyway, I've since taken Czar's advice regarding the reception section and have removed explicitly mentioning all the lists anyway.

If you have specific issues regarding general wording, point them out and I will consider rewording them. Personally I don't see why it should be changed from 'highly capable officer' to 'her', but I don't have any objections to this, so I'll make the change now. Is this more to your liking? [4] Or do you want me to drop "highly capable officer" altogether? I don't mind either way. Please let me know of any other general wording you have a problem with. Alternatively, if the subject is not controversial, rewording it yourself is not going to upset me.

Looking up the Japanese Wiki was one of the first things I did when I decide to start improving the article. When I noticed it didn't have any sources, I stopped reading it. Some of this information would be of interest (most is a bit fanboyish) but I have no idea where they pulled the information from, so I wouldn't know where to source it to.

Can you strike your comment regarding "we're all supposed to fancy her", since you addressed that yourself?

I removed the last sentence of the lead as per your request, and I've added some context for the damsel in distress comment. Freikorp (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what is "highly capable officer" even meant to impart? She's among Capcom's best characters because she's highly capable? Unless there's something specific to add with sources like this, I'd write these sentences as "Journalists listed Jill/Valentine among the best characters in X", with the multiple superlatives tacked onto the end, unless there is some explanation for the ranking worth mentioning. Additionally, the position of the ranking (fifth, 30th) would not appear to matter at all unless it's a "top" ranking. The noteworthiness of the list—and the noteworthiness of these listicles are not guaranteed...—is that the character was listed at all, so the actual ranking should only be described when it's important, but "fifth" apropos of nothing isn't helpful (five of five? five of a hundred? would it matter either way?) Removing the weight of the specific number rank ostensibly also resolves the issue for which I was pinged czar 14:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Czar, looks like my recent edits to the article and this nomination page overlapped a bit with your comment. I've since removed the mention of "highly capable" and all other offending lists. Freikorp (talk)

Resolved

(moved to talk) Once again, you are not judging this article by the standards of FAC, you are judging it by your own interpretation of how women are allowed to be commented on. Sexism is in the eye of the beholder. I strongly thought you'd approve of the new information I added regarding the source saying a detail "doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her". It points out that even the source thought the only detail given about her was a sexualised one, and it makes this comment in a critical matter. But this is irrelevant. I am allowed to add all coverage of Jill's reception as a character, not just ones that would be approved by feminists. You've made it very clear over the course of your comments that you have a serious problem with any man ever perceiving a woman as sexual; this is your problem with society and it's irrelevant to this nomination.

Thanks for pointing out the issue with source 91. I believe I've formatted the author and article title correctly now, but please let me know if I've done it wrong. I've added the location as well. Done
You don't need secondary sources to point out a high-quality source has named someone in a top character list. If you did, we'd have to modify almost every article about popular video games and video game characters on Wikipedia. There is an accepted standard, and this article adheres to it. I encourage you to seek confirmation from this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games before insisting it needs to be done. Incidentally I'd like to point out I specifically chose that "Top Ten Sexiest" list because it is exactly that, the ten sexiest characters, not the ten sexiest women. The list includes men, and accordingly I thought this might appease your concerns about people ever having sexual thoughts about women. Not done
I've added all books to the bibliography section. Done
There's no consensus that the reception section is poorly written. Seven votes of support disagree with you. Not done

Other editors have expressed their concerns over the reception section. Now that I am aware it is not the opinion of a lone editor, I will work on improving the section. I do, however, stand by my decision that finding secondary sources for lists is not appropriate. Working

I agree the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead did not flow on well with the rest of the information, so I removed it. Please read the last paragraph of the reception section for positive coverage of Jill's portrayal as a female character in gaming. Partly done

There are my responses, though we both already know that no matter how many of your concerns I address you're going to oppose the nomination because you're so triggered by how it looked in the past. I bent over backwards to address your concerns at the previous nomination. Att your request, among many other things, I removed the "quote farm" regarding Jill's attractiveness and added a feminist blog source you insisted on including, yet even after completely submitting to what you wanted in these regards you specifically opposed the nomination on the grounds that the quote farm had been there in the first place and that specific feminist blog hadn't been added prior to nomination. If you're going to oppose a nomination because of how it looked in the past there's no point in addressing your concerns now, but I'm going to keep trying anyway. Freikorp (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming from WT:VG) Requesting a secondary source to back up a best-of list is a bizarre idea. Being ranked in such character lists can already be considered as opinions from reliable and credible critics, right? By this standard shouldn't the feminist blog be removed because similarly it wasn't covered by a secondary source which delved into her opinion on this game character? If you need a secondary source to cover an opinion piece or a review from a RS, probably most films and video games FAs need to be demoted because it is almost impossible to write a reception section with no primary sources for uncontroversial but notable titles. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk) No doubt in my mind that you will object to my suggestion to raise Jill's physicality, fine, that's your prerogative. The problem you'll have in mounting your case is that nothing in your comments will give consideration to basic WP:V and WP:RS policies, but rather to support your own protestation to discussion of women that you find "problematic". (moved to talk) But again, you're arguing from a position of subjective objection to the article's content, not from policy. I'm ready to support once we get Feminist Frequency removed and at least some coverage of Jill's physicality, plus some minor copy-edit of my own. (moved to talk) CR4ZE (t • c) 09:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG, we need both languages in the translation, particularly because it's controversial and contradicts what you wrote about the director.
Re: Samantha Lay, I can't see that in the source. Please quote here what the source says (I can see her say that about the films, but not the games.)
I corrected your summary of Trepanier-Jobin and Bonenfant; they were criticizing that this was regarded as "natural", whereas you wrote it up as though they agreed with it. The more I look at the article, the more I'm concerned about how the source material has been summarized. Several of the academic articles are fairly long arguments about the representation of women, using Jill Valentine as an example for one point. If all you do is search for the name and grab a quote, it's going to be easy to misunderstand how the example was used. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped the lead image for the original uniform. I looked around and couldn't find the previous lead outfit in sources about her, whereas the original is common. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been making a lot of bold changes to the article, without consulting other editors, and some of these changes I do not agree with. If you are given free reign to reshape the article the way you see fit, are you going to remove your oppose? Opposing the nomination is fine, but now that you've opposed, can you please explicitly state whether you are rewriting it for the purpose of moving the article to a position you can support? If not, I don't find this continued interference helpful.
Re Samantha Lay: the source reads "Game avatars do not require in-depth characterisation as players bring themselves to the avatar."
Requiring the original Japanese text as well as the English translation presents a problem. I have the original source, and skills in Japanese, but I do not have a Japanese keyboard. How am I expected to type this up? I've used several foreign sources in FACs before and nobody has ever asked for the original text as well. At this stage I really think you're just trying to make this as complicated for me as possible.
It's customary to have the latest design of a video-game character as the lead image, but personally changing it to the first representation does not bother me. Freikorp (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lay, I meant about her lacking depth in the games. What does the source say that supports your text?
Re: Image: when claiming fair use, it's customary to use an original, first edition, etc. Also that's the iconic uniform.
Re: Japanese, the reason I requested it is that what you've added is contentious, and it contradicts the earlier point about the first director and his view of women. So I would like to know what the Japanese says. Providing both languages is part of WP:NOENG if you're quoting. Can you take a photograph of it?
Re: your comment about me trying to make things difficult. Please stop these remarks. Everything I've done and suggested has improved this article, and if you would only allow it, it could be improved a lot more. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: making things difficult. Sarah, I understand you think all your changes are improvements. I thought my change finding a source that said the only detail originally given about the character "didn't explain a thing really" was an improvement, however, you removed it on the grounds it was sexist. My point is, I have accepted what I believe is an improvement is not necessarily going to be shared by everyone else. You should do the same. As per my message left on your talk page when this nomination was first listed, your choice to not explain certain actions or why you want certain things done is very frustrating. Several editors have expressed frustration over your decision to oppose the first nomination based on how it used to look, however, you've only recently attempted to justify why you did that. Explaining it better in the first place would have made things less difficult.
Re: Japanese. I don't think it's a contradiction to want a character to be strong and not gratuitously eroticised, but still be tastefully sexual (please, let's not get into a discussion about what constitutes tastefully sexy haha). Yes, I have taken photographs of the sources.
Re: Lay. Quote reads: "I was first made aware of this in the posts by the remarks of one gamer who claimed that the game had gritty and in-depth characterisations whereas the film had bland, two-dimensional characters. I have played the games. The only thing we know about Jill Valentine for instance is that she is the ‘master of unlocking’." If Lay thinks the only detail given about Jill is that she is the master of unlocking, and says this as a direct rebuttal to gamers who argued the characters did have depth, I would argue that is Lay stating the character does not, in fact, have any depth. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's arguing that the relationship in the games confers depth on characters, all characters, not just Jill Valentine. "Avatars are depthless archetypes and the avatars of Resident Evil are certainly no different." It becomes obvious in the films that there's no depth, but the relationship between player and avatar in the games masks that.

