Wikipedia:Peer review/Jill Valentine/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jill Valentine[edit]

Previous peer review

Note: Issues considered 'resolved' by SlimVirgin were moved to the talk page. Some of the issues weren't actually resolved, she just chose to cease replying to the discussion. Freikorp (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


The writing is choppy. There are several uses of "as" instead of "because" or some other word; I would go through the article and change that (rewrite the sentences as appropriate). There are too many unnecessary quotes. For example: "Claire Redfield had already been chosen for Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000), meaning Valentine was 'the only suitable character remaining'". Why do those ordinary words have to be a quote and what does the director mean exactly? There and in several other places, it feels as though quoting is offered in lieu of understanding. This produces the flavour of a hastily written piece of tabloid journalism. I would go through the article, re-read the sources that are quoted, and either summarize or just remove quotes that aren't distinctive, interesting or important.

There's also quite a bit of repetition and unnecessary words, although much less so than in earlier versions, so it's heading in the right direction. SarahSV (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the prose needs to be improved. I'll try to rewrite some paragraphs if I have some time this week. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm having a hard time trying to properly introduce the Resident Evil video games in the Appearances section. Ideally, they should be introduced in the Design section, along with the corresponding design changes of the character. This would give the article a better "real-world" introduction before it starts covering fictional details. I think that's the reason why most articles about fictional characters start with a Concept/Design section, and then cover fictional details in an Appearances section. Would you agree if we changed the order of both sections? I should also note that it's not going to be an easy change because the prose would need to be adjusted significantly. I need to think more about this, but I'd be happy to hear more opinions. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I noticed that most articles about fictional characters start with design and then go on to appearances. The reason I deliberately didn't do that with this article is because there's next to no information about how Jill was originally designed. As previously stated my honest assessment is that the reason there's no coverage is because they didn't put any real effort into it. Anyway, all we've got is her original uniform description (with a primary source) and a somewhat broad statement from the director; I don't see us being able to write a satisfactory first paragrpah for the body with that. As I'm sure you'd agree, if we just swapped the order of the appearances and design sections without rewording them the flow would become much worse. I'm not opposed to the theory of rewording and then swapping the order, I'm just very skeptical of whether that can be accomplished in a way that improves the article given the available sources, but I'm happy to hear your suggestions on how this could be done. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think some of the background information can be included in the Design section, especially the bit about her ethnic heritage. Ideally, the Appearances section should only cover what happens in the games/films. Check out the article about Tasha Yar for example. While I can see some minor issues there, I personally think it is better presented. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I read Tasha Yar. I like the way it's designed and I think it works well for that article, in particular given all the information that is available about casting and changes to the character in pre-development. I'm not convinced we can do the same here, and even if it can be I'm not sure if it would be worth the effort. By that I mean I don't think the article in its current format is structured badly at all, it's just a shame there isn't more about development to structure it differently. By all means, if you'd like to make an attempt though I'm completely supportive of that, and will help where I can. Freikorp (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Still need to think more about it. I'm quite busy this week so I can't promise anything. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Niwi3, I'd be interested to hear more about your idea of an introductory section before "Appearances". What information would you move into it? SarahSV (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Picking up the last mention above (Do either of you have any outstanding concerns regarding anything that the copyedit wont fix?), GOCE does cursory copyedits, mostly for grammar and the clunkiest of sentences, not any real restructuring. (Sometimes the copyedit makes the overall flow worse off...) So it wouldn't resolve, for example, how the reception reads as a series of names rather than a unified/holistic account. It's hard even for me to do something like that, as I'm not familiar with the granularity of the sources and don't want to misrepresent them. I may tweak a sentence or two but I'm unlikely to have the time for a full copyedit. I would only hard support/oppose if I saw something remarkable/flagrant. As of now, I don't think the prose is FA-quality, in which I could read each paragraph without any lingering questions or stumbling. It's theoretically surmountable but not guaranteed from jockeying sentences around. But when I can't dedicate the time to a review, I abstain and only comment if I see a specific issue unaddressed. czar 14:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments Czar. Just to clarify, you're only outstanding concern with this article is the prose? As in, do you think it has any obvious concerns with issues like sexism or comprehensiveness? Freikorp (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, but the point is less to placate me than to have confidence in the article indisputably meeting the FA criteria. I can't speak to breadth because I haven't waded through much of the sourcing, but the article is undoubtedly better for the sources raised and the balance of the academic lit against the gaming mags. It's probably possible to reduce the sexism reception by at least a third for purposes of weight in the overall article, but if I were personally working on this, I'd shoot for FA as more of a long-term goal as copyediting alone isn't the panacea. I'd ask readers from outside the video game niche for feedback on paragraph-level flow: whether each paragraph is self-contained, self-explanatory, whether any questions linger between sentences, etc. czar 17:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Director's statement[edit]

We've got hidden text saying that Keith Stuart from The Guardian had expenses paid by Bethesda (Home page). The article says "Keith Stuart attended a press trip to Tokyo to visit Tango Gameworks, with accommodation and travel expenses met by Bethesda." Bethesda are not affiliated with Resident Evil, but they do own Shinji Mikami's studio Tango Gameworks [1]. I don't know much about paid journalism, but I mean, isn't this type of behaviour common? I get it, they paid for his expenses therefore he's going to feel less inclined to write anything bad about them, but does that invalidate the article? I don't think it should. The Guardian at least have the integrity to declare this when I'm sure many other publications wouldn't. Basically I guess I'm asking why is this hidden text there? Just to notify any potential future editors? I'm happy for it to stay there, I'm just trying to figure out if you wanted me to do anything about it.

Also the 'Other games' RE5 paragraph has the hidden text "This paragraph is confusing" underneath it. What's confusing about it? I'll try fix it if you let me know. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not common in journalism. I put the invisible text there to alert you. I did wonder why the Guardian was giving Mikami a glowing tribute (e.g. he opposes the objectification of women, which we have repeated in the article), when some of the portrayals are so sexist. Then I spotted that the company that made his recent series, Evil Within, paid for the trip to Tokyo (from London, I assume), including accommodation. That would make it harder to push Mikami on certain issues. SarahSV (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The confusion:
During Resident Evil 5, Redfield finds information suggesting that Valentine is still alive and under Wesker's control; she was injured in the fall and saved by Wesker, who then used her as a test subject in his research. Ultimately, Redfield and Alomar find and free Valentine by removing a device from her chest.[1] The DLC episode Desperate Escape tells the story of Valentine's escape to safety with the help of BSAA agent Josh Stone.[2]


  1. ^ Capcom (5 March 2009). Resident Evil 5. PlayStation 3. Capcom. 
  2. ^ Reed, Kristan (3 March 2010). "Resident Evil 5: Desperate Escape". Eurogamer. Archived from the original on 21 February 2013. Retrieved 7 July 2017. 
What kind of test subject, what kind of research, what kind of device in her chest, why did removing it help? Then Josh Stone appears without explanation. So did she escape with Redfield and his new partner, or did she have to wait for Stone? Can this be cleared up with just a couple of extra sentences? SarahSV (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Re The Guardian. OK. This information was interesting to find out. I don't feel the need to modify the article though as we only very briefly mention Stuart's opinions in the article as it is. Also as previously stated while Valentine has been sexualised, she is significantly less sexualised than other female characters from the same time-period. The source ignores information, sure, but the information it does give isn't inaccurate. Freikorp (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC) (This post was split in two by SarahSV.) SarahSV (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This interview with the Resident Evil director was in the section about the first game, but it's problematic:

In 2014 director Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the objectification of women in video games and said he refuses to portray women who are submissive to men.

The quote from Mikami was first added in October 2014 by Source: Stuart, Keith (30 September 2014). "Shinji Mikami: the godfather of horror games". The Guardian. 

The newspaper notes that the publisher of Mikami's Evil Within paid the author's expenses to go to Tokyo for the interview, including travel and accommodation, presumably from London. There's no indication that Mikami's refusal to portray women as submissive refers back to 1996. The original game ends with Valentine, looking like a teenager, resting her head on Redfield's broad shoulder in the helicopter, as another strong man flies them out of danger. Using this interview feels as though we're repeating propaganda, and for us to make it refer back to 1996 is OR. SarahSV (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point, though implying Valentine is submissive because she's resting her head on Chris' shoulder and the person flying the helicopter happens to be a man is OR as well. As I've mentioned before sources used to say she is submissive have made some very debatable arguments as well (can list examplse if requested but I'd rather not get side-tracked), though I'm still OK with them being used since the sources are high-quality. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide on this. Just for the record the source is still used to support that 'Valentine has been less objectified than other female video-game characters'. If it gets removed from being used for the point you're contesting I still strongly vote to include it in the bundled refs that say she is less objectified. Freikorp (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


