Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Jill Valentine/archive2

I've listed this article for peer review because despite a clear majority of support it has failed FAC nomination twice. At the first nomination there were seven supports and two opposes. At the second FAC it had nine votes of support and three opposes, and I was almost finished addressing one of the opposers listed concerns when it was closed abruptly (I have since finished addressing them). While there was arguably no consensus to promote the article to FAC, there was also no consensus that the remaining arguments of the people opposing were valid. As per the coords reccomendation at the second FAC, I am nominating this for peer review prior to the article's third nomination, in the hopes of forming a consensus on what, if anything, needs to be changed. All comments are welcome on whether or not this article meets the standard for FAC, and if not, what needs to be changed.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are just my ideas (though PresN kind of tutored for that) so don't feel forced to use them.

Jill's RE1 was remade for the RE1 Remake (redundant) so the one from that game might be easier to recognize.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're asking here. Can you clarify at all? Freikorp (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicate lead's paragraphs for each section. See Lightning (Final Fantasy) or Allen Walker. Maybe paragraph 1 can go like this "Jill's first appearance is in X (Year) X (game) as a member of RCPD. Since there she became a recurring character in the series often returning as a protagonist and supporting character. She has also starred in other video games as well printed and liveaction adaptations of the series". The second paragraph could be dedicated to the character's creation whereas the last one could be based on how she was received.

I'm not sure about this. I'll see if anybody else suggests something similar. Freikorp (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like in the previous FA nomination I would suggest moving "Jill Valentine is described as a highly experienced tactical officer and a former member of Delta Force, who has recently been reassigned to the Raccoon City Police Department (RCPD). Valentine is said to be an intelligent, brave and loyal officer, who has extensive expertise with weapons training and lock picking. Prior to the events of the first game, she is credited with saving the lives of both civilians and fellow officers during past operations.[10][11][12] Her ethnic background is given as half-French, half-Japanese.[13] In Resident Evil: The Umbrella Conspiracy, a novelisation of the original game, Valentine's Delta Force background is not mentioned, rather she is said to be professional thief Dick Valentine's daughter and accomplice prior to her career in law enforcement.[14]" to outside the appearances section as a better way to introduce the character.

Thanks for the feedback. I agree the information might be located better elsewhere. I was specifically told to put it there though, so I'll leave it where it is for the time being and will see if there are any further comments on the matter. Freikorp (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the next paragraph you could add that Jill reprises her role in the RE1's remake.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Guillory has many interviews online about Jill. Maybe you could expand her roles with them and at the same time at a free picture since Guillory's article has one.

When the article was first nominated, I did cite an interview with Guillory. While the source [1] meets the standards for WP:RS, Ealdgyth challenged it as not meeting the "high quality" standard for FAC. Accordingly I removed it. I have been unable to find an interview with Guillory regarding Valentine that does meet the high-quality standard. There's an interesting interview available on YouTube [2] but I don't know what the original source was. I assumed it might be the DVD but after looking at the special features in copies of the DVD for sale I couldn't find one that advertises an interview with Sienna as a special feature. I even ended up sending the up-loader of the YouTube video a question asking where the interview came from but they said they couldn't remember. Freikorp (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can think. I'm not too skilled with reception sections.Tintor2 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Tintor2, and thanks again for commenting on the nomination. Freikorp (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'In video games'

Is there a need for all the plot summary in the beginning? If that level of detail is necessary, I recommend citing a secondary source that affirms its necessity. I imagine the section would read much better if it plainly stated her role throughout the series rather than rehashing plot elements that aren't directly related to her. I wouldn't mention details like "Uroboros" as the virus's name when the section is already so deep in jargon. Remember that the article is written for a general audience—readers who are unfamiliar with any of the Resident Evil plotlines. P.S. I recommend removing the comments in the nom about the opposers (especially about individuals) if you actually want their help in the current peer review. czar 17:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks so much for your comments. I've removed the term Uroboros, alongside several other terms and some over-detail. I don't see any remaining issues where the section goes into too much detail regarding the game's plot; I've tried to only keep information that is needed to understand Valentine's situation. For example, I mention that "After rescuing Valentine, Redfield and Alomar continue on their mission", however, I don't mention what their mission is (since that's irrelevant). The only reason I mention that they continue with their mission at all is because I need to explain to the reader why Valentine subsequently has to escape with the help of somebody else.

The 'In video games' section was originally cited to secondary sources only, however, Niwi3 cited the fact it wasn't sourced to primary sources as a reason for opposing, and SlimVirgin also cited the lack of sources to the games themselves as a reason for opposing. At the first nomination, Finetooth stated the fact the section was oversourced (at the time) as one of his concerns, saying there should be no reason to have more than one source to back up a plot detail. Do you think I should switch back to the seconday sources, or add the secondary sources back alongside the primary ones so the section is sourced to both, or just leave it how it is now? I really, really have no preference, I'm just trying to keep everybody happy and that's proving quite difficult at this stage. :)

There are only two featured articles for female video games characters for me to compare the JV article to. Cortana (Halo), which has all the same issues that were brought up as reasons for opposing at my FAC's (I.e a reception section that focuses on lists and the character's sex appeal, and has a complete absence of academic sources). The other article, Lightning (Final Fantasy), is considerably better, though I can't help but notice it features several sources which were specifically deemed not high-quality enough for my FAC, as does Cortana. Anyway, everyone keeps telling me to model the appearances section off of the one at Lightning, and that's what I've tried to do.

It's a requirement for peer review that all concerns at GAN or FAC are addressed prior to nomination. I feel the need to give an indication of why I havne't addressed a couple of the issues brought up at FAC so that nobody complains that I'm ignoring the rules. Freikorp (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble finding where others gave advice to rely on primary sourcing, and I'm not sure why they'd recommend that either. Niwi3's line re: primary sourcing is struck in archive2, for what that's worth. If we were talking about a plot section on the individual game/film articles, I'd understand, as there is at least some argument (though I'd challenge this too) that the plot should be fully summarized and sourced to the media itself. In terms of JV's role in each game, I don't think it's appropriate to rely on primary sourcing plot details (if the role/moment was important, I'd suspect a secondary source to cover it, or at least a print/digital strategy guide as a fallback). But it's not a hard line—I don't think all of the plot necessarily needs to be excised, but it is odd for an FA-quality piece to not have secondary sourcing for such basic claims. The other two character FAs mentioned go into the weeds in this regard as well (and partially for that reason, I don't refer to either article as models for this article genre). As you've no doubt noticed, WP's discussions are often uneven in participation. Re: managing other editors, it's almost always more important to give disagreements a wider forum than to get the extra jabs in (flies and honey vs. vinegar, etc.) I took a pass at one of the section's paragraphs as an example. Feel free to revert/continue/edit liberally czar 05:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Niwi3 stated "Ideally, the Appearances section should act as a plot section, covering fictional details from the character's first to last game. As a result, detailed primary sources should be favored." He stuck the concern after I resourced the plot to the games. As a specific reason for opposing, SlimVirgin said "I'd expect to see the games themselves used throughout as sources, but they're barely referenced." Personally I've always believed that primary sources should only ever be used if secondary sources can't be found, but I guess you could say I was trying to address both their concerns at once by citing the appearances section to the game's directly, while also adhering to Finetooth's request at the first nomination, which said that instead of using multiple sources in the appearances section, "could you choose the one from the most high quality RS and just use it? ... This would de-clutter and would make it easier to check sources."

