Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2017 [1].

Jill Valentine

Nominator(s):

talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to co-ord: the images in the article have not been modified since passing the image review at the previous FAC.

talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Support: I stand by my verdict from the last FA review, now more than ever as multiple improvements have been made since the last FA nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have commented during the previous FAC and my view holds: this article is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of the subject, should be ripe for promotion.

Source review: This looks huge, but you know the deal. Parts in green represent an issue that needs addressing. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

I'm satisfied every source is reliable and of high enough quality to meet the featured article criteria, and that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. There are a total of seven off-line sources used on the article: I managed to access five of them. There is no issue with close-paraphrasing with any of those, although two of them are used on the article to source direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

Support based on my comments that were resolved in the first FAC. -- 1989 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

• I am glad that I could help. You have done a wonderful job with this. It was a very interesting and informational read. I fully support this for promotion.
  Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Strong support as a really well-written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was an interesting and well-written article. I support this nomination. Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. I'd be happy to look at your nominations.
  talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I can't see any outstanding prose glitches or omissions...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

• Support on
  Freikorp, you may not like all my changes, so feel free to change back whatever you don't like (my humble apologies for the delay with this, life is extremely busy for me, main reason my WP contributions are historically very sporadic). It's clear from some of the comments over the past few days that the article is never going to satisfy editors for what it can be versus what they subjectively want it to be. How you've had the patience to try and work with certain people would certainly be beyond my capacity. I've said my piece on this and copped flak for it, and I simply don't have the time or energy to get further involved. Your diligence and work ethic is outstanding, and I hope the fruits of your labour on this article will be a nice, shiny star at the top of the page. Anyway mate, I wish you all the luck in the world. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• After seven weeks at FAC1 and three at FAC2, the article still isn't ready. The writing is choppy, there's no flow from one thought to the next, the structure isn't right, sources are misunderstood, or key points in those sources are overlooked. It looks as though sources have been quickly skimmed. Sources are almost certainly missing, because just about every academic source in the article (with one exception, I believe) was found by a reviewer after a quick search.
• There is no sense of how the character developed. The article needs to be organized around the character. I've had to go through adding dates of games and films just to get some sense of the timeline for myself. What happened to the character (clothes, things she was capable of, relationships, whatever else matters about characters in games) between 1996 and 2012? I'd like hear more from the directors and developers too. Yes, it depends on sources existing, but it seems highly unlikely that they don't.
• The article was a quote farm. I've managed to get rid of a lot of them, but the nominator has a tendency to restore, and will probably keep on adding them. The result is journalese/PR. Typical: "GamesRadar staff included this 'highly capable officer' among the 30 best characters."
• I'd expect to see the games themselves used throughout as sources, but they're barely referenced, so I wonder whether material about the gameplay is missing. jp:ジル・バレンタイン (Jill Valentine on jp-wiki; Google translation) contains a lot of details presumably sourced directly to the games.
• Space is taken up with issues not relevant to understanding the character or games. For example, Jill Valentine is played by Sienna Guillory in the films. Then: "At first, the films' director Paul W. S. Anderson chose Natasha Henstridge, but she was unavailable;[26] he then considered Mira Sorvino though she declined."
• The article needs a summary-style section on the scholarship on women in games, so that the discussion of gender roles, physical movement, costumes, etc, is contextualized. A few sentences would make all the difference.
• I found several examples of sources that weren't summarized well. Example:

"The journal noted that due to the nature of the survival horror genre, in which pleasure is attained through feelings of vulnerability, Jill was frequently running away from enemies, and proposed that Jill was chosen for this role as it was more 'natural' to cast a woman as being in distress."

This implies that the authors (Trépanier-Jobin and Bonenfant 2017) were saying it's more natural. In fact they were referring to Karen Boyle's Media and Violence: Gendering the Debates, which discusses essentialist conceptions of women as weak. Violent women are often cast as "unnatural". Boyle's theory explains why survival horror games have more playable female characters. Given that the characters are often running from something, and the sexism within the industry means that masculinity is viewed as incompatible with victimhood, it seems "natural" to the developers (scare quotes in the original) to have the women constantly running for their lives.