Re confusion. You didn't provide any justification in your edit summary as to why you removed the image of Valentine cosplay for RE5. I really want an answer to this question: Why was it OK to have cosplay in her STARS uniform but not in her Battle Suit (that's what the costume is referred to in-game)? The picture actually answered queries regarding the control-device on her chest. As per my edit summary, that's why I added it in the first place. As for the rest of the confusion, I actually originally specified those details you are requesting, but along the way they've been removed for the sake of brevity. I'll add it all back. I'd strongly prefer to add the image back too. Freikorp (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The one I added contained an image of Redfield, not Valentine, which is why I added it (we have several of Valentine already). The other I removed because of the type of image it is (and uploaded by Niemti). Re: Guardian, it's because we repeat, without criticism, what the director said about himself, which would be fine if it were on his own website, but isn't so fine via the Guardian in that way. It raises a question mark, that's all. SarahSV (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but, that cosplay is actually an extremely accurate depiction of her costume in the game. Serious kudos to that woman for putting the effort into making it. It shouldn't matter that the image was uploaded by someone who had a reputation for objectifying women. And even though it was uploaded by him, it was taken by someone who seems to have an unbiased hobby photographing everything at fan events, not just women: [2]. I think it improves the article. I've been sitting at my desk for quite some time now trying to find a way to phrase what I'm about to say in a manner that won't offend you. I'm finding that difficult, so I'm just going to say this. I don't think it's OK to remove something that improves the understanding of a subject just because you don't like sexualised images of women. The woman chose to dress like that, and the photograph was clearly taken with her consent. Images like this are subjective; you could call it designed for the male gaze, you could also call it sex-positive feminism. We could let the reader decide for themselves.
While we're on this overall subject, I'm not sure at what point Brett Eelson from GameRadar's comments were removed: "Jill Valentine emerged as perhaps the most sensible design of the period" - This is directly comparing her to more sexualised female characters in gaming. [3] Do you have a problem with saying GamesRadar considered her to be one of the most sensibly designed (or reworded to least sexualised) female characters of the mid-to-late 90s? Freikorp (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I fear my tears of joy were premature.
I oppose adding that image. Re: the source you asked about (dead link, published 2007), I oppose restoring it. It discusses "fully-realized lady shapes", "feminine enough to make fanboys latch on", "every girl needs a back-breaking rack"; "they've got boobs, so it's not all bad". The point about Valentine—"tough and sexy without shedding her clothes at the first sign of trouble"—is just a crude way of saying what the other sources say already.
Note WP:FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". I realize we're somewhat limited here, but the quality has to be as high as we can find. SarahSV (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
As I indicated, I wasn't planning on using the source to say any of those tasteless things. I currently use Kate Gray's article in The Guardian to say she criticised the breast physics that were introduced for the HD remake. The source itself features text including "Jill’s rather excitable funbags", "a couple of rowdy bazongas" and "see those knockers over there? Yeah, she’s the woman attached to them, about 20 metres back". I noticed that yesterday you removed the source that made the joke about cock teasing (I don't feel strongly about this removal one way or the other), but prior to this you made use of it to support that the costume itself had simply been criticised, which I think was fine. We can still salvage good information from sources that use crass language.
Also regarding this edit of yours: [4]. You mentioned in your edit summary that the article doesn't seem to be there. It's not an article, it's a video, and it's loading just fine for me.
@Niwi3:@Czar: Do you oppose this image of Jill in her Resident Evil 5 costume as seen in this version of the article: [5] As well as being interesting, I think it solves questions that have been raised regarding the control device on her chest that is mentioned in coverage of both the games and the films. We could reword the caption to clarify this. Freikorp (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: In my opinion, you can add one if you think it helps improve the general reader's understanding of the topic. Now, you should use an in-game screenshot of RE5, not a cosplayer one. Ideally, the image should focus on her chest device, not on the looks of a cosplayer. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
My motivation for using the cosplay image was because its not fair-use, so it doesn't create any new concerns regarding image licensing. Also I don't have to tell you that it's also a very accurate cosplay. I can always try adding an actual image of her from the game to the article. If our resident image expert at FAC thinks we can't justify one more fair-use image we can fall back on either the image that was in the article or this one, once it's cropped to focus on her torso. Freikorp (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
That cosplay image is more of a marketing thing than a proper illustration of her chest device. If anything, it should be used in a marketing section. The thing is, do we actually need an image to explain to general readers what her chest device is? It's basically a mind control device attached to her chest and doesn't need more importance than necessay. She also wears a watch in Revelations which was included in an unveiled edition of the game, so what? I bet that if the device was attached to her arm it wouldn't receive so much attention. I'll ask again, is an image of her chest device really necessary? --Niwi3 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that the RE5 cosplay is mainly decorative. The control device's design (rightfully) isn't described in any depth so as to necessitate a visualization. Doesn't help that it's kind of muddy at thumbnail size. For what it's worth, I don't think the plainclothes side-by-side is needed either (WP:NFCC#8: no contextual significance). Unless I missed it, the prose doesn't attempt to make a comparison between the appearance of the actress and the character, so it's unclear why the extra non-free image is needed to supplement the text. czar 17:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Czar: We've got considerable coverage of Jill's character redesigns, and even a journalist who says she has been redesigned so many times it's ridiculous. Having another of Jill's completely different designs would give the reader a much better understanding of this. I chose the RE5 outfit specifically because SlimVirgin expressed confusion over what a control device on the subject's chest meant, and I thought any kind of detailed explanation in the prose would read awkwardly Don't you think it's interesting to note how the design in the games influenced design in the film? We do have a source that explicitly states the costume in the film is based on the specific costume in the game, though we shouldn't even need that as its painfully obvious where the inspiration came from. SlimVirgin tried to challenge BOTH of the side by side images at the first FAC on the grounds neither could be justified; NikkiMaria said there was adequate justification for both. Guidelines indicate 3-4 fair-use images can be used. Counting the side-by-side comparison as two, we only have 3, which is fine. In the event that one of the side by side images was removed I'd add another image of her to help explain exactly how much the character's designed is changed. Either her RE5 outfit or her Revelations outfit, as elements of both are mentioned in the prose. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WP's policy is to minimize non-free content, in-keeping with our "free culture" credo, one of the five pillars. Sometimes this plays out as three or four images, but every single image needs to be justified by the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I explained above why I felt the film costume image doesn't have the contextual significance to warrant a non-free image (NFCC#8). And even if someone were to add a source on how the film costume is directly based on the video game, that usage still wouldn't warrant a non-free image because the costumes' similarity is sufficiently imparted from the text alone and the visualization isn't needed to make the same point (I'm paraphrasing the non-free criteria). Now if the control device was a major facet of her design and the reader needed to know how its design related to her costume and there was no other way to communicate this through text alone, then I would turn to the Creative Commons cosplay image before a non-free image, but I don't see the necessity for visualizing the control device. The first point—that she has many designs—is also adequately communicated through text alone. If there is some element of JV that simply cannot be communicated through text, it hasn't jumped out at me czar 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I also can't see a justification for the non-free photograph of Sienna Guillory. No critical commentary is mentioned in the article or cited at File:Sienna and Jill.png. There are currently two free images of Guillory in Commons:Category:Sienna Guillory. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Neither of those images are professional looking. One appears to be a paparazzi type shot while shes trying to get past and the other one is her awkwardly staring at something out of camera shot. I'd rather have no image in the article than either of those two. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Also I've listed quotes from Guillory commenting on the outfit in a section below, and have added one brief mention to the article. Freikorp (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That information belongs in the article about the actor. It's not about the character. SarahSV (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Information about a high school girl being bitten by mosquitoes and wanting to go home isn't about the character either. So how come we can give information about that, yet we can't give Guillory's critical commentary on portraying Valentine? She specifically said she studied the video game to copy Jill's body language for portraying her in the film. How is that not relevant? Freikorp (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I added the mosquito detail because it involves one of the earliest glimpses of Jill Valentine in 1996, in the live-action scenes before the game starts. The director has said he wishes he had done it differently, but he used a high-school student, and in the first scene in which Valentine is supposedly afraid, she is in fact upset about mosquito bites and asking to go home. I can make that clearer and/or move it to a footnote.

The Guillory quotes are PR comments made by the actor herself, rather than critical commentary. Non-free images should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". It's hard to see how the Guillory image does that, especially when placed next to Valentine wearing the same costume. I think we should replace it with one of the free Guillory images.

Non-free images have to satisfy the guideline, WP:NFCI, and the policy, WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The guideline provisions relevant here are:

  • (1): Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
  • (4): Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
  • (5): Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos).
  • (9): Images that are themselves subjects of commentary.

SarahSV (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @SlimVirgin: It still seems odd to me to completely dismiss the comments from Guillory rather than trying to incorporate them into the article in some form. I do not understand your point here "The Guillory quotes are PR comments made by the actor herself, rather than critical commentary." as the quote should not be used as a source of "critical commentary", and could be used to expand the background the character's transition to film and the film franchise's interpretation of the character. I just find the argument against using the Guillory quotes to be weak. The information on Guillory and the characters' appearances in the film franchise as a whole is rather poorly-constructed. I do not see why this sentence (A fight between Valentine and Alice with around 200 moves appeared in Resident Evil: Retribution (2012).) is in the "Reception" section and it seems rather under-developed to only have this sentence ( Sienna Guillory portrays Valentine in the live-action film series) in the "Voice-over and live action" section. That particular section would seem like the best spot to incorporate the Guillory quotes to build a natural and cohesive narrative on the different takes on the character over the years. I think one of the primary issues that I have with the discussion on the "mosquito" quote is it seems rather contradictory to want to add that information about the background of the person representing the character in the first game while not wanting to include similar type of information about the background of the actress in the film series. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • They're just PR quotes, the kind of thing we should avoid. The fight sentence is no longer in Reception, by the way. I agree that the film sections could be expanded, but we need secondary sources to do that. The mosquito thing has nothing to do with the background of the actor; it's about one of the first-ever glimpses of Valentine and how the director regrets having done it that way. SarahSV (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that fact. Even though I am almost completely sure there is nothing that I can say to change your opinion, I just wanted to voice my stance on this. Certain quotes that Freikorp has listed at the end of this peer review could be used to provide some background on how the film portrays Jill, particularly the character's sexual appeal and clothing. Not all of the quotes are useable and they could most likely be paraphrased instead of direct quotes, but I do not understand the resistance to using them in the article in some capacity. I also do not understand the resistance against using sources that cite the opinions of the people involved in the film while expanding on the information on the character's appearances in the film. I am also not entirely convinced about this statement "The mosquito thing has nothing to do with the background of the actor". The "mosquito thing" does involve the background of the actor as you are talking about how the actor had mosquito stings and it changed their performance. The overlap on how the background of the actor affects her performance of the character makes it appropriate for this section. I would say the same thing about Guillory's quotes like "The Jill Valentine character does this thing where she like is on wait, she's got a gun by her side and a hand on her hip and you've gone off to make a cup of tea and she's like (imitates movement wiggling hips from side to side playfully and impatiently)" as they show her representation of the character. I am a little bit disappointed by the overall tone of this peer review as it does not feel as truly collaborative as it could be. This will most likely be my last post on this peer review as it is weird to have one's points shot down so quickly, and I honestly find this peer review too stressful to continue to follow. I think that I am just going to stick to my own projects in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I find the accusations that Guillory's opinions should be dismissed on the grounds they are just PR is rather weak. In special features, its common for people to talk about what they did and didn't like about the filming experience. Guillory goes into great detail in the cast commentary about how much she hated filming solely at night for 56 nights. There's no reason to believe she'd be coerced into lying about liking her costume when she openly talks about disliking other things. I wrote the featured article The Fifth Element. In the special features on the DVD, Chris Tucker talks bout how much he protested wearing one of his 'gender-bending' outfits. He actually refused to wear it at first. My point is, if Guillory didn't like her costume, it's extremely likely her opinions still would have been included. Cast commentaries include the standard disclaimer "The opinions expressed on this commentary are solely those of the actors and do not represent the views of the studio" for a reason. Tintor2 cited a lack of Guillory's comments regarding Apocalypse as one of his concerns at the very first comment at this peer review. Aoba47 also supports the inclusion. We only have one opposer, therefore I feel it's appropriate to add some coverage. I am open to the this information being reworded. I'll drop her mentioning how much she liked her costume at this stage since I think can't help but think the fact she liked a costume that others do not is the only reason this information is being contested.
  • I'm very sorry to see you leave Aoba47, though it is strangely comforting to know I'm not the only person who finds having their opinions dismissed so quickly to be extremely stressful. Thanks so much for all your comments. Freikorp (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Images and timeline[edit]

I apologize for intruding on the peer review, but I have a couple concerns about the use of the images and the timeline. Here are some of my comments below:

  • I believe that the timeline should be included at the top of the "Appearances" section to maximize its use for the reader. It seems rather odd to include it near the bottom of the section after the reader would have already gone through each individual subsection on the different games.
  • I personally do not find the Anita Sarkeesian image to be appropriate for the article. In my opinion, it adds undue weight to Sarkeesian's part in the section, specifically since her analysis only makes up two sentences. I would remove it as it does not further illustrate anything for the reader.
  • I would make the caption for the Shinji Mikami image more descriptive if possible.

