Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive4

Czar[edit]

I have to admit, I feel pretty crappy about how things ended last time we spoke. I apologize for the way it all degenerated, and for my snideness, to put it mildly. The most ridiculous thing about it in hindsight was that I actually ended up reincorporating almost everything you did in the edit I threw the hissy fit about, and also incorporated everything you mentioned at FAC3. After we talked, I ended up working with Niwi3 to re-write most everything in 'Concept and design' and 'Appearances', and also worked a bit on the latter section with Victoriaearle too. Sarah hasn't responded, and Ealdgyth doesn't want to be involved. I was wondering if you'd be interested in revisiting the article? I'm not asking for a cheat-sheet or detailed line-by-line analysis of the entire thing, just general points on what could be done to get your support at any future FAC, should you choose to participate.

I'm much happier with the article than the last time we spoke, including the 'Reception and legacy' section—I feel I've addressed one of your major points at FAC3 (vis-a-vis creating a narrative), in that every sentence has some aspect which ends up relating to both the previous and the next sentence. This has led to a couple of instances where the prose could do with refinement, such as how the commentary on the use of the RE3 outfit in the film could be better integrated with the commentary on the reception of that same outfit in the original game, but... that's really a timeline issue/figuring out how to utilize what was already on the article (i.e., original game commentary vs. retrospective game commentary vs. commentary of the movies, which came between the former two); Victoriaearle gave some useful insights about using an in-universe perspective, but I don't know how this can relate to reception, and she has since retired from Wikipedia. Aside from this sort of stuff, I feel like it's all pretty much there. Since this was one of your key points at FAC3, I'd appreciate any advice/feedback you might have on this, or any other aspect of the article. Thanks, and sorry again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, thanks for the note. I'll see about taking a look this week czar 01:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] czar 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Discussion continued at Jill Valentine's talk page[edit]

[2] Revisiting my edit from June, for instance, I think the paragraph is worse off for its reversion to the previous format. I think I've already said this before but to briefly recap:

"with the 2011 version of the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition naming her the 43rd most-popular video-game character of all time" – what is the virtue of these extra factoids? what should a reader do with the knowledge that she is "43rd" (and out of 100? 200?) Or is the point simply that she has been named among the most popular video game characters? Hence what I had written: "Gaming publications, including the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, list Valentine among the video game medium's most popular and iconic characters."

I considered this more of an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue than anything else. The only real difference between either of our phrasings is my inclusion of her being placed at #43 (of 100, BTW). If we used your phrasing, I thought the casual reader might be left wondering, "Well, where did she appear? #1? #100?" If the source is there to cite her position, then why not include it? It's Guinness World Records, after all, which I feel is a notable enough publication for inclusion. Homeostasis07 (talk)

(That link is about technical web accessibility.) If the reader wants to know the ranking, they can read the article. But unless we're putting JV on a scale from Mario to some minor character from another series, I still don't see how knowing #43 answers more questions than it raises. fwiw, I wouldn't consider Guinness WR to be any standard bearer of character ranking. Would need to know more about their methodology. c

The number has been removed. Homeostasis07 (talk)

similarly, with "Complex's Brittany Vincent and Joystick Division's James Hawkins have both ranked the partnership as" – what should the reader do with these two names? does it temper the overall generalization that the partnership (with Redfield) is among the best in video gaming? this sentence regurgitates a brief mention in a source instead of getting at its kernel of truth: that "Her professional relationship with partner Chris Redfield is noted for its basis in loyalty, not romance, and its balance of their personalities: Valentine's intellect and Redfield's brawn." furthermore, listcle/throwaway sources like https://web.archive.org/web/20150103171322/http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/10/the-25-most-a-kicking-video-game-duos/ are not encyclopedic, and not suitable for a quality article, nevertheless FA. If there is need to namedrop the author of the source, the question is what good that namedrop does to be worth its syllabic weight in the sentence.

Please see message below. Homeostasis07 (talk)

btw, much easier to parse wikitext if written with {{r}} instead of <ref>. I can convert by script if you want this.

If you feel strongly about this, feel free to make the change. I've been editing for 12 years, but even I'm not that familiar with {{r}}—a relatively new invention. I'm comfortable with the source formatting as it is now, but if you make these changes, then I may need your assistance if someone at the next FAC raises issues with sourcing. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Check the page history for a version with the simpler template, which I reverted. Feel free to use whichever you prefer. c

in general, the article is jammed with puzzling specifics that make a reader question why that tidbit was important, especially if it doesn't build to some greater point by the end of the paragraph
e.g., third sentence of the article, we're introduced to JV and hear that Mikami was opposed to objectification (in 2014) and then goes right into a descriptive sentence about her sexualized outfit. If it's meant to be coy, that he said the opposite of what he did, it doesn't come across that way, and in any event, I would expect a FA-quality article to have some sourcing or link that asserts this, that despite what Mikami described as his intentions later, she was clearly designed to titillate men/boys.
sometimes you can refer to the sequels as "the sequel"—rather than by name—if it helps the flow of the sentence. The second ¶ introduces Nemesis, Claire, Veronica without going into any detail on any of them, and again itemizes her wardrobe without any clarification. These elements would need to connect. E.g., JV skipped the sequel but returned in the 1999 RE3. Keep the wardrobe discussion to its own paragraph if needed. "no character from Resident Evil 2 could be used for continuity reasons" and "meaning Valentine was the only suitable character remaining": continuity/suitable between what? opaque. Remember, remember that we write for a general audience.

I actually agree with a lot of these last three points. The problem I faced with prose on the outfits was that those two particular costumes are referenced/discussed by multiple sources later in 'Reception', so it felt wrong to have the commentary but not have an as-brief-as-possible description. Another possible issue is the use of the images, which you and two other people have questioned (i.e., if there's enough significance to include them). Since they illustrate those two outfits, it could be argued that they be used in lieu of a prose description, or have the description included as part of their captions. Were they removed at a later date, though, then the prose would need to be added back to the article. But I'm not really free to work on the article right now. I might be able to implement some of these changes tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Yep, either way, the prose should build towards something. If the outfit descriptions are important, they should be put in context of some other point, e.g., as illustrations of a style or point about sexualization. czar 03:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, Czar I hope you don't mind if I respond beneath each point. One thing, though... I think you've made a mistake somewhere along the line. Maybe you accidentally re-read from an older version of the article? For instance, your second point ("similarly, with 'Complex's Brittany Vincent...'), that particular sentence was rephrased some time ago, and the names you mention above are long gone. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, oops, must have pulled that instance from the wrong side of the diff, but the point similarly applies to instances like "Bonnie Ruberg from" "while GamesRadar's Brett Elston said she was" etc. what good that namedrop does to be worth its syllabic weight in the sentence czar 02:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only realised now that you must have also derived your last point ("sometimes you can refer to the sequels...") from an earlier version of the article as well, as the current version is quite a bit different from the text you quoted (i.e., "connective tissue", although I'd happily rephrase what's there if you request). There's still some work for me to do in 'Reception and legacy', but I've taken pretty much everything you've said above (minus the 'connective tissue' point I mentioned) and re-written the 'Concept and design' section. Do you see anything I could further improve upon in that section?