Can you email me photographs of pages 7 and 8 of the Japanese source? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well since you have an understanding of the Lay source can you reword it in a manner that allows you to remove your clarification tag? Or just remove the whole source and the tag if you don't think anything is salvageable from it. I understand she's making the statement about all gaming characters, but I do not think it's a stretch on any level to apply this to Jill since she specifically mentions Jill's depth and avatar in the same source.

I'll email you the photographs once the clarification tag is removed, even if that necessitated the removal of the whole source. Your answer to this question won't affect me emailing them to you, but out of curiosity, what are you going to do with the photographs? Do you read Japanese well enough to translate it? Freikorp (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said my edits were "continued interference", so I'd prefer to avoid further edits. The "heroine v damsel" material also needs to be expanded. Re: the photographs, I'd like to show the two pages to a Japanese speaker, mostly to get a better sense of Mikami's position. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said the interference was only unhelpful it you were not making all the bold edits for the purpose of moving the article to a position where you could support it. You didn't answer my question whether you are doing that or not, but I guess you just did. If it isn't obvious, which I think it is, bringing up new concerns if you have already decided to oppose the nomination no matter what I do is just distracting me from addressing the concerns of people who are still undecided.

Do you have a problem with me removing the tag then? If so, what rewording do you suggest based on your interpretation of the source? Also I've emailed you. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the image you added to the article isn't Jill in the original Resident Evil, it's Jill in her alternate costume from Resident Evil 3. Accordingly I'd rather change back to the old image.

@Niwi3: Sarah has requested clarification for the statement that Jill "was the only character who was physically abused by her teammates" in the original game. The claim is made in the Grimes source and has been added to the article accordingly, thought the source does not clarify when or how this occurred. Do you remember Jill being abused by her teammates in the game? Because I don't (it's been a while since I played). If nobody knows what Grimes is talking about (or if she's mistaken), I'd suggest we just remove that statement. Hoping you can shed some light on the situation. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source explains it. It also says the current lead image is from the original. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: I'll email you shortly about the images, but just to make sure I haven't misundertood, this is a Japanese source and the words in the quotations in the article are your own English translation. Is that correct? The citation is: ゲームキューブ版バイオハザードオフィシヤルナビゲーションブック [Biohazard Official Navigation Book] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Enterbrain. 2002. ISBN 4-7577-0851-3. I suppose I'm wondering how you were able to write that Japanese title, but not any other Japanese. Apologies if I've misunderstood. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: @Freikorp: Grimes probably means this cutscene from the 2002 remake (watch from 23:50 to 25:30). However, I think this source clearly refers to her "puppet" role in Resident Evil 5. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read this entire conversation stream, so mea culpa if I've misinterpreted why thechurchillreview.blogspot is being posted above, but WP:Blogs aren't RS. I'm not seeing a reason as to how this one is an exception to the rule. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re image: Sarah, I don't think you know much about video game graphics; it's clearly not of a quality from 1996 and it matches the image next to it. Its the exact same base character in a different outfit. That non RS blog probably chose the image because it matches the proportions of the one next to it, and it is the costume Jill wore in the original game. Both images are Jill from Resident Evil 3: If they weren't, you'd notice a graphics quality change between the two images as computer graphics improved considerably between those years.
Re: Lay. Can you follow this up please? Either reword it to your liking, tell me what you would like it reworded to, remove the entire sentence and source if you think there is nothing salvageable from it, or just remove the tag if you think my rebuttal justifying using it is valid. I have no preference, as long as the tag disappears.
Re: Japanese. I studied Japanese for four years. I am far from fluent. I know enough to get by. When reading I can get the gist of what people are talking about. I copied and pasted the Japanese title from a website that was selling the book; I can assure you it is accurate, for example, バイオハザード reads phonetically Bai-o-ha-zaa-do (Biohazard). I got the full translation of the article from this source: [5]. My level of Japanese is good enough to recognise in the book where they started talking about the relevant issues and follow the general conversation. I will be honest, however, and mention that my verification of the translation on that website does assume some good faith; the original translation may have made errors which I did not pick up on, though I can assure that the conversation is clearly discussing Jill and her costume. Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is how she looked in 1996, whether taken directly from there or not. It's the iconic Jill Valentine.
Lay: I've rewritten and removed the tag. Don't re-add "was considered to have". Poor writing (in that sentence).
You didn't say the English translation was online. Im that case, I don't need to see the Japanese, and you don't need to add the English to footnotes. Cite it per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. X cited in Y, where X is the book and Y is that page. You should remove "her action and atmosphere having charm", because it's obviously a poor translation, and it just repeats the previous point, which is that they made her "cuter" (apparently because Rebecce was absent). Reading around, it seems it was an effort to make Jill more submissive. But you would need another source or a better translation to say that. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've confused the Lay source with the Grimes source. The text "players bring themselves to [her] avatar" still has a clarification tag after it. That's the tag I am referring to.
I've removed "her action and atmosphere having charm". I don't know how to format what's being asked at WP:SWYRT within the cite book template, but I also don't think it's necessary for me to do that considering I do have the source and I have read it myself. While in all honesty my own translation would read worse than the online one in terms of prose (and also have gaps in it based on the Kanji that I do not understand), I am confident, based on my own translation, that what is attributed to the book in the article is accurate. I.e Kobayashi clearly says they made her cuter. I can confirm the interviewer says she still appears tough, and the producers respond by commenting on how she is muscular as opposed to slim. I think this justifies "However, so that she remained a tough character, her body was designed to be muscular, not slim" etc. Nevertheless if someone shows me how to format 'X cited in Y' within the cite book template I will still happily do that. Freikorp (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag means it needs to be clarified. I can't write it for you. Re: the templates, I don't know how to do it with a template. You could ask on template talk, or do it manually. It's the format: "citation 1, cited in citation 2". Smith 2017, cited in Jones 2017. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Aoba47

Resolved issues

For this part (In 2005 Bonnie Ruberg of The Escapist magazine called Jill "a classic example" of horror game female characters who fill the role of the heroine), I would put a comma between "2005" and "Bonnie Ruberg". Also, I would rephrase "horror game female characters" to "a horror game female character" as "example" is singular and it should match. Also I am not sure if the "who fill the role of the heroine" part is necessary as it seems a little repetitive to me. Maybe change it to the following: In 2005, Bonnie Ruberg of The Escapist magazine called Jill "a classic example" of a lead horror game female character.
In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, there are a few commas missing. There should be a comma between "2008" and "GameDaily" and one between "The same year" and "Complex".
In this part (who praised her for being the most consistent character in the series".), there is a stray quotation mark.
Ada Wong is linked twice in the article; it should only be linked on its first mention.
When you include Jovovich's comment in the "Reception" section, do you think you need to clarify that she plays Alice in the film? It may be helpful to provide full context for the reader.