• As I've said since FAC1, this should have gone to peer review. There's no point in trying to make the kind of fixes usually made at FAC when the issue is structural. And trying to find and quickly read sources while at FAC risks compounding the problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to oppose from Freikorp

I mention the following bullet points as a rebuttal to the oppose for the attention of Sarastro1.

• Sarah came here with five bullet point complaints about the article. She has struck four of them. Her fifth bullet point concern was the quality of the reception section. I have completed a major restructuring of that section, to the point where another editor withdrew their objection over that issue. I have, and will continue, to address any specific concern regarding the wording and flow of the article.
• Sarah removed content she perceived as being problematic, even though there was no consensus to do so and nobody else stated they shared these specific complaints. I did not revert the changes. [2] She has the right to make bold edits; that's not why I am mentioning this. I am just trying to highlight the lengths I have gone to to try and appease her concerns.
• Sarah complained about some of the wording in the article, so I openly said she could reword whatever she wanted. She has actually already addressed the specific concerns she mentioned in her oppose (such as the "classic example" and "damsel in distress" issuess). My point is that, once again, she is opposing over issues that have already been addressed.
• I always take an article to peer review before FAC in order to get outside opinions, and this nomination was no exception. I didn't see the need to take it to peer review again after FAC as Sarah was the only person who had a problem with it (I was almost finished addressing Ealdgyth concerns before the first nomination was closed and I completed this shortly thereafter). I'm not saying peer review isn't a good idea. I'm just saying the situation didn't deem it necessary. When seven people say the prose is fine and one person does not, that does not indicate a dire need for a peer review.

That's all from me.

talk) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to co-ord: Sarah has modified her existing reasons for opposing and added additional ones since I posted my response. Based on her previous actions, it is my opinion that even if I address the new concerns, she will still oppose the nomination. Accordingly, as previously stated, I am going to focus on the concerns from other editors at this time. I will probably return to focusing on her concerns once all other editors have finished saying their piece.

talk) 03:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: Sarah has modified her reasons for opposing again. In response:

• The key word in "The article was a quote farm" is was. The specific quote she complains about now ("highly capable officer") had already been removed. For the third time, she is opposing over things that have already been fixed.
• I find it ironic that Sarah cited the fact I had assumed good faith regarding some offline sources as a reason for opposing at the first nomination (as already stated I checked them all before renominating), whereas now she's citing the fact that I haven't harvested from a completely un-referenced wikipedia article on the good faith it's "presumably" sourced to the games as a reason for opposing. This strikes me as the hallmark of an editor who is looking for excuses to oppose.
• Sarah said I have a tendency to add back information she removes. In reality, despite the fact she removed multiple pieces of content during this nomination without consulting other editors and despite the fact nobody else was complaining about the specific things she was removing, I have only restored one of the things she removed.
• Niwi3, who also opposes this nomination, has told Sarah that the games provide very little information about the character. Why she still thinks I can expand this article significantly by sourcing the games, I do not understand.
• Sarah has previously told me I summarised two sources well; my apologies that I have also summarised one poorly.

Sarah, I hope this concludes your review. Have a nice day.

talk) 12:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Completed issue moved to talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved to talk
  talk) 05:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

Coordinator comment: I'm keeping a fairly close eye on this. If the nominator wishes that I recuse, I am happy to do so but personally don't see the need as I have no opinion one way or the other on this article. However, just a couple of points: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at

Thanks for your comment

talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The article has come a long way since the peer review. (moved to talk) I agree with CR4ZE's concerns, but show my support under the circumstances. Cognissonance (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to talk)

Comment from czar

I wouldn't support this as it stands. SV's bullet point concerns are solid. The Reception needs to be reorganized. First, it doesn't describe a Reception, but mostly the character's Legacy in the series and as a female character. There are a few different ways to organize that, but I would start by organizing along those themes within the paragraph if not splitting to separate sections. The problem with the listings/listicles isn't primary sourcing, but the attention called to the list. "In 2013, Complex's Michael Rougeau ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines in video game history, describing her as the most likeable woman in the Resident Evil series" gives heat without light: What's the importance of 30? 30 out of what? The rank signifies nothing (especially here), so it only clutters the prose. Along the advice of Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, combine the sentiments: "Multiple video game journalists ranked/listed [your choice] Valentine among the greatest heroines in the medium.[ref][ref]..." Then follow with the specific, clarifying comments ("X described her as the most likeable", though that's not very descriptive/helpful either). This presents the importance of the citation without overstating the individual list's importance. It also makes for better prose.