Also, I've removed the majority of names from the 'Reception and legacy' section, except Lisa Foiles and Anita Sarkeesian (as they have their own articles), and Lara Crigger and Bonnie Ruberg, who I feel are both notable writers who arguably deserve their own articles at this point as well (not that I have the time to make them). Also Jenny Platz, because she's Unraveling Resident Evil's author. And, unfortunately – and as much as I despise him personally – Bob Mackey is one of the bigger names in gaming writing/reviewing, so I've left his name there as well. Although I do like the idea of people in-the-know reading that sentence and rolling their eyes at the idea of him calling something else "embarrassing". If you want his name removed, have at it... I swear I won't mind. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see below c

Why the long Reception quotes? Not seeing what's special about the phrasing that wouldn't be better off paraphrased. Is it trying to make a point about Capcom's strategy or about JV being iconic, because the rest of the paragraph is about the latter. "She might not have the brute strength or obscene 90's hair of some of her [male] counterparts, but when you need a gigantic, genetically-altered zombie taken down, she's the girl to do it." What is this quote meant to impart?

The quotes were attempts to illustrate the latter, since you said at FAC3 that the statements made by these sources needed further clarification within the prose. I've paraphrased both of them now, hopefully not reintroducing aspects of your original complaint back into to the article. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk)

I don't agree on naming the rest of the commentators in the Reception but that's your call at this point. If the individuals were "notable writers", they would have their own articles. I would not expect a general audience to know who these publications are, nevertheless their individual writers. E.g., the qualification "Bonnie Ruberg from the same publication included Valentine among the least-sexualized female characters"—not sure what I'm supposed to do with this info. Is Ruberg some vetted standard of female character lists? This is the type of stuff I'd massage into more synthetic/paraphrased sentences. Not sure Lisa Foiles will stay a bluelink for long either, based on the extant sources

All names have been removed, except Lisa Foiles and Anita Sarkeesian, and the quoted text has been rephrased. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Blondes do it better - Lisa would know! Enjoy some eye candy with the Top 5 hottest blonde video game girls. Some things are better than others. WebTV sensation Lisa Foiles makes a list of the top 5 best and worst things in games, so you don't have to. Every Tuesday. Only at The Escapist.

This is the only copy in the source. This is clickbait journalism, notwithstanding that for purposes of encyclopedic commentary on video game characters, Foiles is known as a video host and not as a journalist. That she says JV was "one of the hottest female character designs ever" is not going to stand to scrutiny at FA as an important point. At most, I'd only use this source as backing (in the existing combined ref) that JV has been listed in listicles for her sex appeal, not as a separately worthwhile claim, though I've already expressed that even those such sources don't belong in a FA article. czar 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unraveling Resident Evil" If this isn't independently notable, a general reader would better know this as "a book of essays about the series", which in this instance would be, "in an essay about X in the series" (whatever was the topic of Platz's essay). Also what about the contrast is important: JV is desexualized and Wong uses sexual empowerment to subvert patriarchy—what's the interaction?

I've removed the author's name and added a description of the book. As for your latter point, you'd need to ask SlimVirgin/SarahSV. She was the one who introduced this sentence to the article, or – evidently – you can access the book yourself and rephrase to your own specifications; I'm afraid this is the only source on the entire article I've never been able to access (Google throws a "This book cannot be previewed." message every time I click on it). Homeostasis07 (talk)

Homeostasis07, that book is published by McFarland, with whom WP has a partnership. (So you can apply for a copy rather than me applying for you.) I'd be interested in seeing the chapter myself, if you can get a copy. Let me know if, for whatever reason, this method falls through and I can get the chapter for you another way. czar 10:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Czar I've applied for access to this source. I'll let you know when [or, if] I receive it. Homeostasis07 (talk)

The epithet "Journalist Bob Mackey" cited to the article "Top 5 Worst Dressed Videogame Characters" feels like overreach. If this point is important, why does it need to be attributed to Mackey? Weird because on one hand, citing this opinion implies that it is important, but looking at who it cites (a redlink journalist of no listed publication), why would a reader discern that this opinion is important. Can it be phrased in a way that carries the same importance without making it seem like just one random writer's opinion? Maybe it can be amalgamated with another, similar thought.

I've [happily] removed Mackey's name, and replaced it with 1UP.com: the publication he was writing for (which has been included in other FA's). Homeostasis07 (talk)

"Producer Paul W. S. Anderson considered several ways to justify the usage of such a revealing costume, including having it described as an undercover outfit,[99] while Milla Jovovich suggested using a heat wave as the reason." This reads like development, not reception

'Concept and design' is dedicated to the character's development within its original medium (gaming). But I've rearranged and rephrased this entire paragraph to lead to Anderson's point about that outfit's critical reception. Homeostasis07 (talk)

"extent to which Valentine's appearance had changed over the course of the game series has also received a mixed response" a single source citation for this summative statement? Also is this even a quality source and how is "a writer for GamesRadar said she had been redesigned so many times", writing about the game series, related to a paragraph about film?

I've rephrased the summative statement: "mixed response"→"been criticized", because GamesRadar is indeed a reliable source. What may have thrown you was the fact that the publication name was linked two paragraphs earlier. I can link the 2nd instance of the publication's name, if you want. And this paragraph jumps from negative film reception→negative game reception because this entire paragraph is dedicated to all mixed/negative reception, aside from the sexual commentary, which is incorporated elsewhere. This was one of the issues I was left to rectify on my own since the last peer review closed: how to disseminate what everyone wanted. As a compromise, I simply separated all non-sexual-related negative commentary to its own paragraph, in the hope that no-one would find that objectionable. Do you object to this? Homeostasis07 (talk)

There is no indication that the paragraph is about mixed reception, hence why it's jarring when it switches from film (as the ¶ was introduced) to other topics. See below—I think signposting and separation would help here. czar 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: concept & design section: my Mikami point from above still stands and sticks out

I have to politely disagree. I removed the outfit description entirely. What about that specifically do you object to? Homeostasis07 (talk)

It's a jarring time warp to go from 1996 to 2014 and back again (1998). It's relevant to mention the creator and what he was thinking when the character was created, but these views on objectification are not describing the 90s and they're not peppered by any other discussion of his thoughts at the time of creation. Better to add those 2014 details to a paragraph/area that discusses sexualization and her design, not jammed into that first paragraph. Also if presenting his 2014 views, the reader naturally asks what his views were in the 90s, because to anyone following along, they don't appear to be the same. If he evolved on this issue, would be helpful to add that to wherever his 2014 views are explicated. c

I've moved Mikami's quote to its more natural position, in 'Reception and legacy'. Homeostasis07 (talk)

This introduces other problems. This R&L ¶ now reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole. If this paragraph is about JV's sexualization, it should first signpost ("topic sentence") what the paragraph is about before giving examples that support that topic sentence. If this ¶ is about how JV is not sexualized and is in fact known for not being sexualized, then make that clear. It doesn't help that the last sentences are written in "X said A, Y said C" fashion when they could instead synthesize a claim that some journalists described her dress as revealing and sensible but not sexualized, which sets up a transition to discuss how other journalists disagree. In short, these factoids need to be massaged into sentences that clarify one another rather than beads on a string of related but unconnected topics.