Great work with this article. I only have minor notes. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Aoba47. I've addressed everything. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues on sourcing

Part 1: Infobox and Appearances—In video games

Ref #1: IGN biography of the character, being used to source character's first appearance in the game series. IGN is listed as a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
Ref's #2 and #3: Closing credit scenes of the original video game, being used to source production staff, as well as original motion capture producers and character designers in the infobox. Also used in prose to identify voice actors. I see no problem in doing this.
Ref #4: Uproxx article being used in infobox to identify a voice actor, and in prose to reference the quality of voice acting in the game. Author has also written for Cracked, IGN and GameSpy—which are all listed at Video games/Sources as reliable sources. No issues here.
Ref #5: Closing credits of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, being used in infobox and in prose to identify the character's voice actor in that particular game. Again, I see no problem in doing this.
Ref #6: Closing credits of Under the Skin, being used in infobox and in prose to identify the voice actor of the character in that game.
Ref #7: Closing credits of Resident Evil 5, same as above.
Ref #8: Closing credits of Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds, as above.
Ref #9: Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, as above.
Ref #10: Capcom—an official documentary from the developer and publisher of the game, explaining the history of the character, being used to source the character's background, history and story arc, etc.
Ref #11: Computer and Video Games—physical publication being used to source the character's background and ethnicity. I have no access to the physical publication – no trace of it on Google Books – so can't verify its content. However, considering the quality of the rest of the article, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy or truthfulness of this source.
Ref #12: Nintendo World Report—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. This article's author, Zachary Miller, has also written for The New York Times. Reference is being used to accurately source the plot from Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles. No problems here.
Ref #13: Same publication as in reference 1, being used to source the character's role in Resident Evil: Genesis. Again, no problems to be found here.
Ref's #14 and #15: Articles at Eurogamer written by Kristan Reed, who has also written for Pocket Gamer—both publications can be found at Video games/Sources as being reliable sources. Being used to source character-specific plot of Resident Evil 5 and its assorted DLC.
Ref #16: Article from Audrey Drake of IGN – latterly of Nintendo Treehouse – being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D, as well as details of and reception to an alternate costume available in aforementioned game.
Ref #17: Article from same author and publication as in above ref, being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City. No problems to be found here.
Ref #18: Article from The Guardian – a publication which received the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service – being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil: Revelations.
Ref #19: Direct source, used to define the above game's plot. I don't see an issue with this.
Ref's #20 – #23: IGN articles, being used to source the character's appearance in Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes and the character's abilities in said game, later references being used to source the character's appearance in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds and Project X Zone.
Ref #24: Kotaku—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used as a source to identify the character's appearance in Project X Zone 2.

Part 2: Appearances—Design and portrayal; Gameplay

Ref #25: Same author and publication as used in ref #18, being used to source the game director's objection to the sexual objectification of women in video games, and his desire to create a female character in contrast to that. All information used is accurate and adequately paraphrased.
Ref #26: Same publication as ref #24; author has also written for Pediatrics and Color Research and Application. Used as a source for the author's opinion that more revealing outfits have gradually appeared in later games.
Ref #27: 1UP.com—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for USGamer: a sister publication of Eurogamer, which are both listed at VG/S as reliable sources. This source is used to describe the character's appearance, and later in the article for the author's opinion of one of her outfits being an "embarrassing relic" from a period in which game producers concentrated on the teenage-boy demographic. All adequately paraphrased and accurate.
Ref #28: Official US PlayStation Magazine—a reliable and noteworthy industry trade publication, being used to source the character's appearance in RE3: Nemesis.
Ref #29: Edge—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources.
Ref #30: Official physical publication released in conjunction with the 2002 remake of the game and published by Enterbrain. Used to source the character's redevelopment in said game, as well as various opinions of game developers.
Ref #31: IGN article, being used in the article to describe how the facial features of Julia Voth were used in the character's redevelopment.
Ref #32: IGN, used to elaborate on how Voth's appearance was used in later games in the series.
Ref #33: IGN, used to source Voth's decision to cosplay as the character.
Ref's #34, #35 and #38: Official physical publication (magazine) from the developers of the character, being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil 5, amongst other things.
Ref's #36, #39 and #42: Official guide from the developers and publishers of the game, being used to describe the character's outfits in several games, as well as the difference in gameplay between the male and female characters in the 2002 remake of the game, and various skills/equipment statistics.
Ref #37: Another IGN article, used to source the appearance of an unlockable outfit in RE: Revelations.
Ref #40: Eludamos—listed as a reliable source at Video games/sources. This article's author, Esther MacCallum-Stewart, is a research fellow at Staffordshire University's Digital Cultures Research Centre, her work specifically examining, among other things, the role of sex and sexuality in videogames. This source is being used to reference the difference in gameplay between the male and female characters of the game. Notable publication, notable author.
Ref #41: IGN article, used to reference additional gameplay mechanics (inventory/character skills) of the 2002 remake of the game.
Ref #43: Another IGN article, being used to source the character's abilities in RE3.
Ref #44: Game Informer—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Used to describe the character's abilities in Marvel vs. Capcom 3.

Part 3: Other appearances

Ref #45: Article at Jump Cut from Stephen Harper, senior lecturer in media studies at the University of Portsmouth. Used as a source for the character's appearance in the Resident Evil film series, and also for commentary on perceived sexism in that series.
Ref #46: IGN article regarding the film director and his original casting choice for the character. Accurate and paraphrased.
Ref #47: Direct plot details for Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I see no problem here.
Ref #48: Cinefantastique review of the above film, being used to source that publication's review. All fine.
Ref #49: Empire—respected industry trade publication being used to source the departure of Sienna Guillory – the character's actor in the films – from the series, and the reason why. All represented accurately.
Ref #50: IGN article, being used to accurately describe how Jill Valentine was replaced in later films in the series with another character from the games, Claire Redfield, a decision taken mostly due to Guillory's departure.
Ref #51: Digital Spy—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used to source Guillory's return in later films in the series.
Ref #52: Digital Trends. Article's author has also written for MTV News, Time and Movies.com. Being used to source the character's apparent disappearance from the last movie in the series.
Ref #53: A novel from author S. D. Perry, being used as a source for the character's background in that author's novel.
Ref's #54–#56: Character's appearance in various officially-sanctioned comic books. I added the ISBN of each book, and an ASIN for one which I couldn't find an ISBN for. Not an issue, though.
Ref #57: NECA product description of an officially-sanction action figure, being used to describe the action figure. I see no problem with that.
Ref #58: Destructoid—listed as a source to avoid at Video games/Sources. I've tried to establish if the author, Matthew Razak, was notable but came up short. His only other experience has been with Flixist.com and Examiner.com. I couldn't find any info on the former; the latter appears to source content from "pro–am contributors", with very-little-to-no editorial oversight. Since this source doesn't say anything that isn't already covered by the next source, I'd suggest removing this.
Ref #59: UGO Networks—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for MTV News and Geek.com. Being used to source stats about another officially-sanction action figure to commemorate the character's 15th anniversary. No problems here.
Ref #60: Toy Wiz—a webstore, being used to source the existance of the Resident Evil Deck Building Card Game. I don't see a problem with this.
Ref #61: Game Informer—same publication as in reference #44. Used to source the existence of a Resident Evil-themed restaurant in Japan.
Ref #62: Eurogamer—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Used to source information of a Resident Evil-themed attraction at Universal Studios Japan.
Ref #63: Same publication as in references 40 and 57. Used to source the character's appearance at Universal Orlando's Halloween Horror Night 2013.

Since the issue I raised above would actually affect the number of references in the article, I'll pause here and wait for that to be addressed, then amend the reference numbers here to avoid confusion. Actually, to keep this going as fast as possible, I'll point out now that reference 90 is also Destructoid, and has the same sort of issues as the one above.

Ref #90: Destructoid listed as a source to avoid at Video games/Sources. Article's author appears to be an amateur (maybe he's been published elsewhere under his real name, but I'm not finding anything other than Destructoid under "Hamza CTZ Aziz"). Since there's nothing in this reference that isn't also sourced by the following reference, this one could easily be removed with no loss to the article.