This isn't even to touch the sourcing, though I agree that the development could use connective tissue not just describing but explaining why the character has developed, if those sources exist. SV makes the point that the "supports" above may reflect video game articles being held to a lower standard. She's right. The article assumes familiarity with Resident Evil and isn't smooth reading for a general audience. Worth addressing and not a big deal for a normal article (last 20% is 80% of the work, etc.), but we expect more of FA status. Sometimes video game articles pass (I've seen many...) without reviews external to the topic area. It means we should be even more grateful when outside editors show us endemic blind spots. The goal, though, should be nothing less than to make this article a model for its type, and we sorely lack model fictional character articles. (moved to talk) czar 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As for Sarkeesian on Valentine, I wouldn't call Fem Freq a
  briefly!) flush out the crux of her position as commentary/opinion. This can be done without delving into factual, challengeable claims, which should instead be backed by a RS (with editorial reputation for fact-checking/accuracy). That's at least the rationale—it would have taken less time to just write it: [3] czar 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To be honest, having someone neutral decide how much weight this particular source is given works for me. My end-goal with this nomination is to improve the article, and I think it would be best for the article if neither myself nor SlimVirgin has any say on how much weight it is given. I am happy to leave this entirely up to you and then I'll just reorganise what you've added around the other content when I restructure the whole reception section.
  talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you want, ping me when you've done the reorg and I could take a stab at a concise copyedit but caveat emptor, my edits are brutal (hence my usual lack of participation) czar 15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy for you to do a copyedit now that I've finished with the section. I have no problem with anyone performing brutal or bold edits (assuming they don't push a particular POV of course).

talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't see a compelling reason to use Uproxx or CheatCodes.com as a source. Having an edit staff listed is not the same as having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or editorial credibility. For what it's worth, the Virgin Media site is low-grade too, despite its corporate pedigree. It's 2008-era Buzzfeed with "Hot PC games", "Top game babes", "Get your geek on!", not high-quality content, no author bylines or signs of editorial credibility, etc. czar 16:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no qualms with ditching the CheatCodes or Virgin Media sources, since they're not being used for anything of real importance. Unless it's literally going to make the difference between you supporting and opposing the nomination, I'm going to keep the Uproxx source. I accept that it's probably at the lower end of high-quality, but firstly, we're not citing it for fact but for opinion. Secondly, it fills in an important blank in the history of the character's portrayal. Only one actress has portrayed the character in live-action cut-scenes, and if we don't use this source, we can't give the reader any idea of who it was. I really think the information this source backs adds something valuable to the article.
  talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Unfortunately, that's exactly why I wouldn't trust it. If Uproxx is the only source that repeats the otherwise unsubstantiated, fan-researched claim[4][5] that "Una Kavanagh" is the voice actor, then it's as good as the claim being unconfirmed. I wouldn't trust Uproxx's editorial process/pedigree for even simpler facts, nevertheless one that requires investigatory work. We shouldn't view the actor identity as case-closed-rumor-confirmed on the basis of a site like Uproxx. That's the beauty of source reliability. czar 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see a good reason to trust it with that either, but if you want, you can request an outside opinion at

WP:RSN czar 14:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think I even need a source to say they used pseudonyms? Or is this obvious from the fact all the characters are credited by first names only? Or in other words, can I delete the inline citation from Uproxx supporting the current line and just source everything as it is currently written to the credits of the game?

talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Original claims require secondary sourcing (e.g., that the name is a pseudonym), but another method is to present the information ("actor was credited as X") and leave the reader to presume what they want about whether it's a pseudonym, as they likely will conclude on their own, though you didn't make the claim yourself. But if no source mentions the voice actor, is it even necessary to include? czar 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The "Critical analysis" section (formerly "Reception"), apart from an official strategy guide ref at the beginning, is entirely about the character's sexualization. I think something more to that effect would be a more fitting title.