I'm going to add the secondary sources back as per your comments. Thanks for making the changes to that paragraph. You possess a skill for condensing information that I lack. I'll try harder but as this stage what's there is my best effort. Freikorp (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see—it was collapsed. I don't think that's sound advice (both when secondary sources are available and as the character is a concept, not a biography), but you're welcome to take it to a wider forum. Did the section have secondary sources beforehand and would it be easy to restore them? (The highest quality RS would be a review of the game, not the game itself.) And while the compliment is appreciated, any perceived "skill" in paraphrase is simply practice—take another shot at it and I can copyedit afterwards czar 05:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: It would be very easy to restore the removed secondary sources. Everything was sourced to one of these two sources (or both) [3][4], both of which are still used in the article. Since they are specifically an overview of all of Valentine's appearances and a history of the franchise respectively, I thought they were the most relevant sources for a section focusing on the character's appearances, though I'm not overly opposed to finding a review of each game if you think that would be worth the effort. Do you think they're acceptable, or do you want individual reviews of games? Freikorp (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NWR's overview should be sufficient where applicable (NWR is more of a specialty source—IGN/GameSpot have better reputations, for whatever that's worth). I'd replace the Capcom vid with secondary sources/reviews, though. czar 06:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: In my opinion, secondary sources should generally be used when they analyze/interpret material found in a primary source. If you simply want to mention plot details as they happen in the game, primary sources are better. Now, they should only be included if they help improve the context of the article, which should be primarily established by secondary sources. Also, I agree with the fact that the "In video games" section should be simplified. It should focus on the character, not on the plot of the games where she appears. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few points here. Foremost, as the article is about a character in the fictional universe, more important than the plot/description of her role in each game is the analysis of why her role in the plot was important. So while plot (basic, descriptive statements) don't need secondary sourcing (by WP's incredibly weak Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction), for FA, I'd recommend using a better source than the game itself if the character's role in the plot point is so crucial as to warrant mentioning. (I.e., the point of secondary sources are to guide us as to which plot points are most important to cover. Their easier verification is a secondary perk. Lack of secondary source (reviews) plot coverage is usually a sign that plot need not be covered, but that advice is more relevant to articles about the media itself, as is almost all of the advice on primary source plot summary.) czar 16:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis of why her role in the plot was important should be properly covered by secondary sources in a reception/critical_analysis section, not in a plot/appearances section. A plot section can certainly help add context to a reception section. For example, the fact that the appearances section mentions that Jill was rescued by Chris in RE5 adds context to the following sentence in the critical analysis section: "she was easily harmed and had to be rescued by her male counterparts, and therefore ended up playing the damsel in distress". Also, a secondary source merely describing the plot of the game without any interpretation/analysis is essentially a primary source. What makes a source a secondary source is the interpretation/analysis. With that being said, I agree that the In_video_games section can be simplified as not all its plot details are relevant to the article. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expected to see more primary sources cited. The games themselves are excellent primary sources, so long as they're used for descriptions only. That is how fictional characters are usually covered. It makes no sense to cite a secondary source to support "her jacket was blue in game X", when you can cite game X directly, and secondary sources can get things wrong, so you would have to check the primary source anyway. Not citing the primary source suggests a lack of familiarity with it. For anything arguable, cite both. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources get basic details wrong, then they aren't reliable. Staff opinions about her cultural role (importance) belong in the Reception, sure, but secondary sources also decide what's important about the game itself through what they choose to include. Meaning that her blue jacket is very unlikely to be important enough to mention if no secondary source mentions it either. The generic primary source citation is so vague as to be useless—let's say we were citing some plot detail, unless it's sourced to dialogue or a specific scene, it's a generic ref to a 10+ hour game that someone would need to replay in its entirety to verify. Especially as this article isn't about the game itself, it should be trivial to source the basic details that warrant mentioning to reliable coverage. czar 18:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources may include jargon or assume that their readers are familiar with a certain topic, and thus may omit obvious (but important) details that can be helpful to general readers. An article's scope and notability is indeed defined by secondary sources, but primary sources may be added to give the article a better context. Wikipedia is for general readers, and mentioning the fact that Jill wears a military outfit in the first game is extremely helpful, especially before the following sentence: "While subsequent games in the series not directed by Mikami have continued to portray strong female characters, they have featured more revealing outfits." I agree that generic primary sources should be avoided. If used, they should point to very specific scenes. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual thing when writing about fiction is to source basic descriptions to the work itself or not to use any source at all. When citing the work, page numbers, timestamps or equivalent should be used. Are transcripts of these games available? (But note: this was a minor issue for me regarding my oppose.) SarahSV ^(talk) 00:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I wouldn't expect anyone to remove secondary sources, assuming the quality was good enough. The question is whether primary sources can be added to support material, and whether there is interesting material missing because it could have been sourced to the games and wasn't. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about using page numbers or timestamps where possible. The problem with citing a video game is that there are no timestamps. How long it takes to get to point X in the storyline will vary between each and every player, possibly by a factor of several hours. Since the summary in the appearances section is quite brief it also makes it difficult to cite to specific points in the game anyway. For example "Valentine and Oliveira cooperate to escape from Raccoon City before it is destroyed by a U.S. government nuclear strike": This occurs over the course of pretty much the entire game, and would be difficult to cite to one specific point. You could cite it to several points, but personally all I think that would accomplish is unnecessarily complicating the reference section. Non RS transcripts for each game can probably be found online somewhere; here's all the cutscene dialogue for the first game: [5]. I'll do my best to add some inline citations to cut-scenes.

@Czar: I've shortened the appearances section some more. I've left the initial mention of Wesker intact since this introduces him (and his wikilink) and he is referred to again later in the section. I've completely removed the mentions that in two separate games Valentine is infected with a mutagenic virus and cured, since I think that isn't overly important at all to know. Let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits Czar. You mentioned in your edit summary if the years should be added next to the game titles. It was originally like that, however, Niwi3 asked me at the last FAC to remove the years from the appearances section (comment is in the collapsed section). Again, it's one of those things that I have no preference about either way, just trying to keep everybody happy. Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it makes more sense to have the years in the Design and portrayal section because that section reflects how the character changed over the years; It's basically a section about real-world details. In contrast, the appearances section is mostly about fictional details. However, I'm not too sure if we should move the last paragraph of the "In video games" section to another place or remove it from the article entirely. It looks like an indiscriminate collection of information to me (there is no context). Thoughts? --Niwi3 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to relocating the paragraph, and if a consensus is reached that it should be removed I'm not going to put up a fight. As I said at the FAC, I just think it's extremely relevant to mention when a video game character appears in a video game, to the point where if I didn't mention it I'd expect someone to criticise the article for not being comprehensive. Happy to hear more opinions on this. Freikorp (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I don't think we are missing anything interesting from the games. In the first games, she is essentially a playable character that responds to the player's actions. However, in Resident Evil 5, she and especially her partner Chris are much more developed; one can clearly tell that both characters are in love with each other (she sacrifices herself to save Chris and he then saves her from Wesker's influence), but that would require a secondary source because it's an interpretation. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only meant the years as a suggestion—the plot's setting isn't moored to a period or timeframe, so it's awkward to mention "several years prior" in the RE5 plot without a sense of how the events are spread apart (not that every game's in-universe year needs to be mentioned, but the timeframe could be clarified—is it over five years? twenty years? a lifetime?) It would be awkward to juggle both the game release dates and the in-universe dates, so I wouldn't do both, in any event. The problem with the paragraph of cameo appearances is that it reads like a laundry list. It either needs to be generalized, losing most of its specificity, or turned into some kind of bulleted list, but I think the latter veers more into the scope of a database, which as Niwi3 alluded, a general interest encyclopedia is not. czar 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I've added the time-frame that the series is set in and have substantially reduced the section of the other appearances paragraph. Better? Freikorp (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. I'd reorganize the last paragraph to put "playable character" instances adjacent to each other, followed by "cameo" instances—right now it appears to hop between the two (or is unclear). I'd also say "Project X series" as a generalization in line with the rest of the paragraph. And I'd perhaps walk back a few of the specific dates, make it relative for readability, e.g., "a few years later", "several years prior", "around the same time"—we need not know each specifics. I'd also verify that the time range can be confirmed in the ref (WP:V). I have a zillion tabs open but I'll hopefully have time for another copy edit pass soon. czar 20:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:I've reorganised the information to separate the playable appearances from the one non-playable one. I've also tweaked two of the dates to be less specific. I would have preferred to say "Project X series", however, unlike Marvel vs. Capcom, there's no one article for the Project X franchise for me to link to, therefore I feel it's more appropriate to mention both games. Freikorp (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to include every single voice actress in the infobox? I would simply include the names of the most notable ones and remove the references and the unofficial abbreviation titles because they are already covered (and referenced) in the "Design and portrayal" section. Same with the motion capture field. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: I've removed the unofficial abbreviations, and also all mentions from games not in the main series. What do you think about the Japanese voice actresses? Do you think it's appropriate to mention them in the infobox? I pretty much just left them there since they were already in the article when I stumbled across it. Also I've always thought the two parameters in the "Fictional profile" infobox sub-section were a bit bland and pointless, though I note many other video game character articles have them. Do you think I should ditch them? Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters in the Fictional profile section need to be sourced. If you can't find sources then they need to be removed. Currently, it looks like original research to me. You should also remove most of the references from the infobox because they are already included in the body of the article. I would also remove the "designed by" entry because most of the people who designed the characters of the original Resident Evil are not notable, and the closing credits of the game actually list six designers (if you include texture designers). Maybe you can simply have Capcom as the only designer? Happy to hear other suggestions. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would rename the "In video games" subsection to "Video game series", and the "In other media" subsection to "Other appearances". Then I would try to merge the last paragraph of the "Video game series" (the minor, non-canon video game appearances) into the "Other appearances" section. So basically, all minor and non-canon stuff should go to the "Other appearances" subsection. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: That's a fantastic suggestion; done. I also think crediting the design simply to 'Capcom' is the best choice, have removed the inline citations, and have removed the fictional profile. Freikorp (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3:@Czar: OK. I've expanded the article using several guides from the game (some courtesy of Niwi3, thanks again), several academic sources, and the special features on the DVD for Resident Evil: Retribution. After an exhaustive search for sources, the only conceivable ones that I haven't harvested from are the strategy guide to the original game, and the director's commentary for the film Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I intend to order and harvest from both of these sources prior to renominating the article, but based on what similar sources have had to offer, I very much doubt I will be able to more than a sentence of two from either, if anything at all. In other words, as far as I'm concerned, I'm pretty much done. I've placed the article in line for a copyedit at GOCE, which should be completed in several weeks.

Do either of you have any outstanding concerns regarding anything that the copyedit wont fix? Or specifically, if the article was nominated in its current state, can you please indicate whether your vote would be support, oppose, or neutral? Obviously in the case of the latter two please indicate why. I'd like to address the concerns of both of you first. Once the two of you are happy, I'll ping SlimVirgin here and will see what she has to say, but I'd really like to address your concerns first. Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: As the article currently stands, I wouldn't oppose, but I wouldn't support either. The lead doesn't offer a proper summary of the article and still lacks focus; the first paragraph essentially talks about the plot of the original game. Keep in mind that readers want to know more about Jill, not the original game where she appears. The lead should also explain why the character is notable outside the Resident Evil series, and should include less video game/film appearances. A few other things:

No context: "Guillory said she found introducing the character in Apocalypse to be challenging" - Why did Guillory find the character challenging?
"Director Paul W. S. Anderson said that reaction to Valentine's cameo in Afterlife was positive,[76] with fans subsequently demanding a fight scene between her and Alice. A fight between the characters with around 200 moves appeared in Retribution.[77]" - Why is this in the Design and portrayal section? It should be moved to the reception section.
Was Shinji Mikami actually the creator of the character? He directed the first game, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the creator. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: *The lead as it currently stand is SlimVirgin's rewrite. This is my last version, which I preferred: [6]. I've been very hesitant to undo any changes she makes to the article as she then cites my reversion of her changes in her reasons for opposing. I'm also quite annoyed that there is only one source that said she is a 'damsel in distress', yet it was insisted something like that be added to the lead, while several sources say she is one of the most attractive characters in games, and that was removed on the grounds it was sexualising the character. The character has been sexualised in high-quality sources, quite extensively. Rather than pretending this didn't happen, I think it's relevant to mention in the lead. Your thoughts? There are too many in-universe mentions in my last version of the lead (BSAA, STARS, etc), so I would tidy it up a bit. Which you prefer it if I reverted back to this version then tidied it up a bit?

