Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tifa Lockhart/1

Tifa Lockhart

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: The nominator and reviewers seem to be satisfied, so closing this GAR as kept. PresN 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the reception section of the article is overflowing with the often hated listicles (word defined here on Merriam-Webster). While they do come from reliable sources, they are generally poorly written and say little of the character. The reception section in general also gives undue weight towards her physical appearance and body. Outside of the reception section, a lot of the sources are

• I just wanted to also mention that it has been over 10 years since its nomination with no prior review. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue given the character and the nature of most of the reception is towards the character's appearance and sex appeal, it's hard to argue Undue weight being pushed towards the character's appearance when that's the first thing most react towards. Also
  WP:PRIMARY is used in regards to no original research, when the sources are being cited directly for what they're stating in regards to the character's concept and role in the games: why would you need a secondary source to tell you what happens in the game or the developer's rationale for why they developed a character a certain way? And if you're going to do this GAR, at the very least cite specific things in the article to tackle in terms of certain references you may feel are weak or places you feel original research may be occurring, broad strokes like this make it difficult to work with you to bring it up to snuff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It is really difficult to point out specific sources as, like I said, the entire reception section makes heavy use of listicles, those being 65-68, 44, 47-50, 52, 54 and 55, 57-59, 70-72, and 75-77. Removing those would probably leave a massive whole in the reception section. Also, there are other things to talk about with the character: [1] [2] and [3] do not really focus on her sex appeal and would be good sources for reception. Finally, sorry if this GAR is lacking, as it is my first. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Cleaned out a lot of those, and rewrote some of the others so they were actually saying something. I do feel list entries are fine to cite as long as they are actually saying something citeable for a person's reaction to the character. When the dust settled though it didn't carve out that much out of the reception section. As for the other articles you mentioned it's a bit harder to work those into the article on the fly, and that's generally better for something brought up on the talk page or with a cleanup tag, not really a GAR. I'll try and get them in there in a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the trimming could still go a bit further. Being on Complex's "16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games" neither noteworthy nor GA material. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would disagree that it's not noteworthy, I would agree that a list of publications recognizing a character for their sex appeal amid other lists of publications recognizing a character for other reasons is not compelling prose, nor summary style. I think most of those types of mentions could be summarized in a line or two, rather than being listed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I could see it being used as a source for a more broad statement on positive reception for attractiveness, but with a character as mainstream and popular as Tifa, with decades of attention and high level coverage, neither Complex nor "16th place" is particularly of note. As is, it's more of a "let's save this obscure character at

  WP:AFD" type addition, not a modern GA. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well if either of you would care to lend a hand I'm stupidly busy on my end. I think even Oinkers plate is full despite starting this GAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged some parts of the reception and added commentary from Advent Children and Remake. I hope it helps.Tintor2 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing tidying (misuse of commas and fullstops, weird word choices, bad grammer), but got edit conflicted. I'm worried about going on any kind of detail work with small edits going on all the time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Sorry. I won't edit it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Not permanently stopping, I hope. Sorry if I sounded hostile. Probably too late in my area to try doing edits anyway (past 10 PM). Please continue if you'd like to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged it a bit more like Aya Brea to separate the sex appeal from other themes related with the character. Now the first paragraph of critical response explores her character in general, the second her relationship with Cloud and the last one her role in the movie and Remake.Tintor2 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much better, although I think there's more to be done in terms of condensation. I'm not a big fan of spending times on exact rankings and separating publication lists; it'd be one thing if it were The New York Times, but IGN definitely ain't that. (Maybe the EGM one is, especially since there's a little more substance?) So instead of both GameDaily and MSN featured her on lists of "gaming's hottest babes", while noting her looks and appearence while acknowledging the depth of her character and development offset this element.[71][72] In 2010, VideoGamer.com included her among the top ten video game crushes,[73] while Sarah Warn of AfterEllen ranked her as the "ninth-hottest" female video game character.[74] Complex ranked her as the 16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games,"[75] while UGO placed her 13th among the "fighting games' finest hottest women" for her appearance in Ehrgeiz.[76] I'd aim for something closer to Publications including GameDaily, MSN, VideoGamer.com, AfterEllen, Complex, and UGO have ranked her among gaming's most attractive characters. Since there are so many publications, at some point you just lump them into a ref bundle and don't need to explicitly call them out.

I also think the "popularity" section doesn't really separate neatly from the "sex appeal" section since similar stuff is being discussed, and while I appreciate trying to break it out it just feels redundant and sloppy at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyedit of the whole article at Tintor's request. I think his recent reorganization of the Reception section is really nice and de-emphasizes the listicles that motivated this GAR to begin with. Are there additional issues people have identified or is it time to make a final decision on the GAR? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: Thanks for the quick help.Tintor2 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42), Kung Fu Man, Sergecross73, David Fuchs, ProtoDrake, and Tintor2: Tintor did a thorough reorganization of the Reception section after David's last comment, which I think is quite nice. I think the article is in good shape now. Can we move towards a final decision? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it seems okay now. It seems to have been salvaged. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much better. I don't have any reservations that would hold things up, though I do question the inclusion of the bit that says ''UGO stated their preference for Tifa over Aerith when looking at the heroines of Final Fantasy VII" . On its own, that observation seems kind of mundane, while concurrently, I feel like could be a massive cruft magnet, as I imagine there are countless publications over the decades who have said they favor one or the other for the years. Not sure which direction we should go in fixing it, but I feel like it could change somehow. But again, dont let that suggestion hold things up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong feelings about that sentence and could excise it entirely without losing sleep. I don't think UGO is a particularly high quality source to begin with. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better. Thanks Alex and Tintor for your work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No additional criticisms appear to be forthcoming. I think it stays. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sorry for being inactive, but I am not sure how to close this. This looks much better than when I suggested it. If someone else could handle the closing, that would be great. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]