   • What do you suggest I do with the first paragraph then? Should I give it its own header? I understand most of the content is based around sexualisation, but I'm inclined to leave it how it is so as to not complicate things.
     talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
     ]

   It's just odd that the section is called "analysis" but it really only includes analysis of sexualization, apart from a brief description of her in-game use, which could easily be moved to an earlier section, if the source is good for it at all (primary sources should not be cited for analysis). "Sexualization" makes a suitable header, but perhaps someone has a better phrase in mind. czar 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Does the character have any specific link to Japan or Japanese culture apart from being created by a Japanese company and (in-universe) designed as half-Japanese? (Doesn't appear so in the article.) Since she has an official, well-used English-language name, the name by which she is primarily known, I don't see a need for the {{
   WP:VGG#Lead) czar 14:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• Oh, that's a good point. I never thought about that. Removed accordingly.
  talk) 14:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Video sources tend to have poor longevity—either the company goes down or their video portal after some time, and the videos are tough/illegal(?) to archive. I'd rely on them as little as possible for this reason to save the trouble of finding replacement sources later. czar 14:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I know :). I actually cited that as a reason for not deleting multiple sources from the Appearances section at the first FAC nomination (see 'Comments by Finetooth' section). I've tried to rely on them as little as possible. If they go dead though I guess I'll just cross that bridge if and when the time comes.
  talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(Responded above) The credits wouldn't be proof that the name is a pseudonym, but does the name need presentation at all? If so, you could cite the source and it would be quite apparent that the name appears to be a pseudonym, though you need not stake the claim yourself. I'm hoping to give the article a fuller pass soon, but need to get a few things out of the way first. czar 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niwi3

(Resolved comments moved to talk)

@

Note to coordinators: I will be on holiday from Friday 29, September to Thursday 5, October, so I won't be able to verify any fixes during that period. I still think the article is far from reaching FA status (its prose hasn't really improved and it still contains unnecessary details). I find it difficult to review because its content is constantly changing due to the ongoing edits, and I think several parts need to be smoothly rewritten to accomodate the gradual (yet small) improvements. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The opening paragraph has too many fictional details that are not of interest to the general reader (
  Umbrella Corporation, Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance, Chris Redfield
  ).

• Two of the four mentions have been removed, I believe that is sufficient.
  talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I still think the first paragraph has too many unnecessary details, especially because it is essentially a plot summary of the first game. Readers generally want to know information about the character, not info about the first game where she appears. Another big problem is that now the lead contains little information from the "Design and portrayal" and "Cultural impact" sections, so it doesn't offer a proper summary of the article. In any case, it's better to wait until the body of the article is fixed before making substantial changes to the lead.

I've removed one more fictional detail from the lead. I'll wait until your concerns about the body are fixed before expanding information about design and reception.

talk) 11:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've added a minor addition to the lead. If there's any other topic in particular you'd like covered in there let me know.

talk) 11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• And I haven't even reviewed the references. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has received a thorough source review.
  talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I won't be sure until I personally review it.

• @
  WP:PRIMARY sources in the appearances section. Primary sources, which can only be used in Wikipedia to describe simple and descriptive facts, are the best type of sources to cite plot details (example). --Niwi3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  talk) 23:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've since removed that offending reference. Just to clarify, do you think the appearances section needs to be expanded at all? (Personally I think it is detailed enough as it is) Or just sourced more to the games? I did have one direct source to a cut-scene when the article was first nominated but ironically a reviewer asked me to cut back on the amount of citations in the section on the grounds it was oversourced, so I got rid of it and specifically didn't add any more.
  talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Freikorp: No, I think it should be rewritten and condensed to retain focus and relevance. Currently, its prose is very choppy, mainly because you try to cover every single release where she appears (that's why I think the RE5 DLCs and other spin-off games should be removed). I left a comment above with some ideas on how you can improve it. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 09:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Freikorp: Ok, I'm back from my holidays. The Appearances section is much better, but I found the following issues (please see below): --Niwi3 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• This is wrong: In Resident Evil: Revelations, set prior to the events of The Umbrella Chronicles and Resident Evil 5... - Revelations is actually set between RE4 and RE5, per this source. The last scenario of The Umbrella Chronicles is set in February 2003, whereas RE4 is set in 2004. You need a secondary source if primary sources don't specify when the games take place.

• This is very confusing: She first appears in the second film, Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004), where she is a former STARS member (having been suspended for filing "false" reports about zombies), and a foil to the main character, Alice. - As a person who hasn't watched any of the Resident Evil films, I find it very hard to understand what the films are about. Also, who is Alice? She is not properly introduced and the article does not explain why Jill is a "foil" to her.