Again, I apologize for intruding in the conversation as I know that you are all busy working on this. Just wanted to drop in my two cents. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for weighing in with your opinions. I also agree with these points. Freikorp (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The Mikami image doesn't clarify anything proposed in the text. It might make sense to depict the artist who designed the character, but if Mikami wasn't involved, his image becomes superfluous. czar 03:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Private Biohazard Containment Unit[edit]

There's one more instance of hidden text, and I don't know the answer to it. "Afterwards, Valentine and Redfield fund a private organisation, the Private Biohazard Containment Unit, with the goal of destroying Umbrella" The text is asking to clarify when this happens, as in in which game. I don't recall if its actually mentioned before The Umbrella Chronicles or not. Niwi3, can you clarify at all? Freikorp (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: It's in an Umbrella Chronicles unlockable file called "Jill Valentine Profile". Check this youtube video at 2:33. Also, they don't fund a private biohazard containment unit, but simply "join" it. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for clearing this up. Freikorp (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Featured-article criteria[edit]

Posting the three key criteria as something to bear in mind (bold added):

  • 1a. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
  • 1b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • 3c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...

SarahSV (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Video-game character FAs (with links to the versions that were promoted): Cortano (Halo) and Tidus. SarahSV (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use either of those character articles as prose benchmarks, personally. I think Doomfist does a better job of the basics (solid sourcing, accessible prose), even with its unrefined, lower status and some areas of jargon. czar 03:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC) [Edit: Should have mentioned that I wrote it, and mainly for purposes of comparison]
@Czar: I like Doomfist. Allen Walker, a featured manga character, has a good structure too. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Fictional-character FAs[edit]


Re: 1b comprehensive, should we have a section on gameplay? The article used to have one:

Extended content

Jill was one of the first two player characters in the Resident Evil series. In the original game, Jill plays very differently to Chris as she runs slower, can take less damage and is less accurate with firearms, but has two more inventory slots and an access to stronger weapons (including starting armed with a gun, while Chris begins with only a knife). She also carries a lockpick capable of opening many doors and caches, knows how to play piano (which is useful in-game), and is aided by the overprotective Barry.[1] In the game's 2002 remake, she has a taser as her personal defensive weapon.[2] In Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, Jill will enter the "Live Selection Mode" during certain sections of the game, in which the player is prompted to quickly choose between one of two possible actions (the choice of action affects the direction of the game and story, including which ending the player receives). It was also during this game that Jill became the first character to be able to perform a quick 180-degree turn, which has since become a staple of the series.[3] In Resident Evil 5, Jill runs faster than Chris. The majority of her melee moves (kicks and acrobatic leg attacks) are the weakest of the four playable Mercenaries mode characters in RE5, but they are also the fastest, and her exclusive Px4 handgun has the best chance of a critical hit (head shots resulting in an instant kill) of all the characters.[4]

In Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Jill is a very fast and agile character that is able to summon monsters to attack her opponent.[5] She can also heal the player's active character if she is summoned as a support character. In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, she was given a complete overhaul, her appearance and move-set being based on her Resident Evil 5 incarnation and using Wesker-like teleportation moves.[6] In this game, Jill is available as a DLC character,[7] but her character was reportedly found to be already present on the retail game disc.[8]

  1. ^ Capcom (September 1997). Resident Evil: Director's Cut (in Japanese). PlayStation. Capcom. Level/area: Interview with Shinji Mikami and Hiroyuki Kobayashi. 
  2. ^ Lucas M. Thomas, Revisiting the Resident Evil Remake, IGN, May 24, 2012.
  3. ^ "Gameplay" Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, (1998).
  4. ^ "Resident Evil 5: Mercenaries Guide" Resident Evil 5 FAQ, (2009).
  5. ^ Hilary Goldstein, Alex de Souza, Marvel vs. Capcom 2: Jill vs. Storm, IGN, July 9, 2009.
  6. ^ Tim Turi, MvC 3 Jill Valentine And Shuma Gorath Impressions, Game Informer, March 18, 2011.
  7. ^ Ludwig Kietzmann, Gamestop outs Marvel vs. Capcom 3 DLC: Jill Valentine, Shuma Gorath, Joystiq, November 16, 2010.
  8. ^ Jonathan Holmes, Footage of Marvel Vs. Capcom 3's Jill in action, Destructoid, 02.20.2011.
  • Revised gameplay section

As one of the first two player characters in the Resident Evil series, Jill has both advantages and disadvantages over her male counterpart, Chris. Jill runs slower, takes more damage from attacks, is less accurate with firearms and has less reach with her knife. However, she has two more inventory slots, access to stronger weapons, and is armed with a pistol and a survival knife at the start, whereas Chris begins with only a Bowie knife. She carries a lockpick as well, which is capable of opening doors and caches, whereas Chris must find keys. For these reasons, the official strategy guide for the 2002 remake states that Jill is better prepared overall, and recommends that people unfamiliar with the game should choose to play as her first.[1] Writing in Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, Esther MacCallum-Stewart cites Jill and Chris' attributes as an example of how slight differences between female and male protagonists can be used to change the gameplay within the same scenario.[2] In the 2002 remake, she is given an additional taser as her personal defensive weapon, whereas Chris is given access to flash grenades.[3][4]

In Marvel vs. Capcom 2, Jill is a fast and agile character who can use grenade launcher and rocket launcher attacks. She can summon a zombie to attack her opponent.[5] In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Jill was given a complete overhaul, losing her weapons and the ability to summon zombies. Her appearance and move-set are based on her Resident Evil 5 incarnation, featuring advanced kicks and throws alongside teleportation powers.[6]

  1. ^ Birlew 2002, p. 92.
  2. ^ MacCallum-Stewart, Esther (2008). "Real Boys Carry Girly Epics: Normalising Gender Bending in Online Games". Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture. 2 (1): 27–40. 
  3. ^ Thomas, Lucas M (24 May 2012). "Revisiting the Resident Evil Remake". IGN. Archived from the original on 27 February 2017. Retrieved 3 January 2015. 
  4. ^ Birlew 2002, p. 17.
  5. ^ Goldstein, Hilary; de Souza, Alex (9 July 2009). "Marvel vs. Capcom 2: Jill vs. Storm". IGN. Archived from the original on 27 February 2017. Retrieved 3 January 2015. 
  6. ^ Turi, Tim (16 November 2010). "MvC 3 Jill Valentine And Shuma Gorath Impressions". Game Informer. Archived from the original on 22 March 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2015. 

SarahSV (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added the final version of the gameplay section before it was removed to the collapse above. I removed the gameplay section during FAC in order to address the concerns of Niwi3, who was quite adamant that this information "belongs at the video game [article], not the character". Some of the information that was originally there has been relocated to other sections. I don't feel particularly strongly either way about having such a section. Freikorp (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I like it because it describes distinctive features of the character, but I prefer the earlier version (assuming it is sourced properly, which I haven't checked). I'll look around to see what other articles do. SarahSV (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Structure and perspective[edit]

Questions about Appearances section[edit]

Note that there's no rush to answer these. This is time-consuming, but it's peer review, not FAC, so please don't feel you have to deal with any of it immediately.

  • In the RE1996 subsection: "As a result of these experiences, Valentine forms a strong friendship with Redfield and becomes a passionate opponent of bioterrorism.[1] Disillusioned with the RCPD's failure to take action against Umbrella, she leaves the police service but remains in Raccoon City to investigate Umbrella."[2][3]
  1. ^ Denick 2013, p. 3.
  2. ^ Androvich 1999, p. 20.
  3. ^ Waples 2007, pp. 124, 132.
  • That isn't in the game, so where does it come from?
  • In RE3 subsection: "The reason given in-game for her informal clothing is that she had just resigned from STARS and was about to leave Raccoon City when it was overrun by zombies."[1]
  1. ^ "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis". Official US PlayStation Magazine. Ziff Davis. 3 (3): 82–83. December 1999. 
  • Where in the game is this, and what is said?
  • Also in that section: "Afterwards, Valentine and Redfield fund a private organisation, the Private Biohazard Containment Unit, with the goal of destroying Umbrella."[1]
  1. ^ Waples 2007, p. 16.
  • Is this mentioned in the game?
SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the difficulties I'm having relates to Niwi3's point about keeping the Appearances section limited to what happens in the games themselves (or the films). Issues such as this quote: "As our story opens, we learn what happened to Jill Valentine after the events of the original Resident evil." What does "our story" refer to? It's not in the original game, so it shouldn't be in that section. Ditto with Valentine saying: "I have decided to remain". Where does she say this? SarahSV (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The "As our story opens" source is the Resident Evil 3 strategy guide. Therefore, 'our story' refers to Resident Evil 3. If you had played the game, you'd know that is the premise for the story. These problems are going to occur if you organise the article's into sections and you don't actually know what happens in the games.
  • Re: The reason given in-game for her informal clothing - In the game itself, Jill doesn't explicitly say something along the lines of "Just in case anyone is curious, I've resigned from STARS so that's why I'm dressed in casual attire instead of in a police uniform", but the fact she isn;t wearing a police uniform is clearly explained by the context of the game. I could cite her reason for wearing those particular clothes to the entire game, but I've found a secondary source that explains this information to a reader who is not presumed to have played the game, so I thought that would be more appropriate. For the life of me I don't understand why is this even important enough to need clarification. It's the same issue with Valentine forming a strong bond with Redfield. At no point in the game does she explicitly say, "Gee Chris, we've been through a lot together, I feel like theirs a strong bond between us, though I feel the need to clarify its purely platonic." The fact that she forms a bond with Chris is given throughout the context of the game, and accordingly, several secondary sources comment on it. Freikorp (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm aware that "our story" refers to RE3. What I'm asking is why you want it to be in the 1996 game section. It mixes up perspectives, i.e. what happened in the game and what Capcom later says happened within that period.
Re: this, the writing is a problem. But ignoring that, I made it invisible until I'd had a chance to read through the whole essay. Platz is making a point about Yvonne Tasker's work, and I wonder whether plucking out a couple of sentences summarizes it properly. If it's not expressed well, it looks like a lame point, especially given that Valentine isn't always wearing military clothing. Re: Ada Wong, she discusses her undermining the male gaze. I don't think your edit captures what she is saying. SarahSV (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: why I want it to be in the 1996 game section. I was told by the other reviewers to cease writing the section as a recount of what happens in each game and instead to present it as an overall summary. As far as I'm aware I didn't have a '1996 game section' per se, I just had breaks in between paragraphs.
Since this is obviously an ongoing area of contention, could I ask you to propose any rewrites of Jill's sexualisation at the peer review and wait for comments from at least one editor that isn't me or you before implementing it? As I mentioned at the last FAC, I was extremely happy when Czar chose to rewrite Sarkeesian's comments, because I assume Czar does not feel strongly about the issue, whereas both you and myself think issues such as this are given not enough and too much weight respectively. Freikorp (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: RE5's Unlockable Files offer an official, detailed biography of the character as the video game series progressed. The source says: "Jill chose to remain in the city for the time being and investigate the Umbrella research facility there before rendezvousing with Chris in Europe". In fact, you can literally use the source to cover most of the Appearances section, though the events of Revelations are not included because the game was released in 2012 (Resident Evil 5 was released in 2009). --Niwi3 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: thanks for the link. That site seems to be a wiki that's open for editing.
What's confusing me is where to place the extra narrative. If we were writing an article about a television series, we'd have episode 1, episode 2, etc. Here we also have a narrator's voice (Capcom), telling us what happened between episodes. So where do we put that information and what is the most authoritative source for it (with publisher's name and date of publication)? SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: The text is actually taken from the Resident Evil 5 video game. In the game's main menu, you unlock these files as you progress through the game, so the actual game should be cited as a primary source, not the IGN Wiki, which is a copy-paste. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd use something like this: [1] - This youtube video shows the game's main menu and files. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Capcom (2009). Resident Evil 5. Capcom. Library - Files - Jill Valentine 
@Niwi3: that's very helpful, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This article has been restructured so many times by Sarah over the last three days I'm struggling to keep up with the constant changes and restorations. I do appreciate the amount of effort that's clearly being put in, but among other issues, many things I was specifically asked to cut back on or remove at FAC have been restored, such as more detailed coverage of her merchandise, and things I was asked to add, such as fan reaction to her ethic heritage, have been removed. While some of these changes don't bother me too much on their own, it appears the concerns of other FAC reviewers are being ignored. Can someone else have a look at the article and give some feedback on all the changes? Also just when I thought coverage of Valentine's attractiveness couldn't be reduced further, it has been shrunk yet again; the thing Valentine is arguably most famous for (whether you like it or not) is now only given one third of a sentence of coverage. I'd at least like the opinions of someone else on whether this is correct amount of weight. As mentioned in a section above, one article covering Jill's reception for attractiveness was removed on the completely factually inaccurate grounds that the website wasn't view-able.