Aside from these two references, I'm not seeing any issues here. More to follow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the thorough review. I've removed the Destructoid references. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part 4: Cultural impact

Ref #64: The Escapist—listed a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for Democrat and Chronicle, Games for Windows: The Official Magazine and Wired, amongst others. Used to reference a quote from the author.
Ref #65: Same publication as in previous reference. This article's author holds a doctorate in New Media, Gender and Women's Studies, and has also written for numerous publications: Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media & Technology, The Village Voice, and Wired. amongst others. Reference is used to source this author's opinion of the character.
Ref #66: GameDaily—an AOL-owned company, listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Used as a reference for that publication's countdown of the best characters ever created by the developers.
Ref #67: Gamasutra—used as a reference to the character's appearance in the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition. You could argue about using the actual book as the reference, but I consider this to be preferable, considering Wikipedia:Third-party sources.
Ref #68: Direct source to the Guinness World Records 2013: Gamer's Edition. Properly formatted reference, with page number and ISBN. With no access to the book, I can't check for close-paraphrasing. If someone were to raise this as an issue, though, I'd most likely just point out that checking for close-paraphrasing would be a moot point, considering the bulk of the sentence is a direct quotation anyway.
Ref #69: Complex—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used as a reference to support the character's appearance in that publication's list of the best ever "video-game mascots". It seems to me to be a high-quality notable publication, so I see no problem with this.
Ref #70: GamesRadar—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used to source the character's appearance on that publication's list of "The 30 best Capcom characters of the last 30 years" and their description of the character. Again, I don't see an issue here.
Ref #71: Same publication as in reference #65. Author has also written for GameSpot, Gawker, Kotaku, 1UP.com, and various others.
Ref #72: GamesTM—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used in article to source the character's appearance in that publication's list of the "10 of the Best Female Protagonists in Gaming History".
Ref #73: Joystick Division—owned and operated by Village Voice Media. Used in article to source the character's appearance in that publication's list of the "10 Sexiest Video Games Characters".
Ref #74: Article by Lisa Foiles at the same publication as in references 60 and 61. Used to source that author's description of the character.
Ref #75: Article at Games and Culture—a peer-reviewed academic journal. Locked behind a pay-wall, but I managed to grab a sneak peak of several pages. I can confirm what's attributed to this source is accurate, and considerably truncated/paraphrased.
Ref #76: Same publication as in reference 69. Used to source that character's appearance in that publication's list of "The Top Ten Duos In Video Game History", as well as related commentary. Author has also written for the Detroit News, Prospect, and is a published author. Most definitely a high-quality and reliable source.
Ref #77: Same publication as in references 65 and 67. Author has also written for Forbes, as well as Yahoo! News, CNET, amongst others. Used in the article to source character's appearance in that publication's list of the "The 25 Most A**-Kicking Video Game Duos", and resulting commentary.
Ref #78: Transcript of a speech delivered by Sara M. Grimes of Simon Fraser University as a keynote speech at the 2003 Digital Games Research Association. Adequately paraphrased, with the exception of minimal direct quotations.
Ref #79: Kinephanos: Journal of Media Studies and Popular Culture—author with similar credentials to one above, used as a reference for that author's assessment of the character's role in the series, and of her general over-sexualisation.
Ref #80: Samantha Lay writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research—author with similar credentials to two above, used as a reference for the author's argument that the character lacked depth. Adequately paraphrased.
Ref #81: Interview with actress Milla Jovovich at the Los Angeles Times, in which she comments that Jill Valentine's popularity stems from the character being stronger than male characters in the series.
Ref's #82 and #83: Both works by Anita Sarkeesian—added to the article on advice received at the previous FAC.
Ref's #84 and #85: Virgin Media and CheatCodes.com—both sites with editorial oversight, the latter appearing at VG/S as a reliable source; being used to source commentary that a particular outfit worn by the character in RE3 was perceived as "sexy".
Ref's #86–#88: Articles from GamesRadar, same publication as in ref #70—used to source commentary that the same outfit (from RE3) mentioned via previous two references was perceived as "fan service". Last source used as reference for the author's opinion of the character; author has also worked for Capcom, and written for numerous publications, including The New York Times.
Ref #89: Book written by numerous authors, with editorial oversight by Nadine Farghaly, an associate professor of Gender Studies at the University of Salzburg.
Ref #90: GameSpot—listed as a source to avoid at VG/S, if content is user-generated. This is not the case with this video, which was created by Australian GameSpot employee Jess McDonell, who has gone on to work for CBS.
Ref #91: Another IGN article. High-quality reliable source used to source the "Master of Unlocking" meme.
Ref #92: UGO—same publication as used in reference 59, used to source the appearance of two separate cutscenes from the series in this publication's list of the "25 worst cutscenes in gaming history".
Ref #93: GamesRadar—same publication as used in references #70 and #86–#88. Used to source the author's opinion of the character's contribution to gaming.
Ref #94: Digital Trends—same publication as reference #48. Used to source content of Resident Evil: Revelations 2. Author has also worked for G4 and Penny Arcade, amongst others.
Ref #95: Complex—same publication as in reference #69 and '73. Author has written for Metro New York, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald, tonne of others.
Ref #96: Same author and publication as in reference #12.

(snip)

Butting in here to point out that the standard for sources at FAC isn't just "reliable" but "high quality". Whether or not a wikiproject decides that a source is reliable doesn't really impact on whether the source is of high quality. The bar is higher. I feel like a freaking broken record here - but just because WP:Video games/Sources, WP: Video games/Reference library and Video game journalism#Publications of note all say something is reliable does not have any bearing on whether they are high quality. Yes, the sourcing is better - but using those to say something meets the FAC standards is NOT helpful and doesn't address the various issues. Can we stop with that, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the source review. You'll see that I used the above linked pages to simply demonstrate that the sources used in the article – sans the Anita Sarkeesian publication, for obvious reasons – can be considered WP:RS by the community. But also note that that was merely step one of the source review: you'll see how I went above and beyond that by taking into account every piece of advice given by you on Frekiorp's talk page. I've posted a heck of a lot of detail up there, noting the credentials (both academic and professional) of every single author. I certainly went above the bar this time. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the source review. I saw the following (among others):

"Ref #4: Uproxx article being used in infobox to identify a voice actor, and in prose to reference the quality of voice acting in the game. Author has also written for Cracked, IGN and GameSpy—which are all listed at Video games/Sources as reliable sources. No issues here."

I'm not seeing where the high quality requirement was addressed here - just a reference to it being on the "Video games/Sources as reliable sources"

You remember your advice, right? Good. Uproxx has a dedicated editorial staff, and is the primary publication of a much larger company—UPROXX Media Group, Inc. You also said that you look for credentials when performing a source review, and you take into account if the author is an actual journalist who has written for other quality publications. Well this author has also written for IGN, of which you literally said: IGN would definitely meet the "high quality" for a videogame source. (on Freikorp's talk page).

"Ref #24: Kotaku—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used as a source to identify the character's appearance in Project X Zone 2."

I'm not seeing where the high quality requirement was addressed here - just a reference to it being on the "Video games/Sources as reliable sources"

Kotaku has a substantial editorial staff, and is owned by Gizmodo Media Group: which also operates The A.V. Club, Deadspin, Jezebel (website), Lifehacker—maybe you've heard of them. You'd be hard-pushed to find anyone take issue with any of those sources at any other FAC.

"Ref #27: 1UP.com—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for USGamer: a sister publication of Eurogamer, which are both listed at VG/S as reliable sources. This source is used to describe the character's appearance, and later in the article for the author's opinion of one of her outfits being an "embarrassing relic" from a period in which game producers concentrated on the teenage-boy demographic. All adequately paraphrased and accurate."

Again, nothing about it being a high quality source, just pointing to Video games/Sources as being reliable.

Defunct website, owned by IGN at the time of this article's publication. It was written by an author who has gone on to write for other established publications.

"Ref #29: Edge—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. "

See above.