The source unfortunately doesn't give much clarification on why she found it challenging. The full quote is: "Playing Jill Valentine in Apocalypse was tough, because it was literally "who is this person?" This is followed by a scene showing Valentine's dramatic entrance into the police station shooting all the infected people who have been arrested before we really know who she is. I've remove it. I've also relocate the other information.
I don't have any source that states who specifically created the character. I 'll remove Mikami's credit for it in the infobox. Thanks for your reply. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep blaming me for the state of the article. At each point I've tried to improve it based on what was there. And it's massively improved since the nomination, thanks to everyone who has pitched in. Even so, none of this is written the way I would write it. There are problems with the writing throughout, and it's not something the guild of copyeditors will fix. And if you re-introduce more sexualization, you're going to restore the old problem. Finally, see the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Women are tired of this and finally speaking out, so this isn't a good time to be restoring years-old sources with vile attitudes toward women. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You rewrote the lead yourself, and now you're attacking me for simply pointing out this fact to someone who's complaining about how it looks? This is unreasonable. And please stop comparing my actions to absolutely horrible things like rape and racism, it's really hurtful. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you to stop blaming other people. The article is improving, so just keep doing that. As for your last point, I may put this quote from the Observer on my user page:

"The uncomfortable truth is that Weinstein’s behaviour sits at the extreme end of a spectrum that starts with low-level verbal abuse on the street and inappropriately sexual office 'banter'. Fail to challenge the catcalls and the lewd jokes and we enable a chain of behaviours that somewhere, at some point, leads to a Harvey Weinstein."

Why do you think I object to sexism in articles? Because it is literally poison for the brain. It makes men and boys think that stuff is okay. Young girls internalize it by thinking it refers to them, so that they grow up full of shame. It's to help halt the spread of Weinsteinism that I spent many hours trying to remove sexism from an article about a video-game character, something I otherwise have no interest in. You could help with that effort, rather than fighting it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions have made me very defensive. I only restored one thing you removed during the last FAC, yet you said in your reason for opposing that I have a tendency to revert your changes. That was not true. I think it's relevant to explain to another editor why I've left somebody else's work intact. The lead was changed from a version that I assume he would support, to a version he does not (and that I am also unhappy with), by someone other than me, and said person cites any reversion of their bold edits as a reason for opposing. I stated I would ping you to the peer review once I was finished addressing the concerns of Niwi3 and Czar, as I was really hoping this conversation would focus on improving the article rather than going off topic, which it has now done.

I hate catcalling, or any deliberate attempt to make people feel bad. I really do. Look, I added the term "cock-tease" to the article because I can be immature at times and it made me laugh. I thought it would make other people laugh too; since this article isn't about a real person, while I thought some people might think it was crass, I didn't think anyone would find it offensive. I'm not trying to put women 'in their place' or poison the minds of children. I'm sorry it offended you. In retrospect, it was a silly thing to do, and I'm now a bit embarrassed about it. But I think there's a big difference between that and saying that "she has been regarded as one of the most attractive characters in games". Anyway I hate arguing with you, let's just try and make the article better. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for apologizing. I accept your apology. But look, there really isn't a huge difference between "cock tease" and "one of the most attractive characters". The issue is the constant drawing of attention to women's appearance. There are two photographs of her in the article, so everyone (who can see them) can judge for themselves. By "attractive", it means "to men", and yes, I know you added lesbian sources, but this is for men nevertheless. Another quote from the Weinstein fallout:

"The patriarchy has a tendency to work its way into your consciousness, regardless of gender, and so many women are dogged by the conviction that being attractive is profoundly important. ... many vulnerable people will put up with aggressive behaviour or unwelcome advances because this becomes the route to masochistic validation."

I remember Sumanah when she worked for the WMF giving a talk in which someone filming her said: "Don't worry, I'll make you look beautiful," and she replied "Make me look smart; that's more important", and she got a huge round of applause. Back to the article: you do say that she's been on several "sexiest" lists, and I haven't removed it, but there's no need to highlight it in the lead. It would be wonderful to write a lead about a woman character that is entirely non-sexist. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: After reading the Digital Games Research quote in its proper context at the source, I would just remove it from the article altogether. Its mention of Jill is a throwaway bit that doesn't enhance the article in terms of character reception. The sentence as a whole is poorly written (and on an unrelated side note, they couldn't be bothered to spell "Wesker" correctly). What do you think? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to get rid of it as well. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Re: the lead, it's best to wait until a good draft of the article is finished, then a lead can be written that summarizes it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Niwi3, I addressed all your concerns except for the lead, which I will leave for the time being as per Sarah's suggestion. If there are any other issues preventing you from supporting this nomination please don't hesitate to mention them. Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I just rewrote the lead. It now has much more focus on the actual character and less unnecessary details about the individual games/films. Feel free to update the third paragraph if the reception section changes significantly. Also, I recommend using the lead as an example if you want to rewrite some paragraphs in the body; I still think that the prose in the body can be improved.

Another small thing I spotted: Are you sure that the quote "made a new design that retained their signature color—green for Chris, blue for Jill—to carry over the same look from the past" refers to her purple catsuit? I don't have access to the source, but I think it clearly refers to her BSAA outfit. If so, the description of her catsuit needs to be removed as it feels out of place.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: I'm very happy with that rewrite; thank you.

The source in questions doesn't explicitly say which outfit it's referring to. I'll remove the description of the catsuit; for the record I think its shade is somewhere between blue an purple, but it's not really important. Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More information

There is more information about what happened to the character after she was officially declared dead in RE5; Wesker actually saved her and then used her as a test subject for his experiments. See RE5's Unlockable Files. I think this should be noted because it explains why she was under Wesker's control. You can use the generic RE5 ref to cite these unlockable in-game files. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Sorry, forgot to ping you about the above. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: Thanks for finding this. I've added a sentence to the paragraph in question. Let me know if you think it needs more. The information about Jill being infected and cured in previous games has already been removed for the sake of brevity so going into any detail about Jill's antibodies from this experience would require me adding said information back, and I don't think any of that information is necessary to understanding the overall situation.

I've recently finished reading through more academic sources and have added everything I think is relevant. There were two things I had mixed feelings about adding to the article. The first is from this source: [7], which is already used in the article.

Japanese marketing material for the first RE game explains that Jill’s father is French and her mother is a member of the Japanese diaspora (nikkei).1 In Japanese paratexts, Jill’s Japanese heritage is mentioned a handful of times in official material and is occasionally mentioned in fan discussions (e.g., fmv_masan, 2011). This has made it into the English language fandom in forum posts and fan-made wikis, and the veracity of the claim that Jill is half-Japanese is debated, with fans citing the original Japanese material.

Do you think it is worth mentioning that Jill's ethnic heritage is seldom mentioned and is debated by fans?

Said source also states:

It might be added that both Madeline [character in a non RE film] and Jill are unique in their fictional worlds in being the only characters to recover from the zombie state.

This source: [8], not currently used in the article, says something similar:

Jill‘s reappearance is significant since she is the only character that is restored from the controlling parasite, and does not need to be killed.

As noted above, mention of Jill's infection and cure has already been removed from the biography of sorts. Do you think it is worth adding back just so we can add mention that she is (according to these sources, I can't remember if anyone else has been) the only character in the entire series to be cured? Freikorp (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That source and issue were pointed out by Victoria, and I mentioned it during FAC 2:

"Victoriaearle left a note on my talk, having seen this FAC, with a source, Thinking Dead: What the Zombie Apocalypse Means. In it, Hanli Geyser argues (p. 72) that Jill is the only player in the game to be restored from the parasite without having to be killed, and she is not held accountable for her actions while infected because she's a Western woman and therefore assumed to be generically good. The argument is that this is racist compared to the way the others are treated."

SarahSV ^(talk) 04:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Race, Colonial History and National Identity" source, listed above, quotes the Geyser source. This is the full response to Geyser's statement:

It might be added that both Madeleine and Jill are unique in their fictional worlds in being the only characters to recover from the zombie state. Jill, when she recovers, also claims that a part of her was aware throughout and struggled against the infection even as she was battling Chris and Sheva. But where does Jill’s “generic goodness” come from and what is the significance of her ability to control zombification? Geyser and Tshabalala’s (2011) focus on Madeleine’s Westernness suggests a similar explanation of Jill’s survival: Jill’s ability to resist this virus elevates her above the Africans who are unable to battle the viruses that infect them and who all lose control when infected. She, as a White woman, remains in control of herself. This could be read as the expression of an essentialist notion of identity, where the real (White) Jill is, at base, incorruptible. One problem with this reading is that other White, Western characters in the game, for example, the villains Excella Gionne and Ricardo Irving, do succumb to the virus when infected. Jill’s ability to control the virus is seen as an aspect of her mental fortitude, while other White characters’ inability to do so is down to their “unworthiness”—a term used throughout the game.