  • Sarah, can you please explain what was wrong with this offline source you removed: ""10 of the Best Female Protagonists in Gaming". GamesTM. No. 133. 14 March 2013. p. 149. 
  • Can you please explain why we need the character's Japanese translation in the lead? I was specifically asked to remove this at FAC by Czar, who asked: "Does the character have any specific link to Japan or Japanese culture apart from being created by a Japanese company ... ? Since she has an official, well-used English-language name, the name by which she is primarily known, I don't see a need for the Japanese translation in the lede." Quite frankly once this had been pointed out to me I was embarrassed that I hadn't noticed that myself.
  • I've implemented the overwhelming majority of your requests since July, and you've made countless bold edits to this article, most without any form of consensus, and some of which you knew very well would be contested. Now to be fair, as I've mentioned above, I'm happy with the majority of your edits, however, I'm rapidly approaching four months of addressing your concerns. Every time I asked you at FAC whether or not you were making edits for the purpose of moving the article to a position where you could support the nomination, I got no reply. Can you please explicitly answer that question now? I can live with you not supporting the nomination, but if I renominated it now (I'm not going to btw, I'm just trying to gauge if I've made any progress, it's genuinely hard to tell) would you still oppose the nomination? If so, given the current changes, how long do you think it will take to get there? I've invested several hours a day often for weeks on end into both improving this article and replying to concerns at FAC/PR. I'm not sure if I'm willing to invest another four months of my life into this, so I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me how close we are. Freikorp (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm removing low-quality sources that aren't needed, or replacing them if I can find better sources that say the same thing. As for where it's at, it isn't FA quality yet in my view, but it's now GA quality. I'm not convinced yet that it's comprehensive, and the writing is still not ideal in places. But it's heading in the right direction. You'll find it less time-consuming if you focus on discussing content. SarahSV (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Freikorp: @SlimVirgin: In my opinion, there is a lack of vision of what needs to be done. While the prose has certainly improved, I find the reorganisation confusing; now the article mixes fiction with real-world details in the same section. For example, the explanation of her RE3 outfit would fit better in a Design section. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction recommends, there should be a "careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication". Also, as I previously explained, the article should start with a section that discusses how the character was conceived and developed as the series progressed. This would give the article a better real-world perspective and a better context to the subsequent appearances section. Ideally, the appearances section should only include fictional details. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't feel like this is a peer review anymore. I feel like someone else has taken it upon themselves to reorganise the article the way they want it to be without consulting anybody else. Irrespective of this, I appreciated most of the edits, but I'm not convinced the current reoganisation is an improvement either. I'm too hesitant to revert anything I'm unhappy with as this tends to exacerbate tensions (and my life doesn't need any more stress), and I don't know where to start improving the article since its changed so much. For example, considering all the rewrites, which prose is still awkward? I have no idea. What's not comprehensive? This hasn't been explained to me. I've been searching for sources on Jill for months. I've searched through about two-dozen video-game magazines that reviewed the games. I've searched through half a dozen offline strategy guides. I've purchased and read through several books on Google play. I've played the games. I've watched the films. I've trawled through google and google scholar. What have I missed that's stopping this article from being comprehensive? That's not a rhetorical question. I can't think of any more potential sources to mine. Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Freikorp, just relax; you might as well take a break if necessary. For now, let's just see what other editors have to say about it. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Freikorp, you said yesterday that you were very happy with the re-organization. I've now joined the last two sections.

Niwi3, could you look again at the Appearances section and highlight which bits are still problematic in terms of mixing up perspectives? I've moved or commented out a few of the things that were (I think) causing that problem. SarahSV (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yesterdays rewrite was different from the day before, todays is different from yesterday, no doubt tomorrow the article will look different again. I can't keep up anymore. This isn't a peer review. It's me trying to keep up with your changes that have been made without consulting other editors. I can't improve the article because its not stable, and the few changes I've tried to make have either been reverted or complained about by you. I would literally pay other people to comment on this peer review so we could get some new insight. I've got nine people who said they would support the article, two people who said they wouldn't oppose and say the only outstanding issue is the prose, and one person who says the article falls considerably short of FA standards due to comprehensiveness, though will not tell me what is not comprehensive, which means I cannot fix the issue. One can't help but ask themselves, how much effort should be put in to address the concerns of a lone opposer? I made the overwhelming majority of your requested changes at the the first FAC and you still opposed. I made the overwhelming majority of your requested changes at the the second FAC and you still opposed. I was implementing your requested changes at the peer review, but now you've taken over and are rewriting it yourself, and there's still no indication of whether this will result in your support. I'm depressed. I'm not sleeping properly. I get anxious every morning when I wake up because I don't have the time to handle the daily things that need to be clarified because the only person who opposes isn't familiar with the subject, or even with how video games work (no offense intended, that's an observation not an insult). I've poured so much of my life and money into this article and I still don't know where it's going. I'm going on vacation from November 9 till 20, so I'm effectively going to be taking a break from this, but I'm really afraid I'm going to be overwhelmed with how many tags and clarification requests will be on the article when I get back. It's all well and good to say let's see what other editors have to say, but very few other people are saying anything, and I don't blame them. Other editors literally told me they didn't want to comment on the last FAC because it looked too complicated. This peer review looks too complicated. It's got 23 sub-sections. That's not normal. Sarastro1 said the article had received the most in-depth FAC review in recent history, and possibly of all time. I'm genuinely interested to know if it has now also received the most in depth peer review of all time. People are going to take one look at it and start running. Freikorp (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
You're right that this is past peer review. SV has contributed to the point where I'd consider her a collaborator. You share the same aims of readying the article for FAC and have equal stake in its contents. I said above (Oct 31) that the prose needs deeper restructuring than a copyedit, alluding to more TLC than GOCE alone can give. Well, it's getting that, so that should encourage rather than affront you. If you disagree with edits, there's plenty of time to boldly BRD or bring each to discussion. So enjoy your restful vacation knowing that the article is getting the attention it needs and perhaps use some of that time to reflect on a more healthful life–wiki balance czar 20:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Bold edits can be fine, but I just think it's polite to propose changes that are obviously going to cause contention on the talk page or peer review so they can be discussed and a consensus reached prior to implementing them. The issue isn't a life-wiki balance. I'm not spending any more time editing Wikipedia than I used to. The issue I suppose is a Jill Valentine-rest of Wikipedia balance. I get queried for so many things on this peer review that replying to concerns, finding the exact quotes in original sources and explaining video-game mechanics to a non-gamer is taking up all the time I have for editing. But yes, I'm very much looking forward to taking a break. And thank you for your recent contributions to this review, the thing that has been most stressful is not seeing enough other people here. Freikorp (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Please relax; it's simply a Wikipedia article and we are trying to help you improve it. Nobody is against you and we appreciate your effort; we are all here to improve the article because we are all interested in it. This is a very difficult article because it's about a very inconsistent video game character, so it's not going to be easy to improve it to FA status. Again, please relax and let's try to reach an agreement on what needs to be done. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Basically most of the first paragraph of the Resident Evil subsection and the entire first paragraph of the RE3 subsection. For example, the explanation of her RE3 costume is an explanation by the developers, not an in-game explanation. As a result, it should be moved to the Design section. I find Barry Burton's quote of "Master of Unlocking" unnecessary because it is previously explained that she has expertise in weapons training and lock picking. We also have the problem that the games are not properly introduced. If we had a Design and development section before the Appearances section we wouldn't have this problem. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: see my earlier post about the voice of the narrator and where to put it. If we don't say "The reason given in-game for her informal clothing is that she had just resigned from STARS", then we leave no explanation for a counter-terrorist officer wearing such a bizarre outfit during an operation. So I feel we do need to to tell the reader, at that point in the narrative, whatever Capcom has said, but properly sourced and attributed, rather than saying it was "in game" if it wasn't.
In general, the article should be aimed at an intelligent reader who knows nothing about gaming, so issues that you all take for granted may need to be spelled out.
Re: "master of unlocking", I added that only because it seems to be a meme, and Barry does say it in the first game.
Do you have any interest in writing the introductory section you think the article should have, or if you don't have time, then a roadmap of what you'd like to see in it? SarahSV (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Organization, it recommends, for characters: lead + infobox, concept and design, appearances, merchandise, reception, references, external links. It's quite a helpful guideline on what to include and avoid. SarahSV (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Yep, that's the order we should follow. I'll try to write the first two paragraphs of the Design/Development section, which should be the first section of the article. I'll post it here sometime today so you can review it. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Break 1[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @SlimVirgin: @Freikorp: I managed to write a few paragraphs in the collapsible box below. What do you think? At least that's the idea. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Jill Valentine was created by Capcom and introduced as one of two playable protagonists in the 1996 survival horror video game Resident Evil—the other being her partner Chris Redfield. In 2014, Resident Evil director Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the objectification of women in video games and said he refuses to portray women who are submissive to men. An American citizen with a Japanese mother and French father, Valentine is described as an intelligent, brave and loyal soldier with expertise in weapons training and lock picking. As a former member of Delta Force, she is credited for having saved the lives of civilians and fellow officers before the game events. Although the character appears in the game wearing a uniform consisting of combat boots, tactical pants, a tight-fitting blue shirt, shoulder pads and a beret, later games not directed by Mikami featured more sexualised outfits.