Physical publication operating since 1993. Owned by Future plc.

"Ref #40: Eludamos—listed as a reliable source at Video games/sources. This article's author, Esther MacCallum-Stewart, is a research fellow at Staffordshire University's Digital Cultures Research Centre, her work specifically examining, among other things, the role of sex and sexuality in videogames. This source is being used to reference the difference in gameplay between the male and female characters of the game. Notable publication, notable author."

Here we have something going past the plain reliable standard, and showing that it's more than just reliable. However, notablity of a publication/author has no bearing on whether its high quality or not. People and publications can be notable but not even reliable by WP:RS standards, much less the standards at FAC.

Semantics, really. I don't recall why I used "notable" there, but the website's appearance at VG/S demonstrates that it is WP:RS, and I believe the author's position and credentials demonstrate that she is qualified to offer an opinion on this subject matter, which is in her field of expertise.

"Ref #51: Digital Spy—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used to source Guillory's return in later films in the series."

Nothing showing why it's high quality.

I believe Digital Spy meets FA's quality criteria because it has a dedicated 20+ editorial staff, with another 60+ journalists . Owned by the 130+ year old, multi-billion dollar Hearst Communications company, which wholly owns Esquire, San Francisco Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle, amongst others. It also partly owns ESPN,

"Complex—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used as a reference to support the character's appearance in that publication's list of the best ever "video-game mascots". It seems to me to be a high-quality notable publication, so I see no problem with this."

Not seeing why you think it's a high quality source, just that you do.

It's 50% owned by Hearst Communications (see above); 50% owned by Verizon Communications—another multi-billion dollar company.

I'm not picking on you... but there were similar comments on much of the source review. It was definitely better, but still not fully engaging with the high quality part of the criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You're just keeping me on my toes, right? ;) If you have any issues with any other references, it may be better to move this on up to the actual source review. This page is getting pretty huge as it is. Don't wanna scare off any newbies. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if all of the above had been in the source review - it would have been great. I think the problem here is that you're trying to prove things. That's not really what you need to do as the source reviewer. The source reviewer picks out the things that don't look to meet the FA criteria and asks the nominator(s) about them. Same as any other part of the review - the people reviewing for prose pick out the bad prose bits, etc. There is no need for the source reviewer to look and make such a detailed review ... it's hard to take a source review as being from someone not involved in the article when the source reviewer seems to be spending all their time trying to show that the sources ARE reliable. Just point out the bad ones and leave it at that. And it really IS better if someone not invested in the article or the topic or the whole subject area does reviews ... its a lot easier to pick up on things that "everyone just knows" when you're not deeply immersed in the subject area. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a WP:JOKE? @Ian Rose: @Sarastro1: Ealdgyth specifically picked out 6 references and asked me to explain my rationale for considering them "high-quality" sources. I've explained why I did so, but now she's complaining that I've been made to explain? I mean, c'mon. 1Up.com, Digital Spy, Kotaku and Uproxx are all fairly huge sources – in abundance on other featured gaming articles: 32X · 4X · Aquaria · Bastion · Batman: Arkham Asylum · Batman: Arkham City · The Beatles: Rock Band · BioShock – so her reasoning for questioning them in the first place was dubious. And now she is casting aspersions on the integrity of the entire source review, conveniently neglecting to mention that it resulted in several low-quality sources being removed? I've tried my best to be polite, but this has descended into farce. This just doesn't make sense anymore!! Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a joke and it wasn't meant to cast aspersions on the source reviews you did, merely trying to point out a way to make it less onerous in the future for you. You don't need to go through and list each source and justify it in a source review, that's all I'm saying. All a reviewer needs to do is question any sources that they don't think meet the FA criteria. And I pointed out that sometimes it is easier for a reviewer who is not knowledgeable about the subject to spot sources that might not meet the high quality criteria. ...because they are not so close to the topic. That was all. I don't feel the need to do another source review, the sourcing is much improved from the first FAC, I'm just trying to help others not make more work for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that were indeed the case, you wouldn't have responded the way you did at 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, she is explaining that you don't seem to be approaching this as a reviewer, but as someone who is trying to prove that sources are high quality. That's not what reviewers do. I agree that this has descended into farce, however. The personal attacks, threats and canvassing have made this impossible to review. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

Actually I posted the six sources to show that there were a few spots where you didn't show that the sources were high quality. That's all. But you really don't have to do that level of source review. I'm not trying to disparage your review, it was quite thorough, but it was way more work than really needs to be done. Don't believe me if you like, but I'm trying to save you effort. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from CR4ZE

I know I'm late to the party, and didn't comment on the previous FAC, however after a brief read-through I find several instances where the prose does not meet 1a. Most of these issues are actionable with simple copy-editing, but need to be addressed nonetheless.

Remove instances of the word "also" entirely, or replace with "as well" where appropriate.
"players" is used three times in prose, but "the player" is used once. Pick one consistent use.
Watch for "Y of X" constructions where "X's Y" is more concise. Examples:
- (lead) "one of the protagonists of the original Resident Evil game" → "one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists"
- (1.1 In video games) "one of two playable main protagonists of the original Resident Evil game (1996)" → "one of the original Resident Evil game's (1996) two playable main protagonists"
- Several more throughout the article.
  - I've fixed the two you specified. I'll be honest, I've always struggled with recognising this sort of thing. Feel free to point out any I missed. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1.4.2 In literature) She is introduced as Jill Valentine at the beginning of this section, when in other sections throughout she is simply introduced as Jill.
1.1 In video games
- "Emerging alive from the Raccoon City outbreak"—already stated that she survives the outbreak in the previous paragraph, or do these events happen in the next game? Try "After escaping the Racoon City outbreak ..." or similar.
- "defeating Umbrella's newest bioweapon creature" → "and defeats Umbrella's new bioweapons creature"
- "He used Jill's DNA ..." who is "he"?
- "Jill then works with ... defeat Wesker" prose is fragmented by commas.
- "During this mission ... experimental vaccine" comma after "mission"—also, does the vaccine work?
1.2 Design and portrayal
- "In addition to avoiding eroticizing characters" the word "characters" is used three times within one sentence.
- Parallel tenses in "he said he refuses", "concluding that he writes".
- "which resulted in 'her action and atmosphere hav[ing] charm'" just write "having" per MOS:PMC; past/present tense falls under "trivial spelling and typographic errors".
- "muscular rather than slim" perhaps try "muscular, not slim" or similar.
- "which ~~the player~~ players(?) must remove ~~in order~~ to free her from ~~the influence of Wesker~~ Wesker's influence"
- "Providing alternate costumes for players ..." padded sentence; avoid "-ing" constructions and needless verbosity.
- "Completing the 2002 remake once ..." lots of dull repetition of words in this sentence.
- "Due to how short the skirt was" → comma.
1.3 Gameplay
- "Jill runs ~~more slowly~~ slower", "~~can absorb~~ absorbs"
- Again, comma after "however".
- "Jill and Chris's" in other points throughout the article, you drop the second "s" after the apostrophe.
- "to be able to do" → "to", although this may leave the sentence unclear. Try to rephrase.
- "She ~~is also able to~~ can/may"
1.4.1 In films
- Is there no point for development on the first couple sentences here? Why was Guillory the final choice, and why was Sorvino not chosen?
  - I've found a high-quality source that Sorvino turned down the role and have added that to the article. I can't find any information on why she turned it down, or why Guillory was the final choice, even among non-RS sources. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1.4.2 In literature
- "In the 1998 novel ... skills" very confusing, snakey sentence fragmented by commas.
1.4.3 In merchandise and attractions
- May or may not be actionable, but this is a very short sub-section of two three-sentence paragraphs. Any way to combine into one paragraph or with another section? Not mandating it be done, only if it's possible without losing context.
2.1 Reception
- The term "video game" is hyphenated five times in the Reception section, but nowhere else in the article.
- Suggest you use the format "[publication name]'s author" (ie The Escapist's Bonnie Ruberg, and The Escapist's Ruberg thereafter) for better concision (also no need to say "magazine" per example).
- "and in 2008, GameDaily ..." new sentence
- "~~saying~~ and said", "~~describing~~ and described" etc.
  - Just to clarify, are you saying I shouldn't use the terms 'describing' and 'saying' at all? I'm finding it a bit difficult to reword to accommodate this, and also I'm not seeing the point. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "~~was also similarly ranked~~ was ranked"
- "as based on loyalty, ~~as opposed to~~ not romance"
- Who is Sara Grimes? James Hawkins is reintroduced in the third paragraph with his full name and without his publication.
- In the fourth paragraph, quotations from Grimes are used without direct attribution (see MOS:QUOTE re immediate cites). Also check grammar/punctuation ("... Grimes wrote, Jill was ...")
- "toward"-- just a query re American/ British English (not sure which conventions you're following). If British, use "towards", otherwise, no need for action.
- "teenage-boy" doesn't need a hyphen.
- "Considering Jill ~~to be~~ a strong female character ..."
- Go through with a fine-tooth comb here and check grammar and punctuation. No comma after "In 2012" eg in last line of third paragraph. Other minor issues here and there, or as mentioned above.
2.2 Memes
- "sparked an Internet meme of 'Jill Sandwich" → "sparked the 'Jill Sandwich' Internet meme"
- "on their 2011 list of the 25 worst cutscenes in gaming history ~~in 2011~~"