The article needs to figure out and express clearly whether, or how, exactly, the JV character is sexualized. If it varied, during what periods was the character sexualized? If critics are mixed, show that sources disagree. Instead it reads like some throwaway listicles offer some milquetoast opinions on her dress being both tame and simultaneously sexy/revealing, while academic sources pointedly elaborate on what exactly makes her costume sexualized. And then there is this 2014 Mikami comment which contradicts everything else listed here, but is displayed with no useful juxtaposition for the reader. If he opposes portraying women as submissive to men, what should the reader even do with all of this evidence that says he did otherwise? Is Mikami deluded, or did he mean well and fail in his portrayal, or is some other later character designer responsible for the costume/design that the rest of the section criticizes? Need to lay this out for the reader: Since there is no summation of these little factoids, nothing holds them together. My honest advice would be to answer the above questions from scratch in FA-quality prose, and then return to source that content while removing the claims that cannot be sourced and massaging the extant sources into a form that does not leave the reader to do the heavy lifting.

Additionally, the original opening ¶ (whence the Mikami reference once rested) introduces JV but weirdly goes into why she wasn't in RE2 but was in RE3—why? This ¶ is about her concept and design. Why is the reader hearing about her later appearances when it's both unrelated to concept/design and while there is a whole section dedicated to her appearances below. Stuff like this reads as an an accounting of every fact for JV/series enthusiasts (leftovers from how it was originally written?) when the goal is for a general audience to follow this writing. Highly recommend my suggestion below about reading out loud or to someone unfamiliar with the series. czar 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off your horses, Czar}} I informed you above that I'm still waiting for the McFarland project to get back to me. I thought it went without saying that, as a result, the R&L is a work-in-progress. I still have no idea what SlimVirgin/SarahSV (because she keeps changing her username between the two) meant when she paraphrased that source the way she did. But, in saying that, I can also speak to one of your points above: it's not always a good idea to paraphrase quotes from every source. Some sources have content which is so specific and can be so easily misinterpreted by future editors that it's better to keep the original quote as it is, especially when later editors can only access that source via some project which doesn't respond to me in the time it takes for a user like you to respond with a massive tome such as the one you posted above. So unless Sarah wants to contribute in the immediate future (this is the fourth time I've attempted to initiate contact with her in the past 3 months), I'm on the verge of simply removing that source and text altogether and re-working the entire article as I see fit. I'll let you know when McFarland gets back to me, because you said above that you also want to access the source. I'll work on the prose after that. Until then, don't even bother reading the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as do the above points about "no character from Resident Evil 2 could be used for continuity reasons" and "meaning Valentine was the only suitable character remaining"

I've removed all of these details. Homeostasis07 (talk)

I'm not going to be able to go line by line here but I recommend reading these paragraphs out loud or to someone unfamiliar with the series and ask if they follow between the sentences. I'm familiar with the series and between sentences I'm still scratching my head about why certain points are made and others aren't connected.

czar 13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the feedback, Czar. I think I've done everything you've asked for above. Although I know there's still more work to do: some of the changes I've made could be refined, and it's introduced some inconsistencies. I'll [hopefully] be able to rectify all this tomorrow. And please disregard the final paragraph of 'Reception and legacy' for the time being. In my discussion with Bridies some time ago, they made some valid points about the Jill/Chris relationship, which I hope to incorporate there over the next few days. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so McFarland obviously isn't happening (not that I've been refused, just that it's been well over a week and still no word). So I'm moving on. Anyway, I disagree that R&L doesn't read like a "cogent whole", and that there's insufficient "signposting". I never really understood the entire "signposting" thing anyway—it seemed to me more of a random crutch certain people clung on to with little basis for genuine application. This is a Wikipedia article we're writing, not a college thesis. Nevertheless, I've incorporated signposting, but opted to do so in an "engaging and professional" way, and not in a spoon-fed, repetative way. "Several commentators have suggested that Valentine's portrayal as a military professional tempered the ability of game developers to overtly-sexualize the character." This paragraph relates entirely to Positive critical commentary of her/the series' sexualization (or lack thereof); "Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists which rank characters on their sex appeal...." This paragraph relates entirely to Negative critical commentary of her/the series' sexualization; next paragraph relates to more general mixed/negative commentary, and so on. There's a cohesive whole to be found, if you want to.

And several of your latter comments seem like continuations of long-held misunderstandings of the MOS for VG characters: "Concept and design" versus "Appearances", and what both sections should and can actually consist of. The overall point of mentioning that Valentine did not appear in Resident Evil 2 is to illustrate the intention of designers "to retain the level of fear found in the original game by introducing similarly inexperienced characters." So this can be seen as relating to design in general. 'Appearances' "should list any games or related media that the character appeared in and briefly discuss their role in the game." In this instance, the sentence is referring to why designers opted not to have her appear in a game, so it would be unsuitable for 'Appearances'. Ditto the RE3 continuity point. As for your remaining point about having the article read by other users, it's been done... ad nauseam (link to this page). Your truths are not self-evident, apparently... as Jefferson might say. You're the only one to mention any of these things. Anyway, thanks for all this feedback. I'm much happier with the article as it is now. Some minor clean-up, and I'm ready to renominate. ;) Unless there's anything else? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Is Mikami deluded, or did he mean well and fail in his portrayal," - I'll tell you what clueless/biased/actually-deluded "academic sources" and apparently also you don't understand. He personally likes Jill contrasted with Rebecca (girly and timid and non-aggressive), who's "submissive, she’s not independent" like Jill, and Rebecca wasn't even playable before 0 ("peripheral characters") and then wasn't playable alone but as a part of a team with a man she was dependant on to be constantly around to survive (and then just went away to recently resurface as kidnapped woman-in-distress). It's all right there in the source. Also Ada never "subverted patriarchy" (unless that "patriarchy" is a force for good, because she's a sociopath villain working for evil people just for profit and thrill), she's using her sexuality to manipulate the honest good man that is Leon (or not-so honest men like John). She's a classic femme fatale archetype mixed with an action (anti)hero and there was never anything else intended by anyone (there's no "death of the author", postmodernism is a lie). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Czar: Can you explain what's happening? I sent the requested source to you about a week ago, but you've not responded to any of my subsequent e-mails. Plus, I'm not entirely sure why you asked me to send you the source in the first place. Did you not trust me to properly disseminate it on my own? If you're busy, fair enough. If you don't have any further objections, then please say so. Because the fact that you've requested the source but haven't responded is making me anxious. I'd like to know... one way or the other. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? I've received a single email sent three days ago—apologies that I couldn't respond right away. You've said multiple times that you plan to remove the source and indicated that you don't plan to make any changes based on my Sept 29 comment (above) so I didn't expect you to be waiting on anything from me. I think I've made myself abundantly clear. How you decide to proceed is your prerogative. czar 11:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed you four times since 9 October. You responded to the 2nd one (sent 22 October), didn't respond to the 3rd (24 October), and have obviously seen the last (26 October). Most of them are irrelevant now, as the first two were regarding McFarland, and you've addressed many of the points of my last two in your response above. Although... the McFarland source hasn't been removed; I just read it and rephrased what was already on the article to what can accurately be ascribed to it. You wrote above: "I'd be interested in seeing the chapter myself, if you can get a copy." I assumed that meant you'd be interested in reading the chapter and doing something with it on the article. That was obviously a misunderstanding on my part. Apologies. But it's unfair of you to say that I didn't "make any changes based on [your] Sept 29 comment". I responded to all of those points on 9 October (after 9 days of waiting for McFarland). It's your prerogative to respond but... it's all been done, regardless; I worked on the article quite a bit this month to address any of your remaining concerns. So thanks for all the help, Czar: the article has definitely improved as a result. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My quote was "don't plan to make any changes based on my Sept 29 comment", as in your response's dismissal of the points I raised. The article has improved, but it still hasn't reconciled how JV is simultaneously among the "least-sexualized female characters ever created" and "one of the hottest female character designs ever" with zero context aside from juxtaposition, as if they're just different views of the same thing rather than polar opposites. Also still don't see why a reader needs to know about RE2/3 in the first design paragraph. I'm here to read about the character's design, not about why she didn't appear in sequels. If I was here for the latter, why isn't her appearance/lack thereof in later titles also explained? But I already expressed these and other points cogently in the Sept 29 comment, so while your decision against addressing them is fine (that's what I meant by your prerogative), the result is different from actually allaying the concern or, more, that "it's all been done". czar 10:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't 'dismissals', but legitimate arguments as to why I consider those points resolved. The polarisation you're referring to in those two paragraphs is a byproduct of the article's history, when users were focused almost entirely on the character's sexual objectification, to the detriment of some of the more general aspects of the article. Thankfully we've moved past the combative stage, but there's still a line there which needs to be threaded in order to keep the peace. And the word "hottest" isn't used in the article in the way you're now implying (as if it were specifically added by me as part of signposting), but rather as a direct quotation from a RS. And there's a lengthy explanation from me above on the reasoning behind the inclusion of those details in 'Concept and design'. It's your individual prerogative to accept any of this or not, Czar but the context you say you're looking for is all there, if you wanted to see it. This conversation seems to have reached its logical conclusion. I think it's time we both move on. Thanks for your time. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1989[edit]