• This should be removed: Wearing a costume based on her catsuit from Resident Evil 5 - If you want to include it in the article, then it needs to be moved to the Design and portrayal section with proper context. If you can't find a proper context, then it's fancruft. The fact that the article focuses on how she dresses without giving readers any explanation makes the article sexist. It also assumes that general readers know how her RE5 outfit looks.

• Removed. I really believe motivation is 9/10's of everything. I was trying to convey that the character's appearance is based on the game, as I really think that's relevant in an article about a video game character. I would have done exactly the same thing if I had of been writing an article about a male character in the same situation. If I just had of mentioned what she was wearing without any context I can see how that might considered adhering to a male gaze, but since I specifically said it was based on her outfit from the game I can't see how it is sexist, though at this stage allegations of sexism are literally stopping other reviewers from wanting to get involved so I'll remove anything that other people think is sexist just to keep the peace. Also the reader did know what her RE5 outfit looked like when the article was nominated. There was an image, though SlimVirgin requested it be removed on the grounds it might not be justified under fair use. I wasn't convinced that was the case, but once again, I was trying to avoid an argument.
  talk) 21:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Niwi3, you've raised some valid issues, and you are in any case entitled to your opinion on this. Nonetheless I confess I am baffled by your complaints about content forking. This article should discuss the character Jill Valentine at what the community decides to be an appropriate level of detail. That will of necessity involve including details also present elsewhere, and is not a violation of any policy. Objecting to a detail because it is too much detail is reasonable; but I do not find it reasonable to suggest that a detail shouldn't be present because it should be covered elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the content forking and off-topic issues are the reason why the article does not stay focused on the main topic and violates criteria 4. The problem here is not that the article repeats some info from other articles, but the fact that subject matters from other articles are brought into this article. Of course, this is my opinion; the FAC process is about reaching consensus, so my opinion is not the only one that matters. I won't object if the general community thinks the article meets the FA criteria. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Left some comments above. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 13:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just another one jumping in to say that I can't support it unless/until the reception section is cleaned up a bit. Some of that stuff is just really low grade stuff. Comments about sexuality can be done well, sure, but there's too much bare-bones "Website X called her the (number) hottest character. Not FA level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Rest assured I will make changes to the reception section and will ping you back here once it is done.

talk) 19:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 02:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I approve of your changes - it's all handled much better now. I no longer have any objections. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I've just gone through the whole FAC page and moved anything which I do not consider relevant to deciding if this article meets

• I think I made a good addition to the lead. Happy to hear alternate suggestions if you think this could be better.
  talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's a good point. Done.
  talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I can only assume the comment was about the exotic appeal of Asian women, but the source only stated exactly what I said in the article so I can't expand on it at all. In the meantime another editor has removed the information from the article anyway, and I'm too over it to argue so I'm just letting it go.
  talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I confess that the "critical analysis" section as it stands here does not strike me as problematic. I will investigate other reviewers comments in more detail, because I am familiar with some literature on fictional characters, but not so much with video games.
• With respect to a concern raised above that the article needs to discuss how her portrayal changed in response to scholarly critique: yes, ideally, we would have such a description. But that presupposes that such a change occurred at all, ie that the developers cared what analysts (rather than the market) were saying...I'll take a look into the literature if I'm able, but I guess my point is that we cannot expect the article to cover stuff that is not covered by reliable sources, even if we would like it to be.

• Thanks so much for your comments
  talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've seen that concerns about sexism have been now raised by at least three folks. It is my belief that the best way to deal with problematic media is to describe it in detail, and then describe the critique in detail, which I believe is a direction this article is headed in, thanks to good work on the part of reviewers and of the nominator. That said, I am ignorant of the many issues specific to video games, and so in the interests of not blundering about making life difficult for other folks, I think I am going to sit out until these complaints are sorted. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from bridies