Valentine was not used in the 1998 sequel, Resident Evil 2, because the production team felt the game would be more frightening with new characters, but she returned as the sole protagonist of the 1999 title, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. In that game, she wears a blue tube top, black miniskirt, knee-high boots, and white sweater wrapped around her waist. According to Capcom, the reason for her informal clothing is that she had just resigned from her professional duties before leaving her home. As the series progressed, the character went through several design changes; GamesRadar's David Meikleham wrote in 2010 that she had been redesigned so often it was "getting ridiculous". In the 2002 remake of the original game, Valentine's appearance was based on Canadian model and actor Julia Voth. Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii", although she remained a tough and muscular character.

For the 2009 title Resident Evil 5, production director Yasuhiro Anpo explained that the designers tried to show how Valentine and Redfield had changed with time. They retained the characters' signature colours: blue for Valentine and green for Redfield. In the game, Valentine's skin is paler and her hair blonde, both said to be side-effects from having been forced to be a test subject for a rival corporation. Although Voth's likeness continued to be used in Resident Evil 5 and other games in the series, Valentine's face was changed for Resident Evil: Revelations (2012), which is set at sea. Her costume, in her signature blue colour, resemble a wetsuit; her buoyancy control device was designed to have more tactical gear attached, but the gear was removed to show her "bodyline".


Appearances (second section of the article)

Jill Valentine first appears in the original Resident Evil, set in July 1998 on the outskirts of the fictional town of Raccoon City in the United States. As an explosives expert who excelles at bomb disposal and with expertise in weapons training and lock picking, Valentine joins the Special Tactics And Rescue Service (STARS) and is assigned to the Raccoon City Police Department (RCPD). In the game, she is sent to investigate a series of bizarre murders...


@Niwi3: I'm happy with that. My main issue with Sarah's bold edits is that they were specifically re-adding things other FAC reviewers asked me to remove and removing things other FAC reviewers had told me to add, and nobody else was providing any feedback on the changes. If the two of you can agree on a way to restructure the article I'll be completely happy with whatever you come up with together. Freikorp (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Also SlimVirgin, you're right, the 'master of unlocking' quote is a meme. There used to be a whole paragraph on it in the article [6], and there are many, many more sources that mention it. I was mildly opposed to removing the mention of that meme but it wasn't something I felt strong enough to fight for, so I let it go when a reviewer (can't remember who) challenged it. Accordingly I don't have a problem with it being reinstated, providing it gets added in with the proper context. Freikorp (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: I like that, thanks for putting it together. One thing: you left out what the character can do (access to more weapons, etc). In the absence of a dedicated section, is this not the best place for it? SarahSV (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Sorry, I forgot to explain why I omitted it: those are simply gameplay mechanics from the original Resident Evil and should be properly covered in the corresponding game article. Jill is a very inconsistent character, and her gameplay mechanics vary from game to game. For example, in Revelations, she can move and shoot in any direction, perform melee attacks, and swim and dive underwater. In this article, I'd just keep the fact that the gameplay contrast between Jill and Chris in the first game received some attention by commentators, and in my opinion it should be moved to a Reception section. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: thanks for explaining. I'm happy to follow your judgment, but personally I like that kind of detail, because it's distinctive to video-game characters. Otherwise she could be any kind of fictional character. I think it would be good to include anything that was distinctive about her when it was introduced, or anything that she is consistently the only RE character to do. SarahSV (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine; we can certainly mention her unique abilities in the article because it adds context and explains why commentators consider her better prepared overall. But I think it fits better in the Reception section because it's an analysis. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: I've contributed next to nothing to this FAC discussion as a whole, but I read, and liked, your take on the section, as I thought it flowed nicely. I know next to nothing about the Resident Evil series but I've used Jill's article as a guide in my attempt to improve some VG articles. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm now going to go off topic since I can't be bothered to hunt through this massive thread, but unless an expansion is in the works I think the alternate costumes section could be merged with main features and design as it's too short to stand on its own. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The alternate costume section has recently been shortened, something I am not pleased about. I'm not opposed to merging it in any case, I just thought that should be mentioned giving its brevity has now been brought up. Freikorp (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Eh, but the "Alternate costumes" section reads as trivia. What does a general reader need to know? That the series is known for alternative costumes and some include X, Y, and Z. If any of those costumes had an out-of-universe purpose/impact, that would be noteworthy too. Otherwise, it doesn't matter that X costume is available in Y game. (See last paragraph of Doomfist#Description.) czar 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts exaclty. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Break 2[edit]

Niwi3, I've tried to follow your proposal. I changed some of the words; for example, it said she was a counterterrorism officer who was wearing a police uniform, so to explain that, I added STARS and assigned to Raccoon City police dept.

I find this version more confusing than the previous, because at least with Appearances first, non-gamers get a chance to orient themselves. With design first, if it is not carefully explained, non-gamers won't understand it. I do like design first, but it has to be written differently.

I don't know what to do with the two sentences beginning "As a result of these experiences" in the first game section.

We need some in-text attribution, e.g. "Portrayed as intelligent, brave and loyal ...": portrayed by whom and where? Ditto "she is known for having saved the lives ..." and other pre-game (post-game?) descriptions. SarahSV (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I updated the paragraphs in the collapsible box above so it's easier to understand for non-gamers (removed police, zombies... etc). Please let me know if anything is still unclear. Also, why do you think we need some in-text attributions? These are descriptions of the character in official strategy guides. Finally, I'm not sure why you are having issues with the sentence "As a result of these experiences". Could you please elaborate? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3:, I'll try to explain. If we're writing about Harry Potter (character), and we say his parents were killed when he was a year old, we can source that to book A, page number x.
With Jill Valentine, we have biographical information that is obvious to anyone playing the games, then we have information hidden in diaries unlockable during the games, and we have information that Capcom has imparted after the fact in official strategy guides. Our article doesn't say where and when each piece of biographical information originated.
I would like to be able to cite everything with precision so that the non-gamer can see where it comes from, not for the sake of being super precise, but so that we see how information about the character developed. For example, when do we learn that she left the police force? Is it explained within the third game or is it in a Capcom guide? At the moment, the section about the first game says: "Disillusioned with the RCPD's failure to take action against Umbrella, she leaves the police service ..." But she does not do that in the first game. SarahSV (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I messed up the ping; repinging Niwi3. SarahSV (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: if you look at Harry Potter (character), you'll see that the voice of the author is included throughout the Appearances section. For example, the section on the first book explains at the top that his parents were killed when he was one. But he doesn't learn that in the book until later. The section explains: "According to Rowling, fleshing out this back story was a matter of reverse planning: 'The basic idea [is that] Harry ... didn't know he was a wizard ... and so then I kind of worked backwards from that position.' ... As a result, Harry is written as an orphan living with his only remaining family."
You don't want that kind of commentary in the Appearances section. You would like to confine it to what happens in the games themselves. That means we need to find another way to attribute the additional biographical information—the information not imparted within the games—to its sources and to explain the timeline, even if only in footnotes—e.g. that after RE1 is over, Valentine leaves the police service, but we first learn this in the strategy guide for RE3 (or wherever it was). SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Victoriaearle, in case you're around while this peer review is still open, we're having difficulty finding the best way to structure the fictional biographical details. Niwi3's view is that the Appearances section (which describes mostly which games she appeared in) should stick to the in-universe perspective. I'm having difficulty writing that. There is the information in the games themselves, visible to all. There is information in the games available to certain players (e.g. a diary that can be unlocked). And there is information in Capcom strategy guides, sometimes years later giving us information about an earlier era. If I were writing this, I would be very precise about it: Valentine is presented as X in the 1996 game, but in 1999 Capcom revealed that she had done Y after the end of the 1996 game. But that breaks out of the in-universe perspective. As this is your area, I wondered whether you had any suggestions. SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: That's why I would avoid having individual subsections for each "canon" game. I would personally cover her canon appearances in the same subsection (called "video game series"). Then, you can include material from official strategy guides, unlocked files, etc, because these are also considered part of the canon video game series. You can probably include the background information there as well. BTW, I like how you managed to organize the Design section, and I agree with the removal of Mikami's statement. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: I'm glad you like the design section, and thanks re: Mikami. Re: Appearances, even without the separate section headers, it's a question of how to write it: who knew what, when, as it were. It may seem as though I'm overthinking this (and perhaps I am). SarahSV (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The Appearance section subheadings feel excessive. It's easier to read when the game titles are simply linked within the paragraph. czar 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the headings, but the section is now too long. I didn't know what else to call the main sub-section, so I called it "canon" for now. SarahSV (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the subsection section need a heading? An intro paragraph in overview of JV's Appearances throughout the series (and outside) would suffice. I'd remove more specificity from the section, as there isn't a need to cover the plot in more than generalities to introduce JV (readers interested in the individual game plots can read the individual articles). I'd imagine sources should cover the main plot points as pertains to JV's character development czar 16:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Example of the confusion[edit]

The first game appeared in 1996 and is set in 1998. We summarize what happened in the Resident Evil subsection in the Appearances section. The subsection ends with:

As a result of these experiences, Valentine forms a strong friendship with Redfield and becomes a passionate opponent of bioterrorism.[1] Disillusioned with the RCPD's failure to take action against Umbrella, she leaves the police service but remains in Raccoon City to investigate Umbrella.[a]


  1. ^ Denick, Thom (2013). Resident Evil Revelations. London: BradyGames, p. 3.
  2. ^ Waples, Damien (2007). Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles. London: Titan Books, p. 124.
  3. ^ Androvich, Mark (1999). Resident Evil 3 Nemesis. Roseville, California: Prima Games, p. 20.
  4. ^ "Files" and "Items", Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007).