Hi. I see from your talk page and your contributions that you're semi-retired, so I won't take it personally if you never get around to this, or even bother responding to me. ;) You probably don't remember anyway, but you commented at Jill Valentine's first FAC nearly a year ago. There's a long and pointless back-story that I won't bore you with, but FAC3 was closed on the basis that I hadn't worked collaboratively with previous reviewers.

So... if you have a few minutes to spare any time over the next few months, would you mind looking at the Jill Valentine article and tell me if there's anything you think I could improve further? I've been informed I need to contact every previous commentator – all 20 other users – before I can re-nominate. Don't feel obliged to, though, and there's no rush—if you only get around to responding in September, chances are I'll still be discussing the article with one of those other 20 people. It's gonna be a long haul. =( Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation automatically archived four days later by Lowercase sigmabot III (note: user was "semi-retired", and a response was not expected).

Ealdgyth[edit]

The dreaded topic again, but this shouldn't be too traumatic. ;) I've been advised to contact everyone who has ever commented at one of the article's FACs, and address any outstanding issues they may have before nominating it again. You provided a source review at FAC1 and questioned some sources at FAC2. I'm not asking for a source review, or for you to do one at the next FAC, but would you mind taking a quick look at Jill Valentine#References and seeing if there are any issues with source quality? The article has come a long way since FAC1. The only references I'm hesitant about now are the Feminist Frequency primary sources—but, knowing the article's history, I'm loath to touch them with a barge poll. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on the subject. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation was removed from Ealdgyth's talk without response at her request on 19 July, by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Response left by Ealdgyth on my talk page:

I can tell you that the most important reason I didn't reply was my own major issues with trying to move, having sick in-laws, a husband needing surgery early this year, more sick in-laws, still trying to move, sick friends with no relatives who are in ICU and thus leaving me to deal with having the medical power of attorney, plus my own off-wiki attempts to actually research my own books and articles plus helping others in my field with research and data. I don't control what the FAC coords do - it isn't my fault that they want you to get me to do something I have repeatedly told people on wiki that I just don't necessarily have time for. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Ealdgyth And sorry to hear all this. I hope the rest of 2018 and the next few years are more peaceful for you and all your loved ones. I have to say, though, that your reputation precedes you... multiple users have mentioned you by name at every stage of this project (i.e., you're the first thought that comes to their minds when it comes to source reviews). To be honest though, Jill Valentine has come a long way since FAC1 back in July 2017, and I'm confident and more than prepared to stand by the reference quality of the article as it is now; I think even the most pessimistic of source reviewers could look at JV and not see a problem (either with source quality or with statements in the article being attributed to those sources). So, with the greatest of respect, I think it's OK for you to sit this one out. ;) Of course, you're free to peruse the references at your own leisure to see if there's something you don't like. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, but completely understand if you don't have time (and I hope you won't mind if I use a diff. of your message above to explain your absence to FAC coords during FAC4). Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary left by Ealdgyth on Mike Christie's talk page:

I'll be utterly frank here (and it's not necessarily any one editor's fault that the FACs were so nasty, so I don't want to imply that it can be blamed on any one editor) but that first Jill Valentine FAC was a big contributing factor in why I'm not exactly interested in doing source reviews (a few others after it played into it also). There's no denying I am obscenely busy in RL ... but source reviewing used to mostly be interesting and rewarding. It didn't usually involve nastiness that wasn't reined in by the coords. Instead, now, it feels like no support is given and thus... I just don't need the stress and aggravation. Again, it wasn't just the JV FAC, and it wasn't just any particular editor at that FAC, but it did not help at all. Nor did the notes on my talk page that seemed to demand that I had to revisit the issue... nor was I thrilled that the coords told the nominators at later FACs that they needed to nag me to get me back to the FAC... when it was pretty clear I wasn't interested. That was REALLY annoying... I volunteer and the source reviews are definitely something I volunteered to do... and then over the years it seemed like everyone just expected me (and later Brian) to carry all the load so they didn't have to bother with figuring out whether something was well sourced or not. To put it bluntly, I felt (and still feel) very very much like I was taken for granted. And after a while, even a willing mule will protest and stop. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niwi3[edit]