A separate, more lingering concern (which has obviously been touched on above, and in the previous nomination) I have is in regard to 1c and 1d. I can see from just a brief look at the previous FAC that there has already been a massive discussion on this issue (moved to talk) I'll state right off the bat that I simply don't see a strong case for Anita Sarkeesian/Feminist Frequency being a WP:RS, and I'm not confident that we're retaining WP:NPOV, so I wouldn't feel comfortable moving to support until we get to some kind of resolve. Please allow me some time to read through the comments at the previous FAC (I've only had a brief read-through) so I can get a better sense of everything, and I'll leave you with some further thoughts later. (moved to talk) In any case, my prose review as above has actionable comments, so let's work through that first, and then take it from there. No need to respond inline to each comment. Let me know when you're done fixing the prose, or if you have any further queries. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk) I only added the Anita Sarkeesian source because she criticised the fact it wasn't in the article (and accordingly, I have no qualms with it being removed). (moved to talk) Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: I've done my best to address all the prose concerns for now, though I'll have another look over the whole article with a fresh set of eyes tomorrow. Also left a couple comments among your points. Looking forward to your reply regarding all of this. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I'll be able to give you a more comprehensive response soon (hopefully tomorrow, but working three jobs, I can't make promises).

(moved to talk) Will be back later with some more thoughts. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

First of all, my apologies for the delayed response, but weekends are typically very busy for me personally. Thanks for attending to my comments so quickly, Freikorp. Just some follow-up: re casting changes, if that's all that can be said as covered by RS that is fine—your additions cleared most things up. On the "-ing" gerunds, the examples I cited use parallelism between tenses, which, while not always grammatically "incorrect", read awkward in this context. ("GameDaily ranked [past tense] her as their tenth favorite Capcom character of all time, saying [present tense] she ..."; more concise to recast as "... and said she ...".) Third sentence in fourth paragraph of 2.1 Reception still needs clarification (Her size was unrealistic considering ... genuinely reflective of athletic training"not sure if this was meant to be two separate clauses? I'm still not 100% satisfied that the prose meets 1a, but other than what I've just mentioned, there’s only trivial concerns to take care of now, so I'll just copy-edit the minutiae myself soon. Please ping me if you have any further queries.

(moved to talk) What we have seen over the past few months is large-scale changes to 2.1 Reception. Now I'll contend that some of the language and coverage being used prior to the FAC was clearly unencyclopedic. Language such as "hottest woman", "sexy", "babe" and the like are not appropriate language in the article's prose. However, virtually all discussion about Jill Valentine's physical attractiveness or "sex appeal" has been thrown out (moved to talk). Some may, and indeed have, argued that any sort of discussion in this vein is inherently “problematic”—I would argue that it's not our job to editorialise what content is and isn't appropriate. We go with what the sources say. Why were Complex, The Escapist, GameSpy, GameZone, UGO and VideoGamer.com, each of which vetted as having established reliability, removed just because someone found their content "problematic"? In the interest of balance, I propose, at the very least, a sentence to cover this: "Several critics have commented on Jill's physicality or status as a "sex symbol"" with attribution to at least three or four reliable sources. I found GTA V's controversy overblown, but to not cover the debate ut dicitur the reliable sources would have been a coverage concern.

As stated in my earlier comments, I have serious concerns about Feminist Frequency's credibility and don't believe it meets 1c standards. That I am aware, the site has no established reliability and I haven't seen Sarkeesian's work being used in another FA-quality page. A background check on FF's reliability gave me this: [6][7] [8][9][10][11][12] (Not all of these sources are reliable in and of themselves, but hey, we're already setting the bar at FF and going from there). That the merit of Sarkeesian’s work is, at the very least, subject to critical commentary, whether individual journalists agree with her positions or not, says to me that it doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:RS. And that's without broaching into the Gamergate controversy (and let’s please steer clear of that in this conversation from here on out). I propose that all material attributed to Sarkeesian/FF be removed. (moved to talk)

Will hopefully be able to get a copy-edit done by tomorrow. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CR4ZE. Thanks for your comments. It's ironic, a previous version of the article had something similar to the one line you were asking for regarding sex appeal: [13]. I thought reducing the entire "quote farm" to that line and then two examples of what high quality source said was an extremely fair compromise, however, one editor asked me to remove the line and, despite the fact I strongly though it should remain, by that stage I was desperate to try and appease people to get support. I've added it back. Do you think this line should be reworded in any way? And do you think it's still appropriate to list two specific mentions in addition to that line, like we currently have? I've also removed the sources you state are unreliable; having been given a much more thorough understanding of what makes a high-quality source since I first nominated this article, I agree that that blog isn't one of them.

Also the line about "Her size was unrealistic considering" is not supposed to be two separate clauses. Someone else copy-edited it to how it currently is. I really appreciate that you're going to copyedit the article. Thanks so much in advance. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Niwi3

I'm surprised that this article has received so many supports and nobody noticed the following obvious issues:

The first two paragraphs of the lead simply talk about fictional details and who portrays her in the video games and films. This is an article about a fictional character that was created by artists, and there is nothing about how the character was conceived or developed.

I've spent a lot of time looking for information about how the character was conceived and developed. Pretty much the only thing I found was the comment from the original game's director stating he liked to design strong female characters. However, SlimVirgin already complained about this being in the lead, so I removed it. As sources in the reception section indicate, commentators have mentioned that Jill lacks depth as a character; few personal details were given about her at the time of the game's release. Personally I think the reason there's little coverage on how she was developed is because little effort was actually put into it. My honest assessment is that her design process consisted of slapping an inappropriate military-ish outfit on a pretty girl. In any case, I can't add information to the article that doesn't exist.

Why is the "Design and portrayal" section inside the Appearances section? It should be its own section at the top of the article. It should also explain how the character was conceived and developed. The section also lacks focus.

I've moved it to its own section. As mentioned above, I can't find any information on how the character was conceived or developed.