Geyser's opinion that Jill's survival is based solely on race is contested. Accordingly, I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting Geyser without quoting this response as well. I'd be happy to quote both though of that would address concerns regarding a lack of academic coverage. What would you like me to do, considering both sources? Freikorp (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Yes, I think it's worth mentioning that Jill's ethnic heritage is questionable, especially because none of the video games describe her ethnicity at all. I'm not sure whether we should include the fact that Jill is the only RE character who survived an infection, though. Are those secondary sources actually reliable? --Niwi3 (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: I've added a sentence to 'Design and portrayal' regarding the ethnicity, let me know if you think this would be better located in critical analysis, and as always feel free to reword it if you think it can be done better. After reading the other secondary sources in question I did notice a few factual inaccuracies about the games. For example, Geyser gets the time-frame wrong regarding when Valentine is supposedly killed. As Martin notes above, Geyser assessment that Valentine survives based purely on her race is a flawed argument, though he also mistakenly credits Wesker as being Umbrella's CEO. Nevertheless I'd be surprised if the sources weren't considered to meet WP:RS. That being said, I don't feel the need to include any information regarding Valentine being the only character to survive infection. What do you think about what Sarah brought up, regarding race? Keeping in mind Martin's comments on that particular interpretation. Freikorp (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to read both papers carefully to decide how or whether to write this, and I don't have time at the moment. If the source is wrong about key facts, or if the facts are ambiguous, I'd say leave it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, both sources are interpretations by editors who are not very familiar with the series. The mere fact that they showed factual inaccuracies about the games makes their interpretations unreliable. I'd leave them out. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate costumes

@Freikorp: I think the paragraph about the alternate costumes can be simplified; we should only included outfits that were discussed by secondary sources, otherwise it looks like fancruft to me. What's the point of mentioning the fact that players can unlock her STARS uniform in RE3? Also, her BSAA uniform in Revelations is featured in the story mode, so it's not exactly an alternate outfit. I would simply keep her Sarah Connor, RE3-REmake, and pirate outfits because they add context to Sarkeesian's criticism. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: Done. The only reason I mentioned the STARS uniform in RE3 was because that's now been selected as the infobox image, but now I've just added the inline citation up there instead. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the current infobox image is better than the previous one, it portrays the character in a non-notable alternate outfit. Personally, I would have selected one where she wears her military outfit from the 2002 remake, which is more iconic. Not a big issue, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Lay article

Our article still doesn't summarize this source well. We say: "Writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research, Samantha Lay said that Valentine lacked depth as a character in the original game, though argued that characters in games do not require depth as players form a connection with them by controlling their avatars."

Samantha Lay is writing about the difference between playing the games and watching the films:

Apathy towards the characters [in the film] was another discourse identified in the gamers’ posts that might be attributed to an experiential divide between game play and film viewing. 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’. From where does this depth come? I would suggest from the player and their relationship to the avatar in the game world. This discourse argues that the characters in the film are bland, boring, ‘paper-thin’.
But more than this, some gamers do not care about them. It is not unusual for viewers of films to feel nothing for film characters, but viewers who are more used to being players seem to expect to care. After all, if they did not care for their avatar, they would ‘die’ thus being prohibited from progressing, and ultimately rejected by the game. The game player, as Juul suggests, is both inside and outside the text and I argue that this discourse reflects that. Avatars are depthless archetypes and the avatars of Resident Evil are certainly no different. Anderson made the decision to base the prequel’s characters on archetypes drawn from the game.
For the gamers who articulated this discourse, clearly, Anderson had failed. Game avatars do not require in-depth characterisation as players bring themselves to the avatar. Film characters do require more depth of characterisation, their motivations need to be established and they need to be situated in relation to other characters. The archetypes in the film adaptation were neither fish nor fowl and for some this rendered them useless.

Lay doesn't single Valentine out as lacking depth. She says that all game characters lack depth ("Avatars are depthless archetypes and the avatars of Resident Evil are certainly no different"), and that the player forms an emotional connection during a game that is absent when the player is watching a film. Any "depth" depends on that relationship. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: OK. I only added the source in the first place because you were opposing due to a lack of coverage from academic sources. I've been trying to milk everything out of every academic source that I can in order to address your concern. I asked you on several occasions at the last FAC to tell me how you would want this rewritten to allow it to remain in the article. I'm going to ask you again now. I previously just used the source to say Lay argued the character didn't have much depth, however, someone (don't remember who) said I needed to put that allegation into context. How it's currently written is the best my skills as a writer will allow me to put it into context. I cannot do any better than that. I can't. I've really tried, and I just can't. Which of these four options would you prefer:

Reverting back to saying she has no depth without context?
Removing the source entirely?
Rewording it yourself?
Adding some context using a different source? The only one source I can think of that blends with this is the one that you already removed. "One of the few personal details given about Jill in the original game is her ethnicity being half-French, half-Japanese; in 1996, Computer and Video Games said this detail "doesn't explain a thing really." Would you like me to add this back, minus the part at the end where they go on to say that "maybe we're all supposed to fancy her"?

I'm trying really hard to address your concerns about this source. Please tell me what you want. Freikorp (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't single Valentine out as lacking depth any more than any other character. I pointed that out on 25 September during FAC2. If it were up to me, I wouldn't use that source. If you want to use it, please summarize it accurately and find a way to make it relevant. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll remove it then. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to remove the other source you've hidden as well? The source unfortunately does not give any context about why she's a "generic character" either, so I can't expand the sentence. Again, I only added this to address a possible concern regarding lack of academic sources. I'd rather it wasn't in the article, since there's no context. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove them both. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite late to this discussion, so hopefully I can offer a neutral point of view. After looking over the Samantha Lay piece, including rereading the segments mentioning Jill, and after thinking it over and over, I would omit it altogether. It's an overlong piece that goes into excessive length about what is pretty much a foregone conclusion: Projecting video game characters onto the movie screen means sacrificing a good portion of their in-game depth (and duly drawing the ire of gamers), because VG films often need to be "dumbed down" in order to attract casual audiences. Plus, while I like the author's concept of characters being the "avatar" of gamers, the RE characters are sparsely mentioned therein and as a result I don't think it's possible to feasibly expand on Jill in this regard. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I've removed both sources. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruberg

I can't find where Bonnie Ruberg calls her "among the least sexualised female characters". SarahSV ^(talk) 05:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't state that, and accordingly it's not in quotes. That's my one sentence summary of page one of her article [9], or specifically, the first and last paragraph. I am very happy to hear alternate wording; I was trying to be succinct. Freikorp (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't state or imply it anywhere that I can see. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I ask why you keep removing "Jenny Platz cites Jill as an example of women in Resident Evil who are desexualized"? In an article that now focuses heavily on Valentine's over-sexualisation in a negative context, I think an opinion that specifically says she is "desexualized" would be of interest to the reader. Freikorp (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence already says that. The uniform masculinized her. No need to say the same thing several times in different ways. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that makes sense. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harper

This needs to be rewritten. It's not easy to work out what's meant exactly.

Harper comments on how Valentine's relationship with the main character, Alice, differs from interactions between male characters in film, noting the lack of camaraderie and co-operation between the two, and states that unlike male characters in the films, both Valentine and Alice are independently portrayed as showing "protective and nurturing" parental roles.

"[D]iffers from interactions between male characters in film": between male characters in film generally, or between the male characters in this film/these films (all of them)? That is then repeated in the next sentence. What does "independently portrayed" mean? Can you fill out what is meant about the "protective and nurturing" parental roles? It doesn't mean anything for people not familiar with the films. Also, Valentine surname but Alice first name. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "independently portrayed" I mean they are not portrayed as being nurturing together as a cooperative effort. Valentine and Alice are separated during almost all of the film, though the film shows each character acting out traditional 'motherly' roles. The script writer apparently thinks women should all be nurturing, even if they are fighters.
Alice (Resident Evil) doesn't have a surname. She's a clone who is only ever referred to by her first name.
Re protective and nurturing: The source states "The protective and nurturing relationship between [Valentine and Alice] and Angie Ashford (a young girl) ...", and also states "Indeed, like so many "kick ass" heroines in contemporary action cinema, Alice and Jill, unlike the male characters in the film, adopt a parental role."
Re difference between males: The source states "there is even less camaraderie between [Valentine and Alice] in the sequel than [between the two lead females in the first film] ... This is consistent with Yvonne Tasker’s observation that 'though the elaborate description of sentimental, homoerotic relationships between men is commonplace in the popular cinema, the successful female partnerships of Thelma and Louise or the television police duo Cagney and Lacey, for example, have generated in their wake no new wave of female buddy movies or television' ... Tasker’s observation generally holds true. Certainly, Alice and Jill remain more or less separate throughout the course of Apocalypse. Even in those scenes in which both characters are present, there is no banter or bonding, and little co-operation between them."

Does this clarify anything? Freikorp (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the information. Let me know if there are any outstanding concerns regarding it. Freikorp (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical analysis

I've copy edited this section to try to improve the flow. I removed some repetition, "me too" sources, and poor sources. I've made Lay and Geyser invisible, but didn't remove them. I did remove the article by the undergraduate freshman. I moved Harper back up to be next to Sarkeesian, because they're discussing the same issue. I also introduced Sarkeesian and "male gaze" with a mention from Trépanier-Jobin and Bonenfant (it's unfortunate that their names are such a mouthful re: attribution).

In case it helps, there's an article here on the paragraph (one paragraph = one idea) and how to make things smoother. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the removal of the "desexualised" quote as mentioned above, I'm happy with these changes. At the last FAC one of your reasons for opposing was "Sources are almost certainly missing, because just about every academic source in the article was found by a reviewer after a quick search."