Hi. You may have noticed that I'd taken over the Jill Valentine article since the peer review was closed. I've been advised to work with previous commentators to address any outstanding issues that may remain. I went through every peer review and FAC and tried my best (don't be fooled by the lack of blue-highlighted text: it was a complete re-write) to address every issue that anyone had ever raised, but FAC3 was closed because I hadn't contacted prior reviewers. Would you be interested in looking at the article now? I know 'Appearances' needs "signposting", and 'Reception and legacy' could do with some more trimming, but is there anything else you don't like about the article now? Your comments at the last peer review were really helpful with my later "revamp", so I'd love to get your thoughts on it. I understand if you're completely sick of the article, though. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I'm sorry but I don't have any interest in going through the article again. A few things, though: I believe that very little progress has been made to the article since the last peer review; the prose is still very average and there are still unnecessary details that damage the article's focus on the subject (e.g. Mikami's objection to the sexual objectification of women doesn't have anything to do with the character and there is no source that proves that he actually designed Valentine; just because he directed the first game doesn't mean he designed the actual character). Also, I agree with Czar's comments in FAC3 and your collaborative attitude leaves something to be desired. He gave you a reasonable explanation of why the reception section needs more work, yet you simply ignored it and didn't do anything to improve it. If you decide to nominate the article again in the future, I will leave it to other reviewers, but it's still far from a pass from me. Good luck. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you thought you were conveying with a response like this, and I don't particularly feel like continuing a conversation of this tone, other than pointing out that the "peer review" lasted from 6 October until 27 November, so – with that in mind – if your current criticisms had genuine merit then a nearly 2-month peer review would've already rectified them. I think your attitude speaks more towards your own motivations. And my one mistake on the diff. you linked to from Czar's talk page was not including a diff of his edit to the article, which illustrates him removing a substantial amount of sourced content, which any reasonable editor would consider vandalism. Never the less, I'll take your one constructive criticism about the character design being currently unsourced, and will rectify that at a later date. When such a source is found, then Mikami's quote can be seen as directly related to the character's Concept and design (the section which it appears). Anyway, good luck in all your future editing, because you've made it clear that there's no point in us working collaboratively ever again. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I'm not saying that I agree with his edits on the article. I'm simply saying that I find his criticism in FAC3 to be legitimate, and that you have ignored it so far. I think it's important to accept criticism without taking it personally. If you think I have something against you then you're wrong, but I'm not going to be the one to convince you. Regards --Niwi3 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have anything against me personally, and I never asked you to convince me of anything. The issue I had with Czar's later edit to the article – the one you posted a diff. of my response to above – is that it was in direct contradiction to the constructive criticism he made at FAC3. And I've already indicated that I have taken on-board these criticisms, and may incorporate them at a later date. The article is – admittedly – a mess, but I will not take the opinion of one user over everyone else's. I want a collaboration: ie, to see the opinions of every user and come to the best possible middle-ground for everyone concerned. I wasn't kidding at FAC3 when I said I'm prepared to spend the next 6 months of my life on this. The JV debacle is the biggest mess I've ever come across on Wikipedia. I want to see it resolved, one way or the other. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: If you think the article is a mess then why don't you just improve it? I'm aware that it's a very difficult article, mainly because the character is very inconsistent. The main problem I see with it is that there are too many unnecessary details and very little basic information. We don't even know who actually designed or conceived her, yet the article mentions trivial things like alternate costumes as if they were more important. Also, several paragraphs are composed of unrelated sentences that discuss things randomly; one paragraph starts describing her costume in the original game without any context, and then says that the actress who portrayed her in that game is credited as "Inezh". Is that really necessary? Sentences should be put into context, otherwise they look like fancruft. Anyway, I'm not going to spend more time on it, but that should give you an idea on what needs to be done. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The credits of the original game have been added as a source for the character's design: Isao Ōishi is the sole character designer listed, while Mikami separately appears as a "character modeller". And, if you think back, I'm sure you'll remember why the descriptions of the clothing remained in place: Anita – and several others – comment on her clothing in 'Reception'. Since it's specifically brought up later in the article, I made a judgement call that it's necessary to include brief, summary-style descriptions. Ideally, I'd be free to decimate the entire article and work on it as I see fit, and have new reviewers come along to take the place of people who [apparently] want nothing more to do with the article. But the closing note of FAC3 says otherwise. And I'm left alone to rectify the kind of problems caused by a 2-month "peer review" from 3 users who neglected to take the time to come to an understanding on what should be included on the article. "More about the character's development"... "but not that much"; "Remove clothing information"... "but don't remove information that 'critically examines' the clothing". Like I said, "mess". Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Nobody is preventing you from working on the article as you see fit. In fact, I highly recommend you to do so. Also, not all peer reviews are necessarily conclusive. The fact that this one was inconclusive means that it's not going to be easy to improve the article to FA status. So don't follow the peer review as if it was a guideline that was developed after a consensus was reached. Because you said you are willing to spend a lot of time and effort on the article, I recommend you do the following: a major rewrite from top to bottom (it's not as difficult as it seems because you already have the sources). Start the article with a Concept and development section that doesn't mix fictional with real-world details. For example, I would start the very first paragraph like this:

Jill Valentine is a fictional character that was created by Capcom and introduced in the 1996 video game Resident Evil, the first game in the Resident Evil series. Director Shinji Mikami, who co-designed the character along with character designer Isao Ōishi, expressed in 2014 his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games...

Then put all the fictional details in the Appearances section. I think 4 paragraphs should be more than enough, covering her role in major Resident Evil games. If readers want more details, they can always go to the individual game articles. The real-world details from the Other appearances subsection should be integrated in the concept and development section. And finally, rewrite the Reception and legacy section using Czar's feedback from FAC3. That should improve the prose, focus, and context. I would use this article as an example/template. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this, and sorry for the delayed response (I can never find time to edit on weekends). This will all take a couple of days worth of editing to implement, though. One thing, straight off the bat: there are several "fictional details" in the RE5 portion of paragraph 5 of 'Concept and design', but they do end up relating – in a roundabout sort of way – to the character's design (hair colour/paler skin/placement of the mind-controlling device). This was another one of my judgement calls after I dissected the peer review: they all sounded like design features, to me anyway. Even after reading the Tasha Yar article, I'm apprehensive of how to move forward with information such as this, because I followed MOS:Video Game Characters in my re-write, which says differently. I'm not being a smart-ass or argumentative with this response; this is genuinely a crux I've been considering for some time. Any suggestions on how to move forward? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: They are indeed design features, and they should be kept in the development section. Still, I'd keep the fictional details to a bare minimum because you can always flesh them out in the appearances section. Example:

In Resident Evil 5, Valentine was redesigned to reflect the fact that she was used as a test subject. Her hair color was changed to blonde, her skin was made paler, and her close-fitting outfit was designed to give players the impression that she had been experimented on. The mind-controlling device that she wears in the game was originally going to be placed on her head. However, it was moved to her chest because the game's project leader felt it would be sexy.

Saying that her Resident Evil 5 outfit resembles a catsuit is original research and needs to be removed. You might want to add some design information on her BSAA outfit, though (see here). --Niwi3 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the first two sections of the article. I implemented the vast majority of your comments here, with a couple of exceptions: Valentine's relationship with Redfield is discussed in 'Reception', so I felt it necessary to leave the "alongside Chris Redfield" in 'Concept and design': mainly for the fact that I didn't feel like there was a way of naturally introducing Chris in 'Appearances'. I kept "biological research experiments" in 'C+D' as well, because I thought saying "test subject" without any signposting would have casual readers thinking "Test subject for what?". Also I kept "sexier" instead of "sexy", which I could see causing problems later on. I don't particularly like either word, though, and am open to alternative phrasing. Sorry this took longer than I said it would, by the way. I took this as an opportunity to incorporate some of Victoriaearle's comments from PR2 to the article: which also goes some way in dealing with Czar's signposting concerns. I'll start on 'Reception and legacy' over the next few days, but what do you think of the first 2 sections now? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: First off, take your time with the article. Nobody is putting pressure on you to quickly improve it, so there is no need to say "sorry" for the delay. As I said before, I'm not interested in going through a detailed look at the article again, partially because I'm quite busy in real life; I can only give you a guidance, which I already did. The article is a bit better, but probably needs a few more tweaks to improve the flow of the prose, and some details might be simplified further. Also, the words "sexy" or "sexier" are perfectly fine in that context (they explain why the device was moved to her chest), so they won't cause any problem. Anyway, take your time with it. You might also want to contact other reviewers and see if they have something to add. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your help with this. After a rocky start, this actually became quite productive. ;) The article is definitely better now as a result of all this. I'll spend some time working on it some more, and will contact other reviewers when I feel like I've made some progress. One last question: would you be interested in commenting at FAC4, because I can ping you before I open it. Or would you rather not be involved? I realise you had an 8 month stretch with the article [between FAC2 + PR2], so completely understand if you'd just like to move on. Anyway, thanks again. You've been really helpful. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Right now I'd rather not be involved as I have more important things to do, at least during this summer. Not sure about the future. Can't promise anything. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi. I've been working on Jill Valentine for the past couple of months, and have been advised to contact previous editors before nominating the article at FAC again. I've worked with Czar [a bit] and Niwi3 [a lot], and I believe I've dealt with all of their concerns from 'Concept and design' and 'Appearances'. Now all that's left is 'Reception and legacy'—specifically the two paragraphs regarding her sexual objectification. I think I've made some progress there, but I'd appreciate your feedback on that section, if you have the time. I understand if you don't, though... you seem to be pretty busy with all of the above. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd let you know that I still plan on going ahead with taking this article to FAC. I'd hoped that – as the primary opposer at the last two FACs – you'd have something to say here. Evidently not. C'est la vie. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response; conversation was archived by SlimVirgin on 24 August.