  1. ^ "As our story opens, we learn what happened to Jill Valentine after the events of the original Resident evil. Disillusioned with the failure of Raccoon City's Police Department to act against Umbrella Corporation and its genetic experiments, she decides to quit the force."[2][3]
    Jill Valentine's diary can be unlocked in Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles (2007). The entry for 24 August reads: "Chris left town today for Europe. Barry said that he was going to send his family to Canada first and then meet up with Chris after that. I have decided to remain in Raccoon City for the time being because I know that the research facility here will be vital to this case.
    "After gathering as much information as I can, I will regroup with Barry and Chris in about a month. I know that is when my true struggle will begin..."[4]

The second sentence about her leaving is sourced to a diary entry for Valentine that can be unlocked during Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles (2007) (and perhaps in earlier games). It says: 24 August: "Chris left town today for Europe. Barry said that he was going to send his family to Canada first and then meet up with Chris after that. I have decided to remain in Raccoon City for the time being because I know that the research facility here will be vital to this case. After gathering as much information as I can, I will regroup with Barry and Chris in about a month. I know that is when my true struggle will begin..." (see "Files" and "Items", Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007).)

It was initially added as this, with the edit summary that the information was in the game, without specifying which game (this is the section for the 1996 game).

My question is this. When she says: "I have decided to remain in Raccoon City for the time being", what is the original (the first) source of this; what time period is she referring to (24 August what year?); and what is the best way to express it and cite the source? SarahSV (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah and thanks for the ping. I have been watching this sporadically since it began but haven't really been able to pitch in. I'll add a few thoughts here and feel free to move if they land in the wrong section. When I commented at the FAC I had a general idea of how it might be structured, and at some point before the FAC closed spent about 30 minutes one day skimming the RE novels on google books, which were helpful. From the few pages I was able to see, I got a much better sense of the character. What needs to be done for an article about a character is to provide some sort of a background section that explains to the reader the fictional setting, in this case the RE world, without going into great detail about plot points. Once that's done tighten the focus so that's it's only on the character. Explain who she/he is, and the general arc of character development throughout the course of the various episodes/games/novels/movies, etc.
My understanding is this (and anyone who has played the games, feel free to make corrections): the RE universe is in the near future. Time is often challenging when dealing with a fictional universe - though set in the nineties, we use the literary present, so even in 2017 it's still the nineties, or 2000s, or whenever the games are set, but the characters live in a world that's in the near future, i.e a few years ahead of the real future. In the RE world, the Umbrella Corporation has developed a virus that turns people to zombies and they are rapidly deploying the virus. That's the general background and it's necessary to work from the general to specific.
The specific details are that when she is first introduced Jill Valentine is a new member of the STARS team, whose leader Wesker secretly works for Umbrella Corp. The team's mission is to attack Umbrella, stop the virus, and kill the zombies (this might actually work in a background section).
I learned the following about Jill in only a few minutes: she is the daughter of renowned thief Dick Valentine who trained her in his craft and she worked with her father before leaving a life of crime for law enforcement. Though I didn't specifically see mention of Delta, it does mention that she comes to Wesker with a high recommendation from her previous captain. She has a tendency to be late, she drives a hatchback (later it's a Prius), she travels around the US killing zombies who are proliferating at an alarming rate (I noted mention of Raccoon City, San Francisco, Baltimore (there's a cross country trip)). For some period she's "not Jill" - when Wesker takes control. I'm not clear whether this is when she's infected? She does have feelings for one of her team-mates (there's a scene on a beach in Mexico at end of one of the books, but I can't tell from the pages that were visible whether it's Chris or not).
The first book opens with a flashback, set at the Umbrella headquarters, as she's running away from the Titan (the Easter egg in the article should be removed). There's a nice description of her boots hitting the ground, the monster gaining, the men hovering in the helicopter above, that I'd use in a text box to illustrate the point about running away, if I were writing the article. The next chapter is about her first day at STARS.
I didn't read anything about her appearance, except that she wears boots. She likes coffee. She's nervous. She drops her keys in her coffee cup, etc. In other words, there's a character there, and the character changes, develops, through the various episodes. Somehow all of that needs to be brought out (in my view, it's what's missing). Most of this information can be gained from the books and cited to them or I suppose cited to the games. I'm not sure how to cite to a game, so I can't answer that specific question.
This might add even more confusion, but it's how a character probably should be written about. Once that's done, and yes it can be done in-universe but it's tricky to keep from going all the way into the universe, then the design section, analysis section, etc. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
To answer the specific question: I think the team breaks up for a time after the Raccoon City episode, and yes, she's on her own. I wouldn't bother trying to date it, and honestly I'm not sure such minute plot details are necessary. It's more important to focus on who Jill is, if that makes sense? Victoriaearle (tk) 20:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
One more thought (please feel free to move to an appropriate place). In my experience collaborations are the most rewarding experiences on Wikipedia. That's speaking from experience; probably half of the FAs attributed to my name have been collabs. From what I've seen of this PR (which is quite impressive) is that at this point it's a collab between Freikorp, Slim Virgin, Niwi3 and Czar. Fwiw, that would be my recommendation going forward and my sense is that the end result will be an excellent article about character who features in a large franchise of video games, films and novels. Just my unsolicited advice, but something to consider. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Victoria, thanks for this. It's extremely helpful. This is what I've been looking for, the sense of a character, and I like your idea of a background section to introduce her. I'm about to go offline, so I can't say more now. I just wanted to thank you for the idea. I'll write more tomorrow and start thinking about how to put together an introduction. SarahSV (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception section[edit]

@Czar: I can't find where you said this now, but I recall you saying you didn't like the in-text attribution in the Reception section (A said, B said). Nor did I, so I've removed most of it and tightened the second two paragraphs quite a bit. See this revision. Any thoughts? I'm not keen on the "several say X, others say Y" formula, which is what is now there, but at the moment I can't think how to fix it. SarahSV (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It has become a popular refrain (some advice memorialized at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections). The tightened paragraphs read better but the trade-off of generalized claims is that they're harder to verify. It might help to add the relevant quote to the citation template (|quote=) if the citations are specific to the sentence. The first paragraph is probably more urgent than the ones you edited. "Her relationship ... developed into one of the best in video gaming" is weasel-y considering that it's sourced to a men's magazine known more for video game listicles than video game analysis. I even question the merit of "Valentine has been cited as one of the most attractive and likeable characters in the medium" sourced to four listicles—not exactly the bastion of authority on proportion to the claim. But were they to be removed, are there any other sourced claims to take their place? Spitballing, an alternative might be, "Video game publications have listed Valentine among the medium's most likeable and attractive characters", which tones down the generalization and is more reasonable/proportionate to the sourcing. czar 19:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I've added your words to the first paragraph and removed the words about the relationship. [7] I'll give the next two paragraphs some thought. I'd like to avoid unnecessary quoting, but I've read those paragraphs so often I can hardly see them now. Will try again later. SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, can we just reword the coverage of Jill's relationship with Redfield to present it as the opinions of a couple video game-journals, as opposed to a solid fact? Which incidentally was how I originally presented it. I feel like the information was reworded inaccurately, and now its all been thrown out because of that. I strongly think coverage of Jill's relationship with Chris, which includes an academic source commenting on the matter, improves the article. Also I feel the need the mention that one of the reasons I've been opposed to trimming down sources is exactly due to what Czar has just queried - 'four listicles [are] not exactly the bastion of authority on proportion to the claim'. That's completely true. The issue is that there are many, many more sources that cover this. They've just been removed one by one. Freikorp (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
An alternative to excising sources: Comment them out next to the better sources or a hidden comment that suggests where further sources can be found. Makes it easier to find the relevant sources in the future without delving into the page history. czar 21:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
How about expanding the caption from Anita? Otherwise it feels like nothing.Tintor2 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it has limited relevance even an expanding caption, but I wasn't going to ask for it to be removed. The irony that we're including an image of one person who provides brief criticism yet we're being asked to remove images of Valentine herself isn't wasted on me. Freikorp (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally am not a fan of having Anita's photograph in the reception section. It feels out of place and, in combination with the cosplay picture, results in some text squashing. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to show the actor portraying JV and the character model as long as they're discussed, but Sarkeesian's coverage specific to JV hasn't risen to the level of even being addressed by others as far as I can tell. Anyway, the photo has been removed. czar 21:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikibreak, GOCE and concerns[edit]

The overwhelming majority of the articles I choose to write on Wikipedia are on obscure subjects the world has pretty much forgotten about; see my userpage for examples. Accordingly I am accustomed to writing articles by myself, nominated them for peer review, implement the various suggestions made at peer review by myself, then nominate them for FAC. This process generally occurs without anything even resembling controversy. I am not used to the process of BRD. Personally I find the concept in general to be obtuse and therefore unappealing. I understand it works well for others, but for me it's very challenging. I haven't experienced anyone making several bold edits to something I've put a lot of effort into before. I haven't been handling that well. I'm sorry that I've been difficult to work with at times.

24 hours from now, I'll be taking a Wikibreak until November 20. This is going to be very good for me, and I think me taking a step back from a very stressful four months of working on addressing concerns will be of benefit to the other editors, who I recognise are putting in a lot of effort, as well as to the article itself.

This article has been placed on hold at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests until around Novmeber 15. I nominated it there some time ago as I didn't think this peer review would still be open by the time it snaked its way up to the top of the list. In the event that a consensus is reached that the article is FAC worthy within the next week, by all means, someone is welcome to comment at GOCE and ask them to go ahead with the copyedit. I am not fussed if the nomination there ends up being removed if the article is still unstable. I can always renominated it later, and anyway, if the article reaches a point where Niwi3, Czar and SlimVirgin all think the prose is acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, that will mean the article doesn't even need to go through GOCE.

Looking at the article as it stands now, here are my current concerns.