It is true I didn't look for academic sources prior to the first nomination. I looked at other featured articles for video game character articles prior to nomination and did not see any coverage from academic sources there; my only crime is adhering to the accepted standard, though I do accept that the standards need to be raised for video game related articles. Let's look at the results when searching for "jill valentine" combined with "resident evil" on google scholar. [10]

Of the first 30 hits, 12 are either screenplays or citations, seven are currently used in the article, while an additional three were hidden/removed by you (that's fine). Three only mention Jill in passing: [11][12][13], one is in Turkish: [14] and two are behind paywalls that even my university doesn't have access to: [15][16]. Furthermore they don't mention Valentine in their previews, so it's quite possible they only mention her in passing as well. Of the remaining two, one goes on a bit of a tangent: [17] It talks about issues of race in the game Resident Evil 5. It doesn't accuse Valentine of anything racist, or anythign at all really, it basically just says that Chris Redfield treats his black partner as a pack mule, though considers Valentine to be "the white woman that ought to be on his side". I don't see anything salvageable from this, and anything that could be salvaged from it belongs at the article for the game. The remaining source is a little more interesting; [18] I'll try and harvest something from it later.

Do you still think sources are certainly missing? More specifically, would you oppose over a lack of academic sources being searched through? Freikorp (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether sources are missing. If I were writing this, I would start by emailing the best academic sources on Jill Valentine and/or women in games, and I would ask them for recommmendations, explaining what I'd found already. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've tried to cram everything in without understanding it, and without signalling to which time period it applies. Some sources have been misunderstood, or summarized poorly, or important aspects have been left out. I think you need to read all the academic sources carefully (read the whole articles, not just the bits about Valentine), so that you have a good understanding of (a) what they say and the context within which they're writing; and also (b) whether they belong in the article, or whether they are making unclear points or points that the article already makes. Mining the sources doesn't necessarily mean including every single thing. Then make sure you say when the author was writing. Something written about the character in 2000 might not apply to its 2012 version. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novels, page numbers

"Valentine appears in the corresponding novelisations of the films and games she features in" is supported by Perry 2012a and Shirley 2012a, both books, with no page numbers.
"and also plays a supporting character in the original novel Resident Evil: Caliban Cove" is supported by Perry 2012b, also a book, pp. 14–54. That needs a page number rather than range.

Ditto with any other book reference, or article spread over several pages such as Ruberg. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary sources. Valentine's first appearance in Caliban cove is on page 14, and her last appearance is on page 51. I suppose that leaves us with three choices:

Cite the entire book itself
Cite the range of pages she appears in
Cite her first appearance only

Which one of these options would you prefer? I have absolutely no preference, and will apply whichever choice you make to all three sources. Freikorp (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. If the material is on page 14 and page 51, write pp. 14, 51. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. These are the novels themselves. Then yes, you don't need page numbers. I'm still not sure what is meant by pp. 14–54. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to say that's the complete range of pages the character appears in. I'll remove it. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate my last point above. We need page numbers (not ranges) for sources such as Ruberg that are spread out over several pages. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed you saying that above. I've never been told to do that before. So basically just add the page number to the website reference, like this: [19]? Freikorp (talk)

Only if that's the only time you use that source. Otherwise I would use short refs, or you can use long refs and {{rp}}, but that's messy looking. And again, not only Ruberg, but any source where the reader will have to hunt for a page number. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I've got all the page numbers now. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few things in no particular order:

I agree that the writing remains choppy and it won't be fixed by the GOCE.
The virus is introduced without explaining the relevance.

Relevance was removed by editors who said the article didn't need to focus on all the name's of the fictional viruses (there are several). I don't disagree with this decision. I've since added some brief clarification that it is a mutagenic virus. The entire series revolves around a mutagenic virus being released somewhere new and the 'heroes' going to eradicate the problem. Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward: "Julia Voth cosplayed the character and stated intentions to appear as her at fan conventions." And what does that have to do with legacy?

I think it says something about the character's popularity. I can move the mention to the images caption if you really think this is a problem. Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward: "Wesker, who quickly overpowers them and whom Valentine tackles into the ocean ..." Tackles into the ocean?

I've clarified that she tackles him through a window into the ocean. If you want, we can further clarify that the window is in a mansion that is positioned on the edge of a cliff. Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You placed another clarification tag on this sentence. I'm not sure what still needs clarification. If you're still confused about this, you can watch the scene here on YouTube: [20]. The event occurs at around 2:10s. Feel free to reword it anyway you like. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When questioned on how he chose to portray women": why not say "when asked how"? Ditto with other awkward constructions: use the simplest.

You've already made this change yourself; why are you mentioning things that have already been fixed? Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On good faith, I'd assume that part of the review process (in addition to improving the article) is the opportunity to learn new constructions from each other. Heaven knows I've picked up more of what I know about writing from FAC than I did from college czar 17:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are still examples of "as" instead of "because" e.g. "He later stated that Valentine became the protagonist of Resident Evil 3 as they could not use ..", and why "stated"? Try "he explained"?

As above; you've fixed this yourself. Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead refers to her appearance in two out of three paragraphs.

I'm happy with the rewrite by Niwi3. No I'm not trying to blame others. When somebody criticises a piece of writing that isn't mine it's just commonsense to point out who wrote it. Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Design and Cultural impact sections discuss her appearance in great detail. Since these two sections are a big part of the article, I find it hard not to refer to her appearance in two of the lead paragraphs. If you think it's really an issue, maybe we can try to simplify and combine them into one? Happy to hear more suggestions. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niwi3, it would be good if it could be combined into one paragraph, but I can't see how to do that without messing up the flow. I'll try to give it some thought. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the source say that supports this? "Her costume was also redesigned; retaining her signature blue colour it blended marine influences with her classic outfit from the original game."

The source says "Jill's costume in Resident Evil Revelations blended marine influences with her classic outfit from the original game." When you see the picture above the text, you can clearly see where they are coming from. The other page cited says "I used blue, her signature colour, as an accent on her suit." Since you've also requested what the source below it says regarding removing tactical gear to see her figure, it says "At the beginning of the game, Jill is wearing diving equipment, including BCD (buoyancy control device). I thought the gear had interesting details, but because the team wanted to show her bodyline, it was changed to one that only had straps." Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV ^(talk) 15:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unhappy when you recently really expanded an Sarkeesian's arguments; I was previous very happy with how Czar summarised her concerns. I now believe you haven given her argument undue weight. I want to revert back to Czar's version. I'm now also extremely upset by this edit [21]. Personally I don't see what is unclear, but if something is "slightly" unclear, you can request clarification or reword it yourself. I've read some of your articles. You're clearly a skilled writer. However I'm going to stand by something I've said all along. You're edits regarding sexuality are not being made by FAC standards, rather they're by your own set of standards of what you think is problematic. Your comments above regarding how nice it would be to see a lead about a women that that doesn't mention her appearance makes this clear. Appearance shouldn't be mentioned for all people, but if sex appeal forms a large part of why a person is popular, regardless of what gender the person is, this should be mentioned. I'd be really interested to see what the article for Marilyn Monroe would end up looking like if you rewrote it yourself to how you think she should be remembered. Anyway looking at your edits I can't help but think you're trying to expand on anything that says Valentine has been over-sexualised and are trying to ditch anything that says she hasn't been. Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible (and most interesting) to write about both JV's sexualization in the gaming press and the academic reaction to it. The problem, in the few sources I've perused, is that JV is often not the prolonged subject of commentary, so it's harder to lift a narrative directly from a single secondary source and instead you're stuck with making a paragraph flow from a bunch of disparate sources. (Re: Marilyn Monroe, the sources already do that heavy lifting.) The smartest way to play it, I think, is to not take passing mentions as declarative truth statements but instead to play the mentions off each other (e.g., the gaming press's representation of JV vs. how academics have responded to those specific characteristics; the dev's character design goals vs. what commentators have said about the effects of the character's design). czar 17:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the above yet. This is responding to one point only, something that has happened throughout the reviews. When I mention a problem, it's usually as an example only. Therefore, please don't say "but you've fixed it; why mention it?" Note: "Ditto with other awkward constructions: use the simplest."

To improve the writing, please remove awkward constructions (e.g. "It was chosen due to the game being set at sea"). Fix the awkward uses of "as". Try to avoid "in order", which is almost never needed. When you use the construction "The Guardian's Kate Gray", make sure that Kate Gray works for The Guardian. Use simple language wherever possible. Make sure that every single word has a function (see Redundancy (linguistics)). For example, her "facial appearance" was modelled on": why not "her face"? "Their new designs retained the character's signature colours" = "they retained"; "making their costumes sexualised" = "sexualising their costumes".

Example: GamesRadar's David Meikleham noted the ongoing changes to the character's appearance over the course of the series, saying in 2010 that Valentine was so frequently redesigned it was "getting ridiculous". = GamesRadar's David Meikleham wrote in 2010 that she had been redesigned so often it was "getting ridiculous".

Avoid clichés and PR-speak ("the storyline's dark themes"; "blended marine influences"). Don't say the same thing twice in one sentence or one paragraph. Don't quote unnecessarily or quote different people saying the same thing. Remove unnecessary in-text attribution. Stick to one paragraph = one idea or one aspect of an idea. Try to make each sentence flow into the next. Fix anything that a reader might have to read twice.

It's often a good idea to print out an article. That will give you some critical distance, as will taking a week off when you don't even look at it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm well aware I can't copyedit at FAC level. It's why I nominated every article at GOCE prior to FAC nomination. It's really my weak suit. I'm quite pleased with the overwhelming majority of your changes, but you're fixing things I never would have picked up on by myself. If you give me explicit instructions (such as get rid of every use of "in order", which incidentally has already been done now, thanks) I can work with that. Saying things like "please remove awkward constructions" isn't helpful. No I'm not saying you're being unhelpful, I'm saying I'm not good at interpreting what is and isn't awkward. I'll give it a go, but I'm absolutely certain I can't improve the prose to your very high standards by myself. Freikorp (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only you who has these problems, and they're caused in part by reading the article so much and by the citations. I have the same issues. I've several times prepared drafts of articles that I'm completely satisfied with, only to read them two weeks later and be horrified by the mistakes that jump off the page at me. The difficulty with my trying to be more explicit in this case is that it's very time-consuming, and often I don't know what the source said and therefore can't recommend how best to express it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mikami said that Valentine was not used in Resident Evil 2 (1998) because they believed the game would be more terrifying ..." I asked what "they" refers to? You changed it to "it was believed ..." By whom? What does the source say?