I've been involved with this article, I think copy-editing and GA-reviewing with the "original author who no longer edits Wikipedia" (and is the elephant in room, perhaps; although I haven't bothered to check out all the stuff removed collapsed/redacted from this discussion, I assume it involves that editor and his style/obsessions). I would casually state that the article is nowhere near as sexist and biased as it was at one time, but that there are some sentences/quotes that (even if are merited, because a reviewer said it) not as put as professionally NPOV as is possible (pretty much as I think Serge said above). I would also stress that I don't formally oppose on those grounds atm and that I currently have no specific instances to point out (atm), because I haven't read the article (atm...) and I'm not familiar enough with the secondary discourse on the subject matter (if it's all about attractiveness, and one thinks that's crass, what is one to to?). The familiarity I do have is with the original game (and only that, really). I also used to edit old video game articles and got several GAs and an FA in that area. So my question/borderline beef is there why nothing contemporary on critical reception of the original character? There appears only to be only 1 indirect reference (cited in later work, referenced). The sources appear high quality and definitely merit inclusion, but some are up to a couple of decades after the Jill first appeared. Overall I'm not sure there's a good picture of how the character was perceived initially. Sure, the whole franchise is much bigger now than that first game (and first Jill), but the original (game) is looms inordinately large because of its influence, no? Whatever the case, IME at video game FAC, there must be multiple quality contemporary reviews (difficult to obtain though they be, due to being print magazine) which provide a representation of criticism at that time, It may be that the nominator has checked contemporary reviews and found that Jill is not discussed (though if that's the case, one would expect the later academic research to have noted and mentioned this, and that it should in turn be mentioned in the article, no?); otherwise that contemporary discourse has to be included. I'm not outright opposing because I have not followed all the previous discussion(s) and I don't what research the nominator has done in the contemporary media and what he got or didn't get from it. Just a question/concern. (After previewing, I cannot seem to format this correctly; can some current-FAC person fix it for me; much obliged.) bridies (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I made a similar search before nominating, but just to clarify; searching the Internet Archive for video game magazines printed between 1995 and 1997 containing the text "Resident Evil" gets 12 hits.

• These ones don't mention Jill at all: [8][9][10]
• This one mentions Jill is a member of STARS, is one of two playable characters, and is better equipped than Chris due to the addition of her lock-pick and handgun. Nothing we don't already know: [11]
• This one has a profile on Jill, but it only describes gameplay, like the stuff above. It does mention than Barry Burton is her "Secret admirer"; that's about all that's new here: [12]
• The only thing this one mentions that is new is that Jill is able to pick up a rocket launcher wheres when playing as Chris this weapon is unavailable: [13]
• This one only confirms the rocket launcher as well: [14]
• This one only comments on the differences betwwen Jill and Chris in terms of gameplay: [15]
• This one only mentions that Jill does not appear in Resident evil 2: [16]
• This one does mention Shinji Mikami saying why Jill didn't feature in Resident Evil 2. I could use if for a brief mention in the development section: [17]
• This one mentions the differences between Chris and Jill in gameplay, and also gives a walk-through of the game: [18]
• This one only recommends first time players start with Jill: [19]

There you have it. Sources from the time the first game was released just don't give any reception of the character herself.

talk) 06:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I read your first comment earlier, and was coming back to say that while I empathise (having brought pre-web 2.0 games to FAC and GAC), a statement that information exists (or even, might not exist but you haven't checked it out) but is difficult or expensive to obtain and thus has not been included, will not play well at FAC. You obviously then added those archive links which are (taking you at your word, didn't read them) consistent with your assertion that there will not be anything substantial to be found in contemporary coverage of the first game. That gives pause for thought; nice effort. But still: those articles seem to come from 3 publications referred to multiple times (correct me if I'm mistaken; can't be far wrong, though). Not a great sample IMO, especially for a multi-platform game. Nothing from Edge, formed a few years prior? That would be the place where serious discussion could be found if at all (if there were nothing pertinent in an Edge review, I'd probably assume/agree there likely isn't anything at all). Edge is/was (and these days there may be similar publications; not of course relevant to a mid-90s game) a go-to source for serious rewrites of articles; and could be got from other editors. That's another thing: you got those articles via internet archives (which is fine), but really I'd like to see a broader spread of sources (other magazines, but also perhaps newspapers, non-English language sources - this being a Japanese-made game, etc too). I understand you don't want to shell out serious money to take a look at sources (again, empathise...), but others do, or have kept their magazines. It was the norm for me and anyone else editing this sort of material to look for collaborators at WP:VG. There used to be other avenues/people around the web to take a look at maybe a page or two of a magazine; I actually used to be able to acquire whole magazines (this may no longer be the case due to copyright policing or whatever). Tried doing that at the WP:VG (as a starting point even)? Anything come up? I'd again stress I don't outright oppose or want this rejecting on my account, but just not convinced about whether the above could be represented, or whether it's really established that it couldn't. bridies (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Internet Archive's collection consists of only three magazine series in the relevant time-frame. Accordingly, I had already made a comprehensive search of