  • I don't like how the appearances section has six sub-sections. I think it's an eyesore. I preferred SlimVirgin's earlier reorgansation which had less sub-sections.
  • I don't like how the alternate costume section paragraph has been reduced. There's now no mention of the developments of Jill's pirate outfit, yet we've still got Sarkeesian criticising that specific outfit, which will probably come across as confusing to readers. Personally I find it interesting to note what the developers had to say about why they made the costume the way they made it. In commenting on it, they only mentioned that their motivation was to fit in with the game being set at sea and to contrast the vibrant colours with the game's dark themes. The don't even mention that the outfit is revealing. This says a lot about how their minds work. I don't think they're deliberately trying to sexualise Jill. I think they just come from a culture where that's how women are frequently portrayed. No i'm not trying to justify their decision, I'm just commenting on how they reached it. I find this juxtaposes nicely with Sarkeesian's reaction to the costume.
  • Jill's attractiveness is given a disproportionately low amount of weight. Let me try and explain. I've only written one other article about a women: Isabelle Eberhardt. I'm immensely proud of writing this article by myself. Every biography I read on Isabelle dedicated at least a few paragraphs to her sexuality. Despite the fact there was considerable coverage on this, I only mention Isabelle's sexuality briefly in 'my' article on her, because her sexuality isn't what she was famous for. She was a highly sexual person, but she was famous for being a writer, vagabond and general misfit. Now, Jill Valentine is a well-trained professional soldier, but what she's arguably more renowned for is for being a sex symbol in gaming. The reason I think this should be given more weight is because it's how she is perceived within the gaming community, regardless of whether people think that's abhorrently sexist or sex-positive. Ignore the sources that are currently used in the article; I have around eight high-quality sources that regard her as one of the most attractive women in gaming, and to put things in perspective, there are at minimum another dozen RS sources that make the same observation. Considering the amount of coverage this issue has generated, is the single sentence "She has often been cited as one of the most attractive, consistent and likeable characters in the medium" the appropriate amount of weight to give this issue? By comparison, we've got eight high-quality sources that criticise Jill for being oversexualised, and they've been used to generate two paragraphs. I'm not asking for two paragraphs. I'm asking for two sentences. The statement we currently have in the article is also inaccurate. She is not "often" regarded as the most consistent; I'm pretty sure only one source has even said that about her. I'm fairly certain only one source explicitly said "likeable" as well, unless likeable is being used as a euphemism for all the positive attention she's received for her looks. Freikorp (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope that you have an enjoyable Wikibreak! I have a great deal of respect for you for choosing to tackle such a well-known character and continually working on it for as long as you have. I am a very similar editor to you in that your following statement, "The overwhelming majority of the articles I choose to write on Wikipedia are on obscure subjects the world has pretty much forgotten about", really resonates with me so I understand your point of view. Anyway, just wanted to voice something positive towards you. I also agree with your points, but I will leave that discussion to those who are far more experienced than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aoba47. That means a lot to me.
  • Just to clarify as per points in above sections that have not been replied to, I still need someone to help me clarify whether of not Valentine and Redfield funding the Private Biohazard Containment Unit occurs prior to The Umbrella Chronicles or not, and I'm still concerned that information about Jill's relationship with Redfield appears to have been scrubbed from the article because it was described inaccurately. Also if a reason has been given for why the text "As one of the first two player characters in the series, Valentine has advantages and disadvantages compared to her male counterpart ..." has been hidden I've missed it. I'd really appreciate it if these issues could be commented on in my absence. Freikorp (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not used to the process of BRD. Personally I find the concept in general to be obtuse and therefore unappealing. I understand it works well for others, but for me it's very challenging.

Something on which to reflect, then? BRD is a basic premise of Wikipedia. It only means that contested changes be reverted and discussed to resolution on the talk page rather than edit warred.

Jill Valentine is a well-trained professional soldier, but ... arguably more renowned for ... being a sex symbol in gaming.

What sources support this claim?

I have around eight high-quality sources that regard her as one of the most attractive women in gaming

Which? Here is the GA version, for reference. I wouldn't consider almost any of the listicles cited to be high-quality (indeed, the opposite). Also telling if this is communicated through charged terms like "hot babe" rather than "sex symbol". The latter is, societally, more redemptive and the former lascivious. czar 21:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I didn't say BRD was a bad thing, I said I'm not used to it. My motivation for improving the Wikipedia articles that I do is that they have been completely abandoned. The way I see it, if I don't, who else will? This article, before I 'adopted' it, was no exception. After SNAAAAKE!! was banned, I figured I could do Wikipedia a service by taking over half a dozen of his pet projects. Somebody from project video games actually noticed what I was doing and thanked me for it, also inviting me to join the project at the same time. To put things in perspective, I have 11 FA's, 2 FLC's and an additional 20 GA's. Despite my considerable contributions to Wikipedia, due to the nature of articles I choose to improve the Jill Valentine article is my first experience of a BRD happening more than once per article. I apologize if my lack of experience in this regard is inconvenient for everyone else. Maybe I'm abnormal, but personally I still think its polite to discuss things prior to implementing them IF it is overwhelmingly obvious that they will in fact be contested.
No sources that I've found support that she is specifically more renowned for being attractive than for being a soldier. This opinion is inferred from the sheer number of sources praising her for each topic. If two dozen sources praise her for being attractive, and one source praises her for being consistent, I think it's inappropriate to try and say she's equally renowned for being attractive as she is for being consistent. The 'consistent' line has been dropped now, and the criticism of her over-sexualisation has also been shortened, so this is less of an issue now, though I would still argue that coverage of her attractiveness has been watered down.
I have no intention of communicating in terms like 'hot-babe'. This was resolved at the first FAC. It's easy to criticise me for doing so in the first place. In my defense, the article for Cortana, one of only two featured articles on female characters, was written the same way, and neither my GA nomination nor my peer review prior to the first FAC expressed any concern over it. I've since realised this is not appropriate, and no longer write in this manner anymore. As for the high-quality sources, at the first FAC Ealdgyth gave the article the harshest source-review I had ever experienced at FAC. Not saying that was a bad thing, but to put things in perspective as I've previously pointed out, both Cortana and Lightning use sources Ealdgyth specifically said were not good enough for FAC. The articles I'm referring to as high-quality are the ones that survived her cull. Freikorp (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Apocalypse special features[edit]

The last source I intended to purchase to write this article has arrived in the mail this morning, the Resident Evil Apocalypse DVD. There are two special features which look like they will come in handy. A featurette entitled "Game Babes" and the cast commentary featuring Valentine's actress Sienna Guillory. I've only watched the featurette so far. Here are all the quotes that might be relevant. I'll go through the director's commentary some other time, probably after I get back. Freikorp (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Game Babes featurette
  • Sienna Guillory: You've got these two women (Alice and Valentine) who have this incredible arsenal of marital arts and gun control (implying skill in firearms training) and you've got someone as beautiful as Milla and as minxy and sexy as Jill. It's a great dynamic.
  • Sienna Guillory: I'm definitely independent minded. I've always done my own thing. I supported myself and went against what other people thought I should have done and stuck to my own path. In a way I'm probably as pig-headed as Jill (laughs)
  • Sienna Guillory: It's really liberating actually to have such a kind of sexy outfit (miniskirt and tube top). ... I'd love to dress like that every day. It's not always possible but that's what the movies are for.
  • Milla Jovovich: Part of the appeal of the game is how sexy the girls are. In the first movie it was like the battle of how do we get Alice to look sexy, because in reality she [would have been] wearing a security uniform; nobody wants to see that ... I suggested that Raccoon City is going through a heat wave, and it's not just me, how do we get Jill Valentine in her typical miniskirt and tube top? Heat wave in Raccoon City, thank you very much (smiles). (Note: The academic source by Stephen Harper also comments on the supposed heat wave in Raccoon City being given as the reason for the revealing clothing).
  • Sienna Guillory: The glamour and fun of playing a character like Jill Valentine; you've got this girl in a little tight top and an miniskirt , she's cool and she's sexy and she's fun ...
  • Milla Jovovich: Sienna's been watching the games and she's doing a few of the things that [Valentine does] in the games, like when she waits she'll do this thing with her hips while she's waiting for a zombie (imitates movement wigggling hips)
  • Sienna Guillory: The Jill Valentine character does this thing where she like is on wait, she's got a gun by her side and a hand on her hip and you've gone off to make a cup of tea and she's like (imitates movement wiggling hips from side to side playfully and impatiently) 'are you gonna finish the game of what? You gonna play with me? Come on!' And I love that wiggle its like she's a girly girl, she's a sexy little minx, she's fantastic, I love the little hip going its really cool.
  • Sienna Guillory: [In preparation for the role] I spent an hour a day with a personal trainer ... I did commando and martial arts training ... (doesn't clarify what either of these entailed)
Cast commentary by Sienna Guillory

I'm documenting every time Sienna talks throughout the commentary, though am not transcribing some parts that are completely irrelevant.