What the source says is readily available by clicking on the reference, but I've added a full quote to the citation for further clarification. As I explained earlier he just says "We" as in "We wanted to create". It's very clear that he's referring to the production team, but I've reworded this again to address your concern. Freikorp (talk)

Re: your points above, please focus on fixing the writing for now, so that the article complies with FACR 1(a): "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Once that is done, we can revisit whether something is UNDUE, or whether something removed as redundant should be restored. But for now, please get in place a well-written article. I think you've made the mistake of supposing the writing can be improved during a final, minor copy-edit. But this needs more than a final polish. Having said that, it is getting better. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tightened Sarkeesian and some other aspects of that paragraph. One of the difficulties is that the addition of archive links to all the citation templates means there's a lot of clutter in edit mode. That makes it harder to produce prose that flows well. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enterbrain 2002

There have been a few issues with this source: 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.

For example, the article says: "it blended marine influences with her original outfit from the first game". You say above that the source says: "[it] blended marine influences with her classic outfit from the original game". Copying what the source says word-for-word, or very close paraphrasing, is plagiarism, even if translated. But given that the source is in Japanese, you should supply the sentence in Japanese too. See WP:NOENG (part of WP:V): "... if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, "marine influences" isn't Enterbrain; it's Resident Evil Revelations: Official Complete Works. In that case, the only issue is copying word-for-word. You need either to add in-text attribution or better still (because it's PR-speak) reword it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)]][reply]

I've tried my best to reword it. Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic "marine influences" remains. Which costume does it refer to? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image: [22] As you can see, it clearly looks like a wetsuit. Also just out of shot is a knife strapped to her lower leg, which speaking from experience is something scuba divers normally do. I suppose that's the extent of the 'marine influences' once she takes off her breathing apparatus. Freikorp (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you during FAC 2 to "say where you read it" for Enterbrain. You have to cite the English source you actually used. See my post of 01:07, 26 September, and WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, which is part of WP:CITE. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I specifically replied that I don't need to say it where I read it because I read it in the book itself. I have Japanese reading skills. I'll add the translation I personally verified back. Freikorp (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source of the English translation. The sections in question appear in this article almost word for word, including the punctuation problems and American spelling. You normally use Australian spelling. Therefore that source needs to be cited, which is more helpful to the reader anyway because it gives the full interview in English. I would write the long citation as:

"Characters and New Enemies", Morbid Creations, survivhor.biohazardfrance.net, citing Biohazard Official Navigation Book (in Japanese), Tokyo: Enterbrain, 2002. {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

SarahSV ^(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, I didn't write the translation. I didn't see the point since someone else had already done it for me. I just followed through with my book and verified that are in fact talking about the same issues. But OK, if that's how you want it cited I'm not too fussed. My only issue is the fact the translation isn't RS in itself (hence why I went out of my way to verify it) so I wouldn't be surprised if someone challenges it at FAC. But I'll change it now to address your concern and deal with that potential fallout later. Just to clarify, I should still leave the original book in the bibliography? Freikorp (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I were writing it, I would put the long ref (as written above) in the bibliography instead of the current Enterbrain one, and use a short ref throughout. Not Enterbrain 2002, but Biohazard Official Navigation Book 2002. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer to highlight the book in the long citation, you could write it this way:

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. Cited in Morbid Creations, survivhor.biohazardfrance.net. Retrieved 1 November 2017.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've added File:Shinji Mikami, 11 April 2013.jpg to the "Design and portrayal" section. If that's felt to be too much (there is already an image in that section), perhaps it could be moved to the "Video game series" section. Or removed entirely if you're not keen on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fussed either way. Freikorp (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, I removed the image with the cleavage. I don't mind if you don't want the other one, but the reason I added it was to have an image of Chris Redfield, and that was the least-bad free one I could find. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this comment until now; I'm finding it very hard to keep track of both the changes in the article and the comments here. I don't have a problem with this image you added per se, I just think since we already have two images of her in her STARS uniform we can find one that gives the reader a better understanding of the subject. We have a commentator in the article saying the Jill underwent so many redesigns it was ridiculous. Examples of redesigns will improve the article. Removing an image on the justification that the subject has cleavage is a form of censorship. I strongly oppose censorship. Freikorp (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in critical analysis

The section cites the following in-text:

Academics Sara Grimes, Gabrielle Trépanier-Jobin and Maude Bonenfant, Stephen Harper, Bonnie Ruberg
Staff or video-game journalists in high-quality publications: Keith Stuart, Kate Gray
Otherwise notable: Anita Sarkeesian, Paul W. S. Anderson
Jenny Platz, who wrote an essay for a book about Resident Evil.

Do we need to retain Lara Crigger? Her point (as written; currently a quotation) isn't that clear. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I'm confused, because how it's currently written is your rewrite [23]. I'm trying to assume good faith, but you've taken the time to completely reword this and now you seem to be complaining that your own rewrite is unclear? What's going on here? Anyway, I thought the previous wording was clear: "Lara Crigger argued that the series produces women who are not judged based on their gender; Crigger called Valentine a "competent, clever and professional" soldier." What part of this is unclear? But even as you've reworded it I don't see what's unclear about it all. It seems incredibly straight forward to me. I mean, if you don't like the way you've chosen to reword it, feel free to give it another go. Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got a bit defensive before because this article focuses so heavily on Jill being oversexualised, and your edits literally removed half of the counter argument to this. We have a good dozen sources saying she's been oversexualised. That's fine, I don't actually disagree with most of them; she has been created from a male gaze. I get it. Because this article has so much coverage from this angle, I think if a high-quality source disagrees with this overall assessment, it's incredibly relevant to include this information. I'd feel the same about this regarding critical reception on any issue. Freikorp (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed her and you restored her. I therefore quoted rather than trying to paraphrase. What does "not judged based on their gender" mean? The article said (this or an earlier version) that the character was made deliberately slower and weaker (writing from memory), and she's given a miniskirt, unlike Chris Redfield, so I'm having difficulty paraphrasing a source that seems to be saying she's judged the way the men are?

Another point is that it's not clear who Lara Crigger is. I can find background for the others, but not for her.

One thing that would help is if you could stop focusing on who wrote something. If I say something is unclear, and you find that I wrote it, it means that I have tried to make the best of it, but it's not good enough. If I say that I don't like that her appearance spans two paragraphs of the lead, it doesn't matter who did it. It spans two paragraphs regardless of who the author was. Even if I was the author myself, I could come back and say "I don't think this works." Repeatedly countering with "but he or she did it" just makes everything take longer than it needs to. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember during the first FAC you seemed to be under the impression Valentine was made weaker in ever regard. I can't remember if the article at the time was focused more on her weaknesses than her strengths, and don't feel the need to go digging, but I can assure you she is not weaker overall. Yes she's slower and she is capable of taking less physical attacks (which is hardly surprising and can hardly be considered sexist due to the fact that she's a slender woman and the other player is a muscular man (and yes, the fact that such a slender woman apparently made it through Delta Force training is of course an issue as one of the sources indicates, but let's not get too sidetracked)) but she is given far more strengths to compensate for this. As the sources indicate, it is unanimously agreed among video game publications that it easier to complete the game with Valentine due to her skills and intelligence (I can assure you the fact Valentine can pick locks is far more handy than her male counterpart being able to run away faster). To be honest I'm actually surprised no academic type has commented on the fact the game literally lets you play as a woman if you want it to be easier though you can play as a man if you want more of a challenge. Anyway moving along, well yes she appears in a miniskirt in one game, though she appears dressed more modestly in others. You could argue Crigger is ignoring parts of the series where Valentine's gender clearly comes into play, but you could also argue Sarkeesian is ignoring things as well. I've played the games, so when I read the academic sources I can see a lot of holes in the arguments of scholarly types who are clearly not subject matter experts. For example as mentioned earlier one academic source says that Valentine only survives the infection because she is white, though even another academic source said that this is factually inaccurate. Sarkeesian says that only female characters in the series are being undervalued by revealing clothing. Here are some images of the alternate costume for men in the same game's that Sarkeesian cites, which she makes no mention of: [24][25]. I don't feel the need to point out where other people commenting on Valentine's sexuality are incorrect or are conveniently ignoring information, because it isn't important. Sarkeesian's opinions are notable because she is notable, even if she's ignoring information to support her viewpoint (no I don't want to start a debate on whether she is or not, I believe most of her points are valid, but she's probably blinded to certain things because she's viewing the world through a feminist gaze, just like I'm blinded to certain things because I only see the world as a heterosexual man). By that same token, I don't care if you think Crigger's assessment is incorrect. It doesn't matter if her assessment is incorrect. This article should be an accurate reflection of how high-quality sources perceive the character, sources should only be ignored if they are factually inaccurate. You can disagree with Crigger and I can genuinely see merit in your logic, but Crigger isn't factually inaccurate, her assessment is just debatable, as are many of the other opinions. For example, even though she's wearing a miniskirt, Valentine is still able to kill this guy for Christ sake. The developers have treated Valentine as eye candy, but they haven't made her less competent because she's a woman.

The source goes into detail about how women are "not judged based on their gender", I just didn't want to give Crigger more weight than she deserves. I was completely happy with my original summary, that she considers Valentine to be less among the least sexualised characters in gaming. Would you be happy to revert back to that? If not, I can expand on Crigger's viewpoints, but I'd prefer to be as succinct as possible.