talk) 03:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

talk) 13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey. I did see the reply and was mulling it over; I don't get much time for wiki (and ergo maybe don't have much business commenting on FACs, but this popped up I think through the GAC history I had on it). Ideally I'd look like to look into it a bit myself, (re-)familiarise about what might be out there, how useful it might really be (I've used young copies of Edge, but don't really recall how the quality was) and how it could be got but, putting me on the spot: I've thought about this, how to put it, but now I'm typing it, it's just clicked that you stated above that you actually did see the relevant issue of Edge, and one of the official PS magazines to boot (or are we talking about reviews for the second, maybe third game?)? And nothing noteworthy there? Either way, all sorts of caveats (say someone turns up something obscure that we didn't think of – although I think that'd help rather than hinder you – or someone asserts with some basis that there's a whole other view and discourse in Japanese sources that'd haven't been WORLDVIEW represented – although this could be the case for many articles, not only games, and is perhaps just not a realistic demand, even for FAs), but: yeah, while it would be a sad, frustrating thing, if you referred to Edge and one of the big official magazines (if you've actually managed that, wouldn't say no to a look myself, just out of curiosity...), in addition to the 3 (contemporary sources) cited in the article, and found nothing of substance, that'd make me seriously doubt there is/was anything of the sort I thought should be included. And it would incline me to agree with your assertion that hunt as one may, not going to find anything. Really one would think later sources on the character/franchise would note and state something to the effect that the character was initially ignored, and that info could be used. But if they didn't they didn't. bridies (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

talk) 05:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Bridies. The editor I contacted has since emailed transcripts of the two Edge magazine reviews I requested. I can confirm that neither goes into detail about Jill as a character. I'll add the shorter of the two reviews below, issue 52, page 97:

"Cynics will no doubt view Resident Evil Directors cut as either an attempt to keep players occupied until the sequel finally arrives, or a shameless cashing in exercise. There may, of course, be some truth in both statements regardless, this title offers new players a lot of game for their money As well as a fantastic, substantial playable demo of Resident Evil 2, the package offers three versions of the game: the standard US and European interpretation; the easier Japanese version; and an advanced mode which will be the most interesting offering to players familiar with the original. The plot remains the same, but in addition to a collection of new camera angles, Capcom has placed most of the items in different locations, as well as changing the enemy arrangement, the result being that even Resident Evil veterans will get the odd surprise or two. The difficulty level has been increased, too, so that even as Jill, players should find it a worthy challenge. Although early reports claimed this version would also include the uncensored intro and cinematic sequences found on the original Japanese release, an alleged miscommunication between Capcom's international offices has resulted in the US version retaining the censored scenes. At the time of writing, there is no confirmation whether the UK version will suffer a similar fate. While it may only attract die-hard Resident Evil fanatics, any player who, for some inexplicable reason, hasn't experienced the original, is now faced with a truly essential purchase."

I hope this information addresses your concern.