Famous Hobo[edit]

Hey. I noticed you commented at FAC1 for Jill Valentine way back in July 2017. I've been working on the article, and plan on renominating it at FAC in the near future. Would you be interested in reading the article again and letting me know if there are issues that need resolving before I do so; specifically any extant issues which might result in you opposing the article's promotion at FAC4? I'd really appreciate your feedback, but understand if you don't want to get involved again. Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response, as of 24 December.

Victoriaearle[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits to Jill Valentine. I doubt you're aware, but I've been tasked with doing this (a link to this page) (in a nutshell: contacting everyone who has ever contributed to any of JV's FACs and peer reviews, and asking for their current opinions on the article). To be honest, you were actually the only one of those 22 users I wasn't going to contact—I had read on your talk page (about a year ago) that you were unwell, so I really didn't want to bother you. Even so, I tried to incorporate as many of your points from PR into the 'Appearances' that I could... because good advice is good advice. I hope you don't mind that I made a couple ([3], [4]) of mainly-Japanese language-related edits to the article's lead after you. Anyway, thanks for working on the article. I really appreciate it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the message on Sarah's page, but in that case I'll butt out though what ails me doesn't affect my ability to think. The edits I made were a small attempt to demonstrate that the prose needs tightening throughout, and if the edit you changed re the Japanese title needs to go to the lead then it should be bolded as an alt title in the first sentence rather than where it's currently place. Beyond that the issues that need to be sorted and taken to the talk page is how to reconcile the article history, and who the primary editor is, because that's the first thing the coords will consider. There are many other issues that have been previously pointed out and are characteristic of articles to do with characters. The article needs to focus on the character, not on the developer, not on the plot, not on appearances - those are all subsidiary - but on the character. It still doesn't manage to do that, but it's a really difficult thing to do. The best example I can give is my new favorite character is Ciri from Andrzej Sapkowski's Witcher books I read about a year ago. It's not something that could be written because there aren't sources, but assuming there were, the emphasis would be on her temperament and character and quest and history, etc., her skills and so on, with very little emphasis on the plot details the books she appears in (or the games, etc,) the creator (the author) and the reception. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is the least of my concerns, to be honest. I'm primarily focused right now on trying to sort the 'Concept and design', 'Appearances' and 'Reception and legacy' sections; I think it's best to address the lead after these have been resolved. And I now consider myself the "primary editor" (ie, the only one editing the article), since the previous custodian has said he never wants to edit the article ever again. I think the massive "peer review" demonstrated that prolonged discussion between certain users is not the way for this article to move forward, since several of those users could never actually establish a consensus among themselves for what they wanted the article to be like after the peer review ended. So the personal touch is definitely a more productive way to go—asking people for their thoughts on their own talk pages will result in a lot more responses, as opposed to a generic message on the article's talk page, which I genuinely believe almost everyone would ignore.

With regard to developing the character's arc (personality, skills, etc.), I agree with most of what you've said. But I'd really rather keep things specific to traits which could be ascribed to every medium (games and movies and books), because there's an issue/rabbit hole I see developing there. For instance, during PR2, you mentioned details about the character from S.D. Perry's first book (kudos on managing to extract something of substance from that novel, BTW. I couldn't get through the first two chapters. Attrocious writing.), like her being nervous and clumsy, and running away from fights. But that isn't something I recognise of the character from either the games or films, where she is a brave and resourceful fighter who battles the likes of Nemesis and Tyrant without so much as a flinch. In fact, I recall her only ever backing away from 2 zombies: the first 2 she ever came across. It's also worth noting that her partner Chris also backed away from that second one, because the thing was freaking huge and unexpectedly appeared from around a corner. So, I'd be wary about adding details from one source (the books) that most people wouldn't recognise. There's probably a happy medium between the two (character details from books vs game/movie details), but I currently see this as just one big rabbit hole, and don't especially know how to proceed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I knew it was a mistake to respond with a big wall of text. What I've said above is basically every pre-existing thing I wanted to say about the article, but I've turned green the sentence fragments that I'd like to hear your opinions on. Do you have any suggestions on those? Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07 I do mean to answer but haven't been able to yet. I do have limited time I'm able to spend here and expect to be gone for the next few days. I've been mulling this over, though, and thinking about the viability of various approaches. Will write more when I can. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll probably be working this article until December, so take all the time you need. I'm just glad you're not ignoring me, like some others I could mention. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence above isn't helpful and doesn't set up for a collaborative and collegial editing environment. Will you strike it? Re the character: in your previous post I learned more about the character than I have from reading the article. If the character exists in the books, then I believe that facet of Jill, or those characteristics, need to be mentioned. We have only the sources to the drive us; we shouldn't chose what to include and not include. My concern, though, is that article focuses too much on material that's extraneous to the character. To a large extent that's because there aren't many good secondary sources about only the character, so the article makes use of other sources and loses focus. I did read some secondary sources that compare her to Lara Croft (can't remember if that made it's way in) and my advice would be to start looking for sources that focus only the on the article topic, the character, and start trimming away bits that aren't necessary. I don't know how much I'll be around and suggest strongly that these discussions be brought to article talk page where they belong to allow everyone to take part at their own pace. Feel free to link this thread to the article talk; that's where the article development needs to happen. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the "last sentence" is how I really feel; I'm pretty disgusted by the lack of common courtesy demonstrated by some other users. A simple message akin to "I'll get back to you..." or "I don't want to be involved anymore..." or "Leave me the hell alone!"—these would all be preferable to simply not responding for 2-3 months. All that aside, I'd like to reiterate that I'll genuinely try my best to incorporate as many of your above-mentioned points to the article as I possibly can, and will keep a record of our conversation here. I don't want to take this to the talk page, for all the reasons I mentioned above. And I couldn't help but notice this edit: you semi-retiring yourself from Wikipedia, on health grounds. I genuinely am sending you all the good karma I possibly can, and wish you the best. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

ProtoDrake[edit]

Message left by me on ProtoDrake's talk page:

Hi. I noticed you commented at Jill Valentine's FAC1, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Is there something I could improve before renominating? Would you be into commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue anyone may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate your feedback, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response left by ProtoDrake on my talk page:

Hi. I do remember it now. But since the whole thing with the user currently known as SNAAAAKE!!, I've distanced myself from RE-related articles. Having read through it, I don't see why it should become an FA. When the time comes to renominate it, please contact me and I'll happily add my voice and any comments I might have then. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ProtoDrake: I'll ping you when I renominate (probably early September). Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth[edit]

Message left by me on Finetooth's talk page:

Hi. I noticed you commented at Jill Valentine's FAC1, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Is there something I could improve before renominating? Would you be into commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue anyone may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate your feedback, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response left by Finetooth on my talk page:

Hi Homeostasis07. I'm largely inactive on Wikipedia this year, and I won't be taking part in the Jill Valentine reviewing or the proposed FAC. Best of luck. Finetooth (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Finetooth: Thanks for letting me know. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber[edit]

Hi. I noticed you commented at Jill Valentine's FAC1, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Is there something I could improve before renominating? Would you be into commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue anyone may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate your feedback, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response (as of 24 December).