Crigger has been published by a high-quality source; isn't that enough? No I'm not being confrontational, that's an honest question. I mean, if Time magazine published an article by X, the fact that we can't find any background information on X seems irrelevant. They've been published in a high-quality source. The Escapist isn't exactly Time magazine, but it isn't exactly the kind of source that only barely scrapes through WP:RS either. It's a good source.

OK, I'll try and stop focusing on who wrote certain things. Freikorp (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that. I appreciate it. The Escapist is an RS, yes, but I would not say high quality. So that makes me want to know who the writer is, and I can't find that out. A second issue, therefore, is whether what she says is worth including. When I find (a) a writer of unclear provenance and (b) a less-than-clear point, then I'd prefer to remove it. I haven't removed the Guardian, even though what he writes isn't really correct. Even at her most militaristic, she isn't what a female counter-terrorist agent would look like or dress like.

Having said that, as you clearly want to keep Crigger, that's fine by me; also fine if you revert to a version of that sentence you prefer.

I have to mention the costumes for men in passing. Dressing men up in absurd costumes is not the same as doing it to women. Best avoided, yes, but it doesn't have the same baggage. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair comment, regarding dressing men absurdly. I get what you're saying. And I agree the comments in The Guardian aren't entirely accurate. However, as a gamer, I can assure you that Valentine is considerably less sexualised than a lot of female characters, especially around the time she was created. This is the reason I'm defensive about removing any comments that say this. It's a shame that the standards for depictions of women in gaming are so low that Valentine is considered significantly above average, but the fact remains that the standards are so low that she is recognised as such. Credit should be given where credit is due. The article is a lot better thanks to what I can only describe as your exceedingly harsh review, but there are so many horrendously shameless depictions of women in gaming that I can't help but feel annoyed that it was the garden variety sexism (relatively speaking) in this article that got singled out to try and turn the tide. I firmly believe this is now, by far, the best article Wikipedia has on a female video game character. The fact that Cortana (Halo) has a shiny star in the corner and this article does not infuriates me to no end. Anyway I'll stand by some of the comments I've made regarding your edits, but I hope it pleases you to know that thanks to your input I'm now looking at articles about women in a completely different light. I recently blew up Sheva Alomar and rewrote it, successfully nominating it for GA. I have no intention to take it to featured status, mainly because there's not enough coverage of her. Here's what the looked like before my first edit: [26]. Notice the collection of lists pretty much saying she has nice breasts. Notice the complete lack of academic coverage. I've fixed both of these issues now. We're products of the environments we were raised in. I get why you said I was sexist, but it was still hurtful to hear because that was never my intention. I grew up in a culture and age where images like the one featured in the infobox for Cammy (this is her iconic look throughout the entire Street Fighter series btw) were just how we depicted women. Valentine, by comparison, is still dressed modestly even when she's in her miniskirt. Freikorp (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider The Escapist a low-quality source, in general:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#The Escapist czar 17:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, thanks for that information. Perhaps we should check the uses of The Escapist in this article.

The articles from The Escapist we use were published in 2005 and 2007. Reading through the four discussions regarding the source's quality at WikiProject Video games/Sources they all seem concerned with standards from 2014 onward. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, two points. First, re: "garden variety sexism (relatively speaking) in this article", when I first read it, it made me want to burst into tears. However, what you wrote above: "I'm now looking at articles about women in a completely different light" makes me want to cry too, but this time in a good way. Thank you for saying that and for changing Sheva Alomar.

I've made some changes to the article. I removed some of the headers I'd added because the sections were too short. I added her name in Japanese to the first sentence; some text to the infobox; the Resident Evil logo; a cosplaying image of Redfield and Valentine (please remove if it's lame); and an image of Anita Sarkeesian. My aim was to break up the wall of text, and there are very few free images to choose from.

I added an overview section saying when she first appeared, using the information you posted below about which games she featured in, and some information about the first actor who played Valentine (see "Actors"). I moved the miniskirt image into the Resident Evil 3 section; moved the director's image to "Design and portrayal"; and moved Sarkeesian's criticism of the alternate costumes into "Alternate costumes".

Thank you for adding the loyalty quote, which helped me to find a full version of the Brock article. I used it to add "Media scholar André Brock writes that Resident Evil protagonists 'have always moved awkwardly through the game world'. The characters can only rotate when fighting; they cannot move to the left, right, up or down, which means they have to fight or run." But have I understood and summarized it accurately? Source here, p. 434: "RE protagonists have always moved awkwardly through the game world. When the character must engage in combat, the game prohibits planar movement and only allows the character to rotate. Thus, the character must either fight or flee."

Also lots of copy editing. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with your copy edits and reorganisaiton. Thank you. Also just wanted to say I'm sorry the garden variety comment upset you, that wasn't my intention. Freikorp (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Games she appears in

Freikorp, could you list here which games she appears in, and what year those games were released? It isn't clear from the article (at least, not to me), and that's making it hard to copy edit. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally both the release dates and the years the game is set in appeared in the 'Appearances' section, but somewhere along the line I got told to remove this. Anyway, the canon games she appears in:

Resident Evil (1996 video game), released in 1996, set in 1998
Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, released in 1999, set two months after the events of the first game
Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, released in 2007, the chapter Valentine appears in is set in 2003
Resident Evil: Revelations, released in 2012, set in 2005
Resident Evil: Lost in Nightmares (Resident Evil 5 downloadable content), released in 2010, set in 2006
Resident Evil 5, released in 2009, set in 2009

This information can all be cited to page 2 of the book by Thom Denick, currently used in the bibliography. Hope this helps. Freikorp (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very helpful. What about Resident Evil (2002 video game)? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's literally just a remake of the 1996 game. So in the gaming world that basically means the original game was so popular that there was enough demand to remake it using updated graphics so it looks nicer and is more enjoyable to play. It's the same game (it does contain minor changes to game-play, but it has the same overall plot). In 2015 they released a High-Definition version of the 2002 remake, which again just means they made the graphics sharper in order to sell more copies. Freikorp (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, this has helped a lot. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added section headers for the main games. Is it too much? I was thinking it made it easier to read and edit. Feel free to revert. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the list of games she appears in. Could someone check it please for accuracy? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty cool. Thanks for putting the effort in. It looks accurate, but I have two concerns. What was your source that Jill appeared in 'Resident Evil Outbreak Survive'? According to this non RS source [27], this little known title was actually a card game. Don't ask me how that works. Also should we mention games that are so little known we can't even find an RS source to support their existence? Also I'm not sure if we should mention the Director's Cut for the first game. There are actually eight versions of the original resident evil game [28] and many other games also have multiple versions. For example, 'Resident Evil 5' sold 7.2 million copies and 'Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition' sold an additional 2.3 million units. Valentine naturally appears in both, as one is basically just the same game with some bells and whistles attached. Resident Evil Director's Cut was, however, a particularly notable example, so we could wait for a third opinion. Freikorp (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that we should list in that table every game she has appeared in. We can add sources if they're needed for the lesser-known ones. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise, kawaii, canon, and other issues

Note: I'd appreciate it if my posts were not split up. Otherwise it's harder to see later what has been completed.

Noting first that I've added a few headers to break up the long sections. If you don't like them, please undo.

I don't feel strongly either way. I'll wait to see what others say. Freikorp (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out in the lead that she has been featured in various Resident Evil merchandise, including action figures and card games: is this not too obvious to mention, or are some characters not featured in merchandise?

I noticed that got added back. I'd expect all main characters in gaming would be featured in merchandise of some description. Accordingly I have no reservations about that being removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, could you go through the article and remove all unnecessary refs? There is a lot of visual clutter, and clutter in edit mode. It would be good to get rid of some of it.

I've gotten rid of a couple things that were overcited and have formatted some references to appear grouped together. Freikorp (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article jump from the Umbrella Chronicles (2007) to Revelations (2012)?

I'm guessing whatever the concern was here it's since been fixed by your reorganisation of the section. Freikorp (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what downloadable content is for the reader who doesn't know?

Is the wikilink not sufficient? The article on downloadable content clearly explains the concept. If not, would you be satisfied with me putting "(additional content created for a released video game)" in brackets after the term is mentioned? Putting it in prose is probably going to make the sentence too clunky. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Ultimately, Redfield and his new partner, Sheva Alomar, find and free her by physically removing a device from her chest", then later: "Valentine is an antagonist programmed to capture Alice, but ultimately regains control over herself when Alice removes a device on her chest that had enslaved her to Wesker's influence". This is the same incident, one in a game and the other in a film, the second written as though the first hadn't been mentioned.

The games and films are set in different canon's, but the films draw heavily from the games. Obviously this scene in the film is drawn from the game. Would you like me to add something like "enslaved her to Wesker's influence, similar to the events in Resident Evil 5? Freikorp (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[S]he is said to have been professional thief Dick Valentine's daughter and accomplice before her career in law enforcement": she was a thief's accomplice before she became a police officer?

Yes. I purchased the book on Google Play. I can screen shot pages of it and email them to you if you like. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of this construction: "GamesRadar's David Meikleham". Please check every one to make sure the writer is a staffer; if not, rewrite those sentences.

There's no profile on David at the website, though he is credited with writing 341 articles for GamesRadar, so I think it's safe to keep him listed like this. I've removed the mention of the only other person who was formatted like this as on closer inspection the source in question had two authors and I didn't see the need to list both of them, so instead I've listed neither. Freikorp (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More often than not, I find it better to exclude the specific author from the sentence and instead use the publication as a metonym. Meikleham is not noted as a distinct columnist or individual voice but as an arm of the parent publication, so it's clunky for readers to attribute both the publication and some random name in their heads. While publications are generally sensitive about a writer's opinion reflecting the company writ large, it's better for readers to attribute an opinion to "a GamesRadar reviewer/staffer" than for them to lose interest in the sentence altogether. czar 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine 'a little cuter'". Reading the whole quote, it's not clear that he was referring to her appearance. Which Japanese phrase does he use?