talk) 00:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Structure: character analysis articles are the most difficult type of Wikipedia article to write, and must adhere to MOS, writing about fiction
  WP:WAF. Nancy Drew and Kenneth Widmerpool are the only two examples I know of that have passed FAC. This article doesn't follow the guidelines in terms of structure. Instead the structure, before it was nominated for FAC1 is very similar to something like Mai Shiranui
  (sans the bouncing boobs), and subsequent changes simply overlay the existing structure. All of the tweaking in the world won't fix what needs to be fixed. What's necessary is to explain succinctly in a "Background" section that the character is of the Resident Evil world/franchise. There's no reason to provide unnecessary detail of that world; it's not necessary for the reader already familiar and confusing the reader not familiar. The focus should be only on the character and her actions, relationships, developments, etc., within that world. A description section is required to describe the character and if there's no direct analysis in the section it's okay to lean on primary sources, i.e the games, books, films. Then we need an analysis section, sourced to the best secondary scholarly sources, of which there are plenty. Next is a short and succinct Reception section. Since Jill Valentine appears in games, books and films, it's appropriate to have a section towards the bottom briefly mentioning that, and mentioning various actors, etc. That's all. Keep a tight focus on the character.
• Sourcing: there's not an overwhelming number or sources but good secondary sources do exist and need to mined and leaned on heavily. A search on Google scholar with "Jill Valentine" as a search term returns these sources. A search with ""Jill Valentine" video games" these sources. These are the sources that drive the content. The same searching needs to be done on Google books - there's a fair amount there, certainly enough to cobble together a decent article (in fact even the jumpsuit is mentioned in a book, but that's a distraction for the purposes of this comment).
• Prose: it's very difficult to read the article, partially because of the structure and also because the prose is choppy (which happens when things are cobbled together too quickly and without leaning on proper sourcing). But the prose can't be fixed until proper sources are used and the appropriate structure put in place. Once all of that is done, it needs a good copyedit.

The fourth issue is this: a reviewer shows up and essentially says what I've written above and is labeled as a "feminist" and told her review is POV. The scholarly secondary sources are labeled as feminist. We don't do that and we don't get to cherry pick which sources we like or do not like, especially for a featured article. We search for the best sources available, we lean on them and they drive the content. Furthermore we don't label reviewers. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I'm clearly female and, although I've had my eye on both FACs (Jill Valentine is a catchy title and caught my eye months ago), I have absolutely zero wish to engage. At first I dumped some links on Sarahs page, but it's not fair to do that to her and expect her to take the heat, so I'm posting this. My opinion is that the coords should archive and the nominator take a big step back, do a thorough source search and review, read the sources, restructure the article appropriately, etc. All of that takes time but it will result in a much better article and much less stress. If I were here to give a full review I'd oppose based on the above comments, but I refuse to get into a situation where the nominator either tries to fix the extremely deep problems mentioned during the course of a FAC, and in which I might be badgered. Plus my schedule is such that I'm not always online, and can't really follow up. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Off topic moved to talk)

I'm not really an expert in video games but I would recommend using the FA Lightning (Final Fantasy) as an example. The first paragraph of "In video games" sounds more like a description of the character. Maybe it could be used in the parts of the article that they are used. In the first Resident Evil, the canon sentence is a bit controversial, so I would suggest adding a source that tells that. The downloadable content of RE5 could be expanded a bit to let the reader the premise of what Jill does in the the game. Same with the other games. Also, I don't why do we refer to every character by their last name. I thought it was per common name that we should use Jill instead of Valentine.

In the creation section "GamesRadar's David Meikleham commented on how much the character's appearance had changed between the original game, Nemesis, Resident Evil 5 and Revelations, saying she had been completely redesigned so many times it was "getting ridiculous" this could be used in the reception section instead since in the present article feels redundant.

Other than, I find to oppose. I'll give it my support if the nominator fixes these issues. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments

talk) 00:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Giving my support. One of most recent FAs from the anime and manga project, Naruto Uzumaki, was also given this type of description but outside the appearances. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Despite this late support, I think it is time to put an end to this FAC. Archiving has perhaps been inevitable for some time now, as I think most of us realise. Although a bumpy ride, I think some very useful review has come out of this FAC. I've let it run longer than would normally be the case with several opposes as I think the article was improving on the basis of the review. However, I can't help but agree that PR may have been a better place for this discussion. I hope the nominator has an idea of what needs doing to address the concerns of the opposers. In terms of moving forward, my advice would be to open a PR and invite all those who opposed here to comment there. I think that would be the best place to have the inevitable back-and-forth over the issues raised. The fact of the matter is that if/when this is renominated, the same discussion will take place over these issues, and unless there is a consensus of reviewers that this article meets the FA criteria, it will not be promoted; there is clearly no such consensus at the moment but one may be achieved at PR, given time and away from the FAC spotlight. Any future FAC will need to run for at least two weeks (so that quick, pile-on supports do not derail the review) and, as the nominator did this time, all those who opposed should be informed and invited to comment (as should all those who supported). In any case, and whatever the nominator decides to do, this can be renominated after the usual two-week cooling-off period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]