In that case, the Design and portrayal section needs to be condensed to retain focus. It has way too many irrelevant details. For example, is the following sentence really necessary: Completing the 2002 remake with Jill will unlock the ability to dress her as Sarah Connor from Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and finishing it a second time will unlock her "much-appreciated" costume from Resident Evil 3. And this: In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked. One in her catsuit from the game, which is described as a 'Battle Suit', and one in her BSAA uniform; the outfits come with different weapon and item allocations. All that looks like trivia/fancruft to me. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you have an issue with the paragraph about costumes :). I only added it because SlimVirgin cited the lack of information about costumes as a reason for opposing the previous nomination. Point 3 of her oppose cited that there was no indication of when the costumes Anita Sarkeesian complained about being sexist were introduced. I only added the information in an attempt to gain her support. Once I had added the information about when the costumes Sarkeesian complained about were added, I thought it would be inappropriate to not mention when all her other costumes were introduced as well. Freikorp (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I understand from her point. She noted the lack of context and character development. You simply added trivia/fancruft material without any context. In my opinion, it doesn't add anything relevant to the article and feels out of place. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess we both interpreted what she wanted differently. I do not enjoy collecting trivia. I didn't want to write it. That being said, I do find it interesting, but that probably has at least something to do with the fact I am a fan of the character. I'm going to ask for a third opinion; I will side with whatever the third opinion is, unless other people chime in protesting its removal, in which case we can all talk it out. One question: If the paragraph is removed, do you think the information about the extra costume being added during the development of the Resident Evil remake, and the way they staff modified the camera angles etc to accommodate it, should still remain on the grounds it still constitutes as development? Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Third opinion requested. Do you think the paragraph on costumes in the development section should be removed? Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were the costumes covered in an independent source? That would be better than the affiliated strategy guide. If sources mention the costumes as significant to her portrayal, then it's worth mentioning that there were other costumes. Either way, save some space/attention in this ¶ by removing the unlock conditions and other granularities. Try gearing the paragraph for a general audience: the reader wants to know that there are alt costumes, perhaps some examples of them, how they work (how the player gets them, how they function in the game and out), but in generalities—the granular detail and jargon won't interest a general audience (e.g., finish first/second time vs. just "finished"; which costumes were in which specific game, unless it matters; that a catsuit is a "Battle Suit", or explained if that's supposed to be a joke). I started to edit the paragraph myself but I wasn't sure why the costume was "much-appreciated" (or if that's a euphemism for "sexy"). (Are there any other sources that address the sex appeal of her costumes, as Sarkeesian started to do?)

It's a tricky balance: while this paragraph is definitely about Portrayal, the majority is really about a specific costume, and that part would much better fit alongside the other content on the character's sexualization. A dedicated section on "sexuality" could be too heavy-handed, though, and would depend on how the Reception/Legacy is organized. I lean towards keeping the cursory dev overview detail in the Design section, and briefly recalling some of said detail as appropriate within the Reception/Legacy/"Sexualization" section. So next step is to pare down the detail in this paragraph and do any other major reorgs and then I can take a pass at copy editing. czar 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Much-appreciated" is definitely a comment based on the outfit's sex appeal, though since it doesn't appear that that is clear I'll happily remove it. As indicated in the reception section, the Resident Evil 3 uniform received praise and criticism for being overly sexual. Other than that in my search for sources on alternate costumes in order to write that paragraph the only other thing that I found was a source which stated that the Resident evil series was well known for its sexualised alternate costumes, however, the source didn't mention Jill at all so I didn't use it. CR4ZE told me he was going to do a copy-edit of the article soon so I won't make any modifications to the prose until that happens. Freikorp (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, Niwi3, and Czar, the same tone as the "much appreciated" dog whistle prevails throughout the article like layers of fat through bacon. Newsflash, Freikorp: most people aren't heterosexual men. Equivalent language about a black character wouldn't be entertained for a minute. Please don't treat sexism as less damaging than racism. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I don't see how being condescending (Newsflash) is helpful, but OK, I'll bite. Firstly, "Much appreciated" was a direct quote from the official strategy guide, not some non-reliable "sexist" source. I had already stated my intention to remove it, and would have happily reworded it to clarify who it was the opinion of if asked. Secondly, not all men are bothered by men being viewed as sex objects (I am not), and by that same token, not all women would be upset by the fact that people appreciated a revealing outfit on a women. I noticed when you took the liberty of rewording the reception section the only 'sexy character lists' you didn't delete were the two compiled by female writers. You never directly answered my question of whether you only have a problem with men finding women sexual, as opposed to women finding women sexual, but I supposed you did answer it with that edit. After you complained about the "sexism" at the first nomination I asked for feedback on the article from a bi-sexual female friend and a lesbian friend of mine. Both said they didn't find the article sexist, and both said they also found Jill attractive. My point is, sexism is in the eye of the beholder. You probably see the term "much appreciated" as degrading; I do not. I see it as appreciating sexuality (that's not why I added it incidentally, I added it because it was the only description given of the outfit in the source provided, and I don't see how it is offensive), and I wouldn't be offended by a women appreciating a man wearing a revealing outfit either. Please believe me when I tell you I am not trying to assert superiority over women. I really don't appreciated you comparing finding an outfit attractive to racial supremacy. My ex-wife owned a t-shirt that had this image printed on it, which I always thought was a very good point: [14]. You probably wouldn't appreciate having your beliefs compared to nazism. By that same token, I do not appreciate you comparing me to a racist. Freikorp (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: @SlimVirgin: Let's just focus on the actual article and please avoid personal matters or subjects that are not of general interest. The problem here is basically a lack of context, which (as a result) makes the article's tone sexist. If all these irrelevant quotes were supported by proper context, we wouldn't have an issue. Part of the problem is that the article's original author was problematic and used to add a lot of fancruft and controversial material, so I highly doubt that we can find proper sources that back his additions up. That's why I think they should be removed. It might even be easier to TNT the whole article and start from scratch using this and the previous FAC as a guideline. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about staying focused Niwi3. I am a person of colour so using a racial comparison did not sit well with me. Anyway moving along, I was under the impression most of the stuff the original author wrote that would be considered 'problematic' had been removed. I added the 'much appreciated' comment, and also the comment about people fancying her, both of which SlimVirgin recently removed even though there was no consensus to do so and nobody else had complained about them being sexist. I really think starting over from scratch would be rather drastic, considering how far this has come. Anyway, now that those two statements have been bowdlerized, in your opinion, what exactly is still remaining in the article that is creating the sexist tone? Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niwi3, Freikorp, I agree that this should be blown up and started again, which is why I keep talking about the history. The previous author wrote deeply sexist articles that objectified female characters, so it's not just a question of removing a bit of fancruft and some sexism and finding a decent article underneath. When I read the article as a woman, it's immediately clear that it's not addressed to me. It's addressed to some other group about me. The current author has continued the same tone.

In addition, the structure is confusing, and much of the article is about the games and films, not the character. I've tried to read it several times, and I still don't know much about Jill Valentine. And there's nothing about the evolution of female characters in general during that period. Compare it to Nancy Drew. There we see clearly the evolution of the character and her appearance. There are fewer sources for Jill Valentine, so we can't reproduce Nancy Drew, but I'd like to see something closer to that clarity and more about the artists and developers.