Ok. When I read the source myself, I could see the word "That", followed by a Kanji I don't recognise in this context, followed by the Katakana spelling out Jill's name, followed by the Kanji for "now" and "turn into", followed by the word "Kawaii" (which has a very clear meaning in Japanese). By copying and pasting characters from the respective Wikipedia articles and copying Kanji from this source: [29] I've pieced together the whole sentence: その分ジルが今回かわいくなってますよしぐさとかも. Bing gives the translation as "That's why Jill is so cute this time." Bing gives the translation for "かわいくなって" alone as "become cute". Like I said, I can pick up the context. I am not a translator. Please don't ask me for anything else that involves me cutting and pasting Japanese characters, it's really time consuming haha. Freikorp (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, and sorry for asking. The context is (source):

Rebecca gets mature.

M: Yes, because she is going to be lead character on Resident Evil 0. Resident Evil 1 is suppose to be the story after Resident Evil 0, if Rebecca acts like original "Ooooooh! Nooo!" Rebecca, doesn't make sense, so I changed to a more serious character.

-- Even her personality was changed.... I kind of miss old Rebecca.

M: In the development stage, a lot of staff said so too, "That "Ooooh! Nooo!" was the best part of Rebecca" or "That ungarded feeling was the best part".

K: Instead, Jill got a little cuter. Her action and atmosphere has charm. This time, we expect a lot more people charmed by Jill.

They do then discuss Jill's appearance ("But still she looks tough") but I wonder whether "cuter" refers to her personality. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the meaning of the Japanese word Kawaii, I'd be surprised if they were referring to her personality. Freikorp (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaii usually refers to appearance but it can refer to mannerisms/behavior as well, kind of like how people may call an old man baking a cake for his wife to surprise her on their wedding anniversary, "cute". (sorry that example just popped into my head). Given the context, it sounds like they are talking more about her behavior, but hard to tell. Since kawaii is a phenomenon in itself and has its own wiki page, it may be best to just say: "Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more kawaii" or something like that. TarkusAB^talk 17:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB:, I agree that given the context they seem to be referring to behaviour. Good idea to link to the page. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this above, but I'll repeat it here: can you provide a link to the "marine influences" uniform, so that I can think of another way to write that? Is this connected to the alternate pirate's costume? Okay, I've now seen the image above. It's a wetsuit (now added).
"Completing the 2002 remake with Valentine unlocks the ability to dress her as Sarah Connor from Terminator 2: Judgment Day and also in her costume from Resident Evil 3". What are these costumes; is the second the miniskirt? If yes, say so in the text. Is the miniskirt always an alternate costume? I was under the impression that it was her main costume for RE3. The quote from the director (in the footnote) does not seem to be discussing an alternate costume.

The miniskirt is her main costume for RE3. Her alternate costumes for RE3 actually include the image you've selected for the infobox. The miniskirt costume, due to its overwhelming popularity among players, is an alternate costume in several games in the series though. For the 2002 remake, the Sarah Connor costume make her look like, well, Sarah Connor haha. See here: [30] The second costume is the miniskirt. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph under "Actors": please explain "the non-canon game". What is the "live-action film series", as opposed to the film series? Are there films in the series that do use animation?

Are you familiar with the term Canon (fiction)?
Yes, there is an animated series of films (Biohazard 4D-Executer, Resident Evil: Degeneration, Resident Evil: Damnation, Resident Evil: Vendetta), though none of them feature Valentine. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In "Legacy": "References to her appear at Capcom's themed restaurant Biohazard Cafe & Grill STARS ..." What does "references to her appear" mean?

As per the reference, the menu includes a noodle dish that is named after her. I suppose it's not surprising to find a mention of the series' main characters in the themed restaurant, but that was the only specific thing there was a reference for. I'm not overly opposed to removing it if you think it's a bit lame. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry by not splitting up your posts did you mean not commenting under each bullet point? I'll happily relocate my responses if so. Freikorp (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. :) No worries, though. Please don't go to the trouble of moving responses.

I've added the name of the noodle dish. Re: canon, I'm familiar with the term in literature, but I can't quite figure out what it means here. Are there non-canon RE games made by Capcom? Will look through your other responses later. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Game canon. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canon (fiction) as in the official fictional timeline, such as Harry Potter fan fiction and spin-offs with events that aren't carried over into the core series. Game canon, if it exists, is more like Western canon as a set of essential media in a format. czar 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering who decides. Does Capcom say of any game they made, e.g. Resident Evil: Mercenaries Vs.: "this is non-canon"? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question actually. If there was a lot of interest in a game, there would be interviews with the producers. If there was any doubt to whether a game was canon that would probably come up in the conversation. This (probably non-RS) source [31] contains a collection of Q&As from the director and producers of Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, which includes such a query and the response. Whether or not a game is canon would be fairly obvious one it is released. Here's a couple RS video-game journalist sources that specifically say that game is not canon: [32][33]. Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French-Japanese

Freikorp, would you mind looking up Martin, Paul (2016). "Race, Colonial History and National Identity: Resident Evil 5 as a Japanese Game". Games and Culture. doi:10.1177/1555412016631648. ISSN 1555-4120. to see what he says about French-Japanese, and the page number? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I found it and it doesn't mention it. The other source for French-Japanese is weak, so we should remove it for now. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why you've removed her ethnicity. Sure the magazine publication isn't the highest quality source, but even if that was the only source, it's also accurate. I actually tracked down an image of Jill's ethnicity being mentioned in an original Japanese source from the time of the game's release: [34]. Unfortunately I don't know the name of the book that page is from so I can't cite it as a source directly. But even if we didn't have the magazine source that was cited in the article, we also have an academic source that doesn't just mention Jill's ethnicity in passing, it goes into detail about where and when her ethnicity was mentioned, but also where it has not been mentioned, and the fan reaction to all of this. I'm quite bothered by the fact this has been removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I missed it in Martin. I see it now. Will restore. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, these things happen. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name in Japanese

I've restored her name in Japanese for now, because she was created there, and I've added the date and place she first appeared (22 March 1996, Japan, which we should consider moving to the lead). I'm currently trying to find out what her first name was. If it was Jill Valentine, we don't need the Japanese. But if she was first named in Japanese, we should retain it. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the character might have originally been Japanese (or simply given a Japanese name) and then was changed to American (and given a Western name) during development? That's pretty unlikely and an odd theory to come up with in my opinion (the game is set in America after all), but by all means you're welcome to keep looking. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that it was first released in Japan, and I assume it wasn't released with her named as Jill Valentine. But I've commented it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's common even for games/manga/anime that were never intended to be translated and reach a Western audience to feature Western characters with Western names. I think it's extremely unlikely the character was ever given another name. Freikorp (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese name is just "Jill Valentine" written in katakana, an alphabet used to spell foreign words. The first RE game is set in the United States, Jill is an American, and the English voice acting was retained in the Japanese version to add to the realism. I don't think the JP name is necessary. TarkusAB^talk 04:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format, list-defined references

Freikorp, the length of citations is making it harder to fix the writing. For example, you changed:

<ref name=Sheridan>Sheridan, Connor (6 January 2016). [http://www.gamesradar.com/jill-valentine-resident-evil-cosplay/ "Is this Jill Valentine cosplay still cosplay if it's her actual model?"], ''Games Radar''.</ref>

to:

<ref name=Sheridan>{{cite web |url=http://www.gamesradar.com/jill-valentine-resident-evil-cosplay/ |title=Is this Jill Valentine cosplay still cosplay if it's her actual model? |last=Sheridan |first=Connor |date=6 January 2016 |work=[[GamesRadar+]] |access-date=4 November 2017 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/2017.11.04-021940/http://www.gamesradar.com/jill-valentine-resident-evil-cosplay/ |archivedate=4 November 2017 |deadurl=no}}</ref>

When there are several of these in a row, it becomes hard to read the text. I can understand wanting to back up URLs for unstable sites, but you've even done it for The Guardian (founded 1821). I've moved the long citations for journal articles into Works cited, which helped a little, but it would be good if we could cut down some more. Two suggestions: (a) remove any unnecessary "me too" citations; (b) remove some of the fields, e.g. is there a need to say what date you accessed the source if you're also offering an archive date? Access dates are required only for articles that have no publication date. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a requirement for all references to be formatted the same way? I wouldn't pass an article through GA unless the references were formatted consistently, and I would expect the exact same treatment from anyone reviewing one of my nominations. I'm literally one-third of the way through a Master's degree to become an Archivist. Naturally I'm quite keen at archiving everything. I get that it could be called anal, but as far as I'm concerned you can never be too safe when it comes to preserving data. I suppose there isn't any need have the access-date field if there is an archive date AND the link isn't dead. Also I've always been under the impression that the access-date has nothing to do with the publication date. I thought it was to let people know when the source definitely was live in the event that it goes dead. I've been in the habit of including both in the event that the archive site also goes down (yes, I know that unlikely, but I am a trainee Archivist after all). I'll start getting rid of the access dates if it helps. Freikorp (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Although it's not mandatory for FA articles, I highly recommend moving all the references to the References section. It would make the prose much less painful to edit. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niwi3: Yeah I agree that would be helpful. I'll see what I can do. Also thanks for all your other recent comments here. I very much appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has moved entirely to list-defined references. This is good from the point of view of the writing, because the references are long with the citation templates and the archive links. But it makes copy editing harder because if you remove a ref or just make it invisible, you get a red error message, so you then have to track down the ref and restore it or remove it entirely, which is a nuisance. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can appreciate that. I guess there's pros and cons with either way. Feel free to change it to whatever is more convenient for you. Freikorp (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]