Adityavagarwal[edit]

Hi. I noticed you commented at Jill Valentine's FAC1, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Is there something I could improve before renominating? Would you be into commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue anyone may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate your feedback, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07 Hey I was inactive due to quite a lot of work; although, let me know when you have an FAC4 for it and I would give my support! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It will probably be early September before I renominate, so I'll let you know. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah :) Homeostasis07. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

TheJoebro64[edit]

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: sorry I'm a bit late on responding. I don't think I should get involved with this. I only made one comment (which was a support because the article was well-done) at FAC2, so I wasn't really a significant part of it. Good luck though JOE BRO 64 13:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for responding. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

CR4ZE[edit]

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response (as of 24 December).

Cognissonance[edit]

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Jill Valentine was wholly neutral before one feminist editor pushed her bias onto the article, which was overhauled at her behest, thereby making much of it indirectly WP:POV. For that reason, I'd rather not have a part of that article anymore. Cognissonance (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I disagree with any of this. I'm just trying to strike a [somewhat] happy balance between the two sides. That's all I believe can be expected of the article, at this point. Anyway, thanks for responding. It's telling that the people who supported the article during either of the two FACs have been totally forthcoming, while the opposing admins don't even have the common courtesy to take the 10 seconds required to reply to a talk page message. Testament to how little they really cared, I guess. But I digress... Happy editing. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link.

Vanamonde93[edit]

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I recall providing some general comments, which were largely addressed. However, my understanding is that much of the disagreement about the article stems from its discussion of gender, sexualization, and attractiveness. Those are deep-rooted issues (speaking generally; I'm not able to judge the article in detail at the moment), and fixing them may require substantial restructuring and/or rewriting large bits. So I don't want to comment on the article right now, because my suggestions are likely to be rendered irrelevant. I would suggest identifying those editors who had criticized the article on those grounds—SlimVirgin springs to mind—and asking others for feedback once those issues have been sorted. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vanamonde. I've actually been working on the article [on and off] for five months at this point, and have re-written the whole thing several times (using comments/criticisms left at the FACs/PRs). I'm now going door-to-door asking people if any of those issues still remain. Unfortunately, the editor you've linked to above has not responded to either of the messages I left on their talk page over the past 2 months, so that door is pretty much locked shut, it appears. I understand if you don't wanna get involved again, though, because I've admittedly taken over a messy situation. The whole thing irks me. I just wanna feel like I did something, one way or the other. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Tintor2[edit]

Message left by me on Tintor2's talk page:

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response left by Tintor2 on my talk page:

Hi. I'll see if I can assist this weekend as it's a bit late here. If possible, could you review Lady (Devil May Cry) which I recently nominated? Also, talking about Resident Evil characters, shouldn't Leon and Claire's articles be given new images based on the remake? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can review Lady for you. Might be the end of next week before I can get to it, though, so if you find someone else willing to jump on it in the meantime, let me know. ;) And I'll try to find updated images for Leon and Claire (I didn't upload the JV image, though). Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the feedback I have is:

Is the table of games needed if the prose states each year?

That table has been there since the last peer review. I don't really see the need for it myself, since every game of note is mentioned in prose, and those mobile games are almost exclusively godawful. I think removing it might cause some problems down the line with other editors, though.

The Nemesis picture for some reason has no relevance to be used. I would advise give it a bigger approach in regards to why is the image needed for the article.

I've flipped the latter two images around (now the image showing Voth cosplaying illustrates the paragraph detailing how Valentine's appearance has been based on Voth, and the RE3/Sienna Guillory image illustrates the paragraphs detailing the costume's critical reception/usage in the film. I think this sorts out both this and your last point.

The comics could be explored in other appearances.

Done.

The first paragraph of appearances feels a bit out of place.

I added this later based on comments made at the peer review, from a user who admittedly knows a lot more about literary than video game characters. They wanted the setting introduced first, and then "narrowing down to the [JV] specific details". I'm sure there's a way for it to be done right, but I'll have another go in a couple of days.

The reception seems nice though the cosplayer image might need a bigger relevance to be included.

I hope it becomes FA. Cheers,Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Tintor2 I've done most of this. I hope you don't mind if I respond beneath each point. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridies[edit]

Message left by me on Bridies's talk page:

Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response left by Bridies on my talk page:

I'll just stick my response to your pin here, under a convenient Jill Valentine title. Yeah, I remember. I probably wouldn't (and definitely wouldn't promise to) participate in an FAC, in terms of giving a qualified yeah or nay. But I'd definitely say that the issues that jumped out the first time seem way better handled now. The pic at the top has the original costume (and the later, better, and has it happens, curvier; which I think is about the best balance you could for a between both get in terms of what goes at the top of the article). Some reference to the original ideas and development (I think sticking the quote from 15 years later about being against sexual objectification might actually tip it towards recent-ism and yells that the article isn't going to be all about sex appeal; just where the quote is placed, rather than the quote itself. I'm not sure though, and am not going to make it a point of contention). There's some context about the second game and her being absent from it; maybe it was always there and I didn't catch the need for it at the time: it occurred to me later that your point about the game coming out of nowhere, critically, and that the (real world) character development wouldn't get any kind of attention until the sequel(s) and establishment of a prolific franchise didn't look good to some when you were talking about going to the third game as the farthest back sequel. The reason for that was obviously that she didn't appear in the second game; but it's only obvious if one knows the games (but not obvious to someone who doesn't know the games. Obviously. I mean you'd think.). The other think I wondered about was that there is something relevant to the gameplay, which is kind of there in between the lines of the next quote: Jill is the tech person, right (explosives and lockpicking are mentioned; though along with firearms)? Chris was more Rambo type, which doesn't go very far in a game like this, but he could take a bit more damage; while Jill could take shortcuts if the player could puzzle them out (the piano piece that opens a secret door when played; but is only viable in the Jill arc because Chris can't play piano. And then they flipped things in the sequel with Clair/Clare being the riding-into-town-on-a-motorbike character, and Leon being the naive guy in a uniform). I'm nitpicking and going off on a tangent there (and if you used strategy guides, it might be original research and all that). Anyway, bottom line is the issues I had seem to be taken care of as far as they can (IIRC you were waiting on old print reviews, Japanese reviews, etc. when the last FAC was closed. So again I don't really have the time to wonder about whether that's an issue that's been taken care of as far as is possible, one way or another). I guess you could just link this diff if it (not getting old reviewers back) becomes an issue again. Sorry for the block of text.... bridies (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the block of text, @Bridies: It's very Kafkaesque (literally). ;) BTW, I'm a relatively new editor of the article (the user you interacted with before was Freikorp, who was pretty much driven away from the article and wants nothing more to do with it). I read every prior FAC and peer review, so I know exactly what you're talking about, though. I get your point about recent-ism, but the quote from Mikami is where it is to do pretty much exactly what you said (that the article won't be "all about sex appeal", which was a big problem for certain editors in the past). Hmm... and I like what you say here about Jill being technically proficient and therefore suitable to the situation/Chris being a Rambo figure not particularly cut out for the environment. As you say, it's basically there in the article already ("between the lines"), but I'll try and find a reliable source online describing it properly and include it on the article, because it's a good point worth explicitly mentioning. If I can't find an online source, Freikorp sent me scans of all his offline sources prior to me working on the article, so I'll hopefully find something along those lines in there, if I can't find it online. Thanks for your thoughts. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Hi. You probably don't even remember, but you commented at Jill Valentine's FAC1 (over a year ago at this point). The original nominator – Freikorp – was driven away from the article, but I decided to take it over myself, and have been working on it for the past several months. I plan on renominating it at FAC sometime in September. Would you be interested in looking at the article sometime over the next few weeks and commenting at the next FAC? I understand if you don't wanna get involved again, but would really appreciate any feedback you might have. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Hello, and thank you for the message. I actually do remember the FAC process (and the peer review) with this article. I did not have a very good experience with either, and I will have to politely decline any future involvement. I would also recommend a peer review, in which you ping all of those involved with the first FAC and the last peer review, rather than a new FAC as I am sure that will be the first thing brought up. While I really enjoy reading and working on fictional character articles, I had some pretty negative experiences with them and I have chosen to avoid them in the future. Good luck with this though! Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Aoba47. The whole JV thing was probably the most unpleasant incident I ever came across on Wikipedia as well, so I understand your point of view. As much as I think a new (i.e., new users) peer review could help, if the same people who took part in the last PR took part in the next one... I couldn't deal with that. Freikorp needs to be sainted for how he handled it, because I would've flipped my lid much earlier. I've no interest in moderating a two-month+ peeing contest. So that's why I'm doing this instead (asking people for their opinions one-to-one on their talk pages). Surprise surprise, the vast majority of them are exactly like you, saying something along the lines of not wanting to go near JV ever again for the rest of their editing lives. I wonder why. Anyways, happy editing. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, and good luck with the article! She is a rather important character in video game history so it would be nice to see the article be the best it could be. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I hope that I do not come across as a jerk for asking this, but I was just curious if you would be able to help with my current FAC. I completely understand however if you do not have the time. I just thought that I might as well ask. Also, a random question, but what draws you to the Jill Valentine article in particular? I have previously thought about working on a video game fictional character in the past, and I was just wondering about your connection with this particular subject (particularly since it comes with a rather off-putting editing history). Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not a jerk. ;) I might have 2/3 free hours for your FAC tomorrow. If not, then the weekend. And the article's edit history doesn't off-put me so much, because both me and the previous custodian took care of a lot of that. What motivates me most is the overall ugliness Jill Valentine endured during the FAC and PR process. I've written (at least) 10 possibly-FA-approvable articles over the past year, but I haven't gone near FAC since the JV debacle last October. I'm doing this more to restore my own faith in the Wikipedia "process" than anything else. If genuine consensus is against Jill's article for genuine reasons at FAC4, then fair enough. If it isn't promoted for some BS reason, though, then I'm pretty much done with Wikipedia altogether. So there's a lot riding on this... ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Beemer69[edit]

Hi. I realise you only participated briefly at this article's last peer review, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in looking at Jill Valentine again and seeing if there's any way I can improve it before I renominate it at FAC? I've been working on the article for several months [on-and-off] at this point, and I'm pretty happy with it now, but I'd appreciate any advice you might have. As you probably remember from the sheer length of that peer review, it was quite ... umm... "protracted", so I understand if you don't wanna involve yourself in this again. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Hi, thanks for writing! Yeah, that thread was pretty intimidating, but I'll give the article a lookover nonetheless. Should I just contact you directly if I notice anything of interest? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 13:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. ;) If you see any problems with the article, feel free to make any alteration you'd like. Or if you feel like discussing, you can just ping me here (I'll be watching this page for the next couple of weeks, so I should see it anyway). Thanks again. You're one of the few people who was involved in this whole JV thing to actually be willing to edit again. Most people have run scared. I appreciate it. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

HS07: Sorry, I've been horrible at following up my original edits, because all I'm doing is unnecessarily dragging this out. I've been fairly inactive on Wiki over the past couple months. I will resume my go-over of the article and make any additional tweaks if needed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Tarkus[edit]

Hi. I realise you only participated briefly at this article's last peer review, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in looking at Jill Valentine again and seeing if there's any way I can improve it before I renominate it at FAC? I've been working on the article for several months [on-and-off] at this point, and I'm pretty happy with it now, but I'd appreciate any advice you might have. As you probably remember from the sheer length of that peer review, it was quite ... umm... "protracted", so I understand if you don't wanna involve yourself in this again. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No response (as of 24 December). Conversation moved to their archives.

Sergecross73[edit]

Hi Sergecross73. You might recognise me from various discussions at Talk:Nine Inch Nails, this unpleasantness, and a bunch of other places I can't recall. I know you only commented briefly at FAC2, and ended up pretty much just giving a 'neither' vote, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in giving Jill Valentine#Reception a quick read and seeing if there's anything else I can do before I renominate the article again? I've been working on the article for several months at this point, so am pretty happy with it, but would be interested in any feedback from any user who previously commented on the article. I've already tried contacting SlimVirgin/Sarah about collaborating, but she didn't wanna get involved, so I understand if you don't either. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, sorry things got heated last time. I had honestly forgotten about it - I always remember you more from music articles. Anyways, yes, I’ll try to look at it some. Feel free to prod me in a couple days if it looks like I forgot. I’ve got a busy week ahead, so I very well could. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. In all fairness to you, I was being a bit of a whiny tool during that "unpleasantness". ;) And take your time getting back to me. Of all the 20-something people I've contacted about this article, you're actually just the 3rd or 4th person who hasn't either ignored me or said they're not touching it with a bargepole. So I appreciate it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Ah, sorry, I did forget. I’ll look at it tomorrow. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Keep prodding me if I forget, I won’t get upset, I promise. My editing time has been more limited than previously, and my time here keeps on getting tied up in admin duties, or my own pet projects. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link

I just read it over. I no longer personally have any objections to it. I think things are generally handled pretty well. My only change I'd suggest is more of a personal pet-peeve - to remove where it says a game is "canon" on the game appearances timeline. I generally feel mentioning which entries are "canon" is more of a fansite thing than a encyclopedic topic, and generally leads to arguments erupting over it too. I totally get it when its some narrative-heavy franchise article or something, but I don't think it's really worth mentioning in the context of a character article like this. Just my two cents - if you disagree, feel free to leave it in, I won't make a stink about it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link