I'm not convinced that the high-quality sources have been found and mined. If I were writing this, I would contact the creators and academic sources, and I'd ask for their help in finding sources, both about Jill Valentine and about how developers responded in general to the criticism of their female characters. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, if it makes you feel any better, I don't know much about the character either. This is because so little information is given about her in terms of development. Nancy Drew is a poor comparison. There are volumes of books about her, making it easy to document the characters evolution. When it comes to Jill, even the games she's featured in aren't really about her. At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, she's pretty much just an attractive looking avatar designed to appeal to male audiences. I get it. I really do. I don't agree with how women are portrayed in games. But at the end of the day, blowing up the article and starting again isn't going to create coverage of the character that doesn't exist, or change the fact the producers of the original game probably didn't give the character any actual depth because they were too busy making her outfit sexually appealing. Freikorp (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, then why did you pick it to take to FAC? Again, I have to talk about the history (otherwise it's like discussing WWII without mentioning the Treaty of Versailles.) This was written to be maximally offensive, and you continued it; you added "cock tease", for example. I briefly wondered during FAC1 whether it was a breaching experiment to get one of those articles on the main page. Or maybe it was just for points for WikiCup, but that's over now. Why continue with it? It would be faster to rewrite it than to go through this. Maybe it needs to shed the fancruft and be shorter. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SV. Since there is so little information about how the character was conceived and developed, the article needs to be much shorter. In fact, I think the article meets the notability guideline just by a close margin. Currently, it has way too many details that are of importance only to fans of the franchise. These irrelevant details just confuse the general readers, who instead want to know more fundamental things. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niwi3, I checked the Japanese version (translation), and it has a lot more detail about the character, her weapons and moves. All unsourced, so presumably sourced directly to the games. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Freikorp, you asked me to stay away but, at this point, I believe it's appropriate to highlight what @Vanamonde93: said below: With respect to concern[s] raised above that the article needs to discuss how her portrayal changed in response to scholarly critique: yes, ideally, we would have such a description, but that presupposes that such a change occurred at all, ie: that the developers cared what analysts (rather than the market) were saying. Talk of TNT and this article barely meeting notability is undue: it's a good article, after all. It seems to me that this nomination is being sidetracked toward what some reviewers want this article to be, rather than what it should be. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niwi3, SlimVirgin I picked it for FAC because I thought it met the requirements. Despite the fact there's little information regarding the characters personal development, there's still enough information on development to fill several paragraphs. Read between the lines; the article is an accurate reflection of how the character was developed - the producers clearly cared more about shaping her aesthetically than giving her any depth. If there hadn't been enough information to write a development section at all, I wouldn't have nominated it. I feel like you're punishing the article because you're unhappy with how the character was developed. I adopted five articles written that were heavily contributed to by the same original author who worked on this one. One (about a game, not a character) I have already promoted to featured status. This was the only other one of the five articles that I thought could be taken to FA level. I don't see how I can be accused of trying to breach the main page, especially since only one of the other articles I adopted is about a female character (Sarah Kerrigan, and I have no intentions to take that to FA level). And as you've pointed out, I'm no longer in the WikiCup, so this isn't about 'points'. Why are you so intent on assuming bad faith? Have you considered that the maybe the reason I took this to FAC was the exact same reason I took the last 10 articles to FAC? Maybe it's because I enjoy writing Wikipedia. I don't think this article was written to be offensive, and I'm offending by you insinuating that that was my intention. I'm not offended by human beings having their sexuality commented on, but since other people thought there was too much information about this, I reduced the coverage on this. Freikorp (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, you could strip out all the sexism and fancruft, and it still wouldn't be FA quality. It's difficult to read and follow. It lacks structure and flow. I tried to copy edit the lead today and found that I couldn't understand parts of it. The damsel-in-distress thing, for example, is just plonked there. What point was the source making? These things need to be contexualized. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually advisable to make structural prose changes before the copyedit, lest the work be done twice. I'd include that "Resident evil series was well known for its sexualised alternate costumes" mention, particularly as set-up for the part/section that addresses her role as a sexualised character. If it isn't already clear, such a section is going to need balance between the flippant "praise" of video game journalists and what appears to be a mostly academic "criticism". In function, I wouldn't refer to praise/criticism per se but instead try to show/paraphrase the perspective of each source (e.g., describe the source's position, and if the source has a simple position, stack it with similar sources to make a single sentence with multiple refs—I can show this in practice as needed after the copyedit/rework are finished). Also wanted to add that if the costume was actually called "Much Appreciated" in-game (perhaps a reference both to a voice line as well as the sexual overtone already acknowledged), then it's also worth noting that phrase as the developer's choice as long as the sourcing does so as well. czar 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, I agree about the copyediting in general. CR4ZE left me a friendly message on my talk page saying he was in the middle of a copyedit which was interrupted by my tweaks to the article, so I was just giving him time to finish since he was already apparently in the middle of it. Anyway, just for the record, the term "much-appreciated" appeared in the section of the strategy guide devoted to un-lockable secrets within the game. The author simply says "Clear Jill's game twice at any difficulty setting to fashion this much-appreciated costume." I only used the term because it was the only way the costume was described. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: In the "Design and portrayal" section, you should not mention or describe her outfits unless there is information about how they were designed by the artists/developers. In my opinion, the fact that the article mentions several costumes without any explanation or context makes it look like the article was written by a fanboy (not trying to be offensive at all, just want to be frank and clear on this). All of the following doesn't add anything to the article and should be removed: The outfit appears as the alternate costume for Jill in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D as well.[15] Jill appears dressed as a pirate for her alternate costume in Resident Evil: Revelations.[56] In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked. One in her catsuit from the game, which is described as a "Battle Suit", and one in her BSAA uniform; the outfits come with different weapon and item allocations.[57] Of course, if you can find a reliable source with an explanation you can keep it. The bit about the Sarah Connor outfit should also be removed, but you can keep the RE3 costume that is featured in REmake because there is an actual explanation. I would reword it to something like this: Developers decided to include the RE3 costume in REmake as an alternate outfit because they liked it a lot. However, they changed the colour of her panties to match that of her skirt and modified some of the game's camera angles to reduce the amount of upskirting. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a gameplay section? This article is about a fictional character, not a video game.

I've moved gameplay to be a sub-section of "Design and portrayal". Don't you think how the character plays is a part of her design?

The current gameplay section essentially describes gameplay mechanics of a few (not all) games where she is a playable character. These should not be forked from their corresponding game articles. You can certainly discuss how critics interpret her gameplay mechanics, but not describe the gameplay of certain Resident Evil games in this article. For example, the following sentence is wrong: "In Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, Jill became the first character to perform a quick 180-degree turn, which has since become a staple of the series". Instead, it should be: "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is the first Resident Evil game to allow players perform a quick 180-degree turn." Also, the IGN reference does not say that Jill was the first character to perform it and that the mechanic has become a staple of the series. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jill is the playable character in the game, and the source explicitly states the 180 degree turn is a new feature. I think it's a reasonable jump to say that Jill was the first character to perform it. The source does not confirm the fact that the turn has become a staple in the series, so I have remove that half of the sentence. I do not feel strongly about this sentence at all though, so I will happily remove it if you still have an issue with it. That being said, I have an academic source which comments on how the difference between Jill and Chris have altered gampleay. I think at the very least, the information about the differences between these two characters is of interest, and can be followed up with the coverage from the academic source on the matter (which I can probably flesh out a bit). Would you feel better about it if I scrapped the Gameplay section, only retained the differences between the two characters in the first game and academic coverage of it, and added that as probably the first paragraph in the Design and portrayal section? Happy to hear alternate suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is:

a) Jill is not the only playable character in RE3. The 180 degree turn is a gameplay mechanic of RE3, and therefore is applied to every playable character that appears in that game. In my opinion, saying that Jill became the first character to be able to perform it seems to imply that the character is special, which is wrong.

b) That IGN ref only contains one paragraph that discusses the actual game, not Jill. As a result, it has little value in this article

c) You can certainly explain that the gameplay contrast between Jill and Chris in the first game received special attention from multiple sources. That's perfectly fine, but it should be moved to a critical analysis section.

d) The gameplay section needs to be avoided simply because this article is not about a video game. Having a gameplay section will probably confuse readers who are not familiar with the franchise. This is an article about a fictional character; the article loses focus if you start discussing gameplay mechanics that are already covered in their corresponding game articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the gameplay section. I've moved the paragraph I intend to salvage to the reception section. In the meantime it's going to make the section look even more poorly organised until I rewrite the whole section. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural impact section is not very well organized. It should be split into two sections: critical analysis, and legacy. I consider the memes section to be trivia/fancruft, and should be avoided in my opinion. It is irrelevant and silly.

I'll do an overhaul on the reception section soon. I'm going to dissagree with you regarding the memes. I've actually found reference to the Jill Sandwich meme in an academic paper, which I am adding to the article.

If you think the memes section is relevant, then its content should be simplified and merged into a legacy section that offers better context. Having them in a separate section gives them more importance than necessary.--Niwi3 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the reception section now? I'm not finished, but it would be nice to know if I'm at least on the right track. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but I will do a more in-depth review once you think it's ready. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SlimVirgin's comments in this and the previous FAC.

Duly noted.

--Niwi3 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]