  • 01:41 - When I read the script the idea of this being a situation that could actually happen like when you have bad dreams and you're the heroine and you can fly and you can so stuff you can't do in real like, Jill is the one person I really wanted to be in this story, I just thought it was such a brilliant story and so well told and so plausible and so beautifully put together I just found her really really inspiring as a human so that was what drew me to her.
  • 02:50 - I've always been aware of the game, it has this huge cult status ... it's cool it's hardcore and I had a lot of respect for it. Playing it is a different matter it's really really hard. I had to cheat, I called people I knew and had them finish the entire game and video it so I could just watch it cause I just couldn't get through the stages in time to kind of learn what Jill could and couldn't do. Watching the game, she's a sexy little vixen! She's a fox and when she's on pause she has this sexy wiggle thing and I was like, I like that ...
  • 05:50 [Jill's opening scene] (Note: The article currently states "Valentine's first appearance in the film Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004) is of her legs in a miniskirt" - this is sourced, however, the source is inaccurate. The first shot is of her feet in high heels, which is what Sienna is talking about here. The legs and miniskirt shot is a completely separate scene.) I love that scene. I love when she first walks in. First of all, all you see of her are the shoes, which are these beautiful sexy black pattern Moschino shoes and you're just like, Oh yeah!', and it kind of explains the whole outfit [newspaper clippings seen on the wall document Jill's suspension] she's been out and she's on suspension and she hears the news [zombie outbreak shown on TV as she takes off her heels] she zips on the boots and then you see her in the police station and she's like no nonsense BAM BAM BAM this is what's happening, this is what's going on, you're coming with me or you're not. I just love that no nonsense attitude, she's just pure work force power she's really cool, the most exciting character I've ever played she just has everything that you could want as a women in this situation, she's a survivalist, she's hardcore, she dresses however she wants she says what she wants she knows her limits, the expertise that she has with a gun, her respect for her teammates, her survival instincts are really, really inspiring to me. Jill's strength and courage comes mostly from helping other people. I mean she realises that she has more survival skills than [other supporting characters] and its her responsibility to get them to help but at the same time protect other people. That's one of the things I really found appealing about her was just her ability to get along with people that perhaps she normally wouldn't get along with. I like the way she puts up with Mike. I think the relationship she has with the little girl is great as well especially since it comes at a time where she becomes completely disarmed, we walk into the cafeteria and she's like it's OK honey, don't worry they're really slow we can run around them and then suddenly the dogs are there and it's like FUCK. The moment that she becomes disarmed I began to really appreciate her humanity and her resourcefulness and you just think what would I do in this situation apart from FREAK OUT and run away and they fact that she has to work out ways to get around things noiselessly and find an escape route and make a plan and at the same time not freak out the little girl by freaking out herself, I just really enjoyed that it was really cool.
  • 12:58 - With Jill it's more the fact that she is and ace shot and she doesn't miss. As soon as I'd done enough firearms training I began to understand that your every thought and action is informed by where you're pointing the gun and what you're gonna do with it, that's where her bravery comes from because her ability is incredible with guns so once the movement of the gun was in place that would form the movement of the character and then using the little wiggle that she has that was like, OK, lets put that together with stalking with the gun and that's kind of who she really is, it's this total confidence, total physical confidence in herself ...
  • 19:58 - [Talks about difficulty filming at night and sleeping during day]
  • 23:14 - [Mentions she already knew some Hapkido] ... [the Hapkido] was very helpful, i'm nowhere near on Milla's level but I don't think that really mattered so much with Jill because her combat skills were survival based and her firepower was her main ingredient, and her sharp tongue (laughs)
  • 24:19 - ... what was so seductive for me about this movie was the premise, that it is something that could actually happen [goes into detail about biology, bio-engineering and the greed of corporations like Umbrella]
  • 26:17 - [Talks about enjoying filming the church scene, the history of the church as a place of refuge and the irony that it becomes one in this day and age] ... [Talks about Jill's first interactive with Alice] and [Jill sees Alice kill all the Lickers] and she's standing there going 'That should be my job!' but at the same time its just this mutual respect and its such a great moment.
  • 39:36 - With Jill she's someone who definitely knows her own capabilities and knows her limits, she's very human so perhaps she has more of an even footing on who she is and what's going on then Alice does because Alice is in a state of flux and change and self-discovery and doesn't know her own limits. I think Jill's very sensitive towards Alice, she knows that something's up, she knows that something's not right but here and now is not the time and place it's like, OK, well let's get on with it and it's that sort of situation where if they don't team together then that's the end and having the team training that she's had being a ember of the STARS team I think that's just the way her brain works and how she thinks. It was very important for me to make sure that Jill demanded the respect she deserved. I love the relationship she has with [fellow officer] Peyton because clearly there's a little too much warmth there but a huge amount of mutual trust and respect and the moment where Alice pulls a gun on Peyton and Jill is just like, Whoah, OK, you may think you're cool you may be it but, nuh-uh (laughs), he's my buddy.
  • 44:50 - It's a big lesson for Jill when Peyton comes back [from the dead] and tries to kill everyone although I thought more should be made of that at the end of the day there's a big picture and that is they have to survive, escape, and find this girl and they have to get the story out there because other lives are at stake and she can't let her own little personal tragedy get in the way of what she needs to do so that was, that was very interesting.
  • 50:50 - I think the moment where [Jill] finds Sophie is kind of like, OK, here we go, everything's OK, and you know as soon as everything is quiet and OK something serious and bad is going to happen and it's such a shame cause she walks in and is like 'everything's OK' and I think what I really appreciate about the scene in the cafeteria and kitchen is it showed a completely different side to Jill, it shows her respect for Sophie and her care for the little girl and she knows that she can't be scared because if she's scared the little girl is going to be scared she doesn't realise at this point that Sophie is completely immune to the dogs and the undead and everything so she feels she has to be brave for the little girl and I think perhaps Sophie being there is what gives Jill that little bit of extra strength and courage to carry on.
  • 55:20 - [Compares T-Virus outbreak to the then current SARS epidemic, compares a blackout they had for 3 days while filming and everybody coming together to help each other to characters in the film helping each other in times of need]
  • 1:04:46 - [Talks about watching the fight between Alice and Nemesis on set, praises Milla's fighting skills and the experience of working with her]
  • 1:11:23 - [Praises Oded, talks about a scene where she encouraged him to kick a 'dead' stuntman on the way up the helicopter ramp even though it wasn't in the script. Oded apparently complied but actually kicked the stuntman quite hard while Sienna had meant for him to only pretend to kick him]
  • 1:22:10 - [States that she loves the ending of the film, especially how it leaves room for a sequel]

Right, so that's all her statements throughout the commentary.

As the sources indicates, Guillory studied the video game character's body language and tried to portray this accurately in the film. She also gives her opinions on Valentine's RE3 outfit. I tried to add this information to the article "Guillory underwent martial arts and military training in preparation for the role, and also copied some of Valentine's body language from the games. She spoke highly of the experience and also of Valentine's iconic tube-top and miniskirt outfit, describing it as liberating", though it was reverted on the grounds it "isn't about the character". Does anybody think that this information is relevant? How come we can give the opinions of academic Stephen Harper and defunct video-game website on the RE3 outfit, yet we can't give the opinion of the actual actress who was wearing it? Obviously this information could be summarised differently if that is preferable. Freikorp (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with you about this matter. I think that this information should be incorporated into the article in some format as insight from the actual actress who portrayed the character in the film would only be beneficial. I am actually a little disappointed in how this peer review is being run as there seems to be a lot more internal dialogue between certain users while some of Freikorp's concerns (such as the ones above) are not addressed. I would greatly appreciate it @SlimVirgin: would address her reasoning for removing the information here as well. I find that only addressing a decision to remove the information through a very vague edit summary rather than also putting your reasoning here is rather poor form in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • See above in the section on Images. SarahSV (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have replied there also. Freikorp (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

More design information[edit]

I just found more information about her design in Resident Evil 5 (see the collapsible box below). --Niwi3 (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Modeler Yosuke Yamagata on her catsuit costume:

I didn't receive any specific instructions to give her different outfits for before she gets caught by Wesker and when she shows up as an enemy, but it was something I chose to do anyway. Considering that she would be all superhuman when she reappeared, and also since years would have passed since she was captured, I thought it would be mean to make her wear the same clothes. (laughs) The close-fitting clothes she is wearing are supposed to give the player the idea that she has been experimented on while she was captured.

Book: The Art of Resident Evil 5 - Chapter: Characters - Page: 32

Production director Yasuhiro Anpo on her chest device:

The control mechanism was going to be on her head, but our project leader say, "If we put it on her chest... we could open up her chest area and it'd be sexy..." No one disagreed. (laughs)

Book: The Art of Resident Evil 5 - Chapter: Characters - Page: 32

Modeler Yosuke Yamagata on her BSAA outfit:

Jill's theme color is still blue, as it has always been. I think the fact that her hair changed color when she became an enemy really accentuates the change in her character. I enhanced her raccoon-like features, with heavy lips, relatively larger eyes and nose, and brushed her up to bring out the texture of her skin and veins. For her clothes, I stuck to Jill's "style" while incorporating different aspects from military and sportswear, crafted from futuristic material. The two images above are drawn early on, and were immediately approved. This uniform was for when Jill is acting as a BSAA agent, and is an ally to the player.

Book: The Art of Resident Evil 5 - Chapter: Characters - Page: 33

Thanks so much for this information Niwi3, it was very helpful. I've made some expansions to the article with it. Please tell me what you think. I am 100% open to rewording, especially since I am fully aware my prose is generally not FAC worthy. Incidentally while I've got your attention, in your opinion how is the article doing now? Would you support its nomination at this point or is further work needed? Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral vote. I still think the gameplay section is offtopic and does not belong to this article. I already explained that the gameplay is an aspect of video games, not fictional characters. In my opinion, because the gameplay varies from game to game, trying to cover all of her gameplay mechanics in one single section makes no sense at all. Also, why is this even in the article: "she enters the 'live selection mode' during certain sections of the game, in which the player is prompted to choose between one of two possible actions; the choice affects the direction of the game and story, including which ending the player receives." When the article starts discussing gameplay mechanics, it loses focus and violates FA criteria no. 4 (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style). I'd like to hear more opinions on whether a gameplay section should really be included. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: Well as you know I removed the Gameplay section per your request at the last FAC. I have previously been asked here not to mention who wrote certain parts of the article, though since it's my peer review at this point I think it's extremely relevant to point out that this section was added back without consensus or any say in the matter from myself. I have no objection to the section being removed. I also don't like how parts of the current section are written, such as the line you've mentioned, and I fail to see why we should mention that her handgun is a Px4. This information would only be of interest to firearm enthusiasts. The section also contains several inaccuracies. For example Valentine doesn't run faster than Redfield in RE5, she runs faster than him in the mercenaries minigame within RE5; each character operates differently within the minigame, so I don't see why she she's only compared to Redfield, and only compared to him in terms of speed (she also has different weapons in the minigame). To put it bluntly, inaccuracies like this are appearing now because the writer is not actually familiar with the primary sources. Two questions: Would you support the nomination this section was removed? And do you think we should salvage and relocate information about the differences between Valentine and Redfield in the first game? Keeping in mind that as per this version [8] the journal Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, "cites their attributes as an example of how slight differences between female and male protagonists can change the gameplay within the same scenario." I think this information might be relevant if it was presented elsewhere. Freikorp (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, that journal citation doesn't add anything relevant to the article. Sure, Jill and Chris have different gameplay mechanics in the first game, so what? It doesn't really say anything about the character. If anything, it should go to the relevant game article. I'm still not sure if I'd support the article without the gameplay section, though. Another issue I just found: the general reader does not know who Wesker is, yet you mention him in the Design section as if he was previously introduced somewhere in the article. Try to avoid fictional details in the Design section. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) The continual questions about "would you support if X or Y" imply that a minimum threshold is being sought. The aim should be to write an excellent article, then maybe a star will follow.

Niwi3, I restored an early version of gameplay (plus some copy-editing) from 2014 or thereabouts, just to get some text there. I thought you said you liked what I had done with the section, so I must have misunderstood what you meant, or perhaps I added it later.

The point of restoring it was for others to edit it to make it more accurate and relevant. As for having a gameplay section in general, I can't see why not, although the section header could be changed. Issues such as "Valentine became the first character to be able to perform a quick 180-degree turn" are about her and are interesting. I can't see why anyone want to remove them. There is no hard line between what is character and what is game, because the character has almost no attributes. SarahSV (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the comment about Wesker Niwi3, that was an recent addition and oversight on my part and I've just fixed it. I believe there are no more fictional details in the design section. Please let me know if you have any other specific concerns with the article.
@SlimVirgin: At the last FAC Niwi3 stated "... the following sentence is wrong: "In Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, Jill became the first character to perform a quick 180-degree turn, which has since become a staple of the series". Instead, it should be: "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is the first Resident Evil game to allow players perform a quick 180-degree turn." Also, the IGN reference does not say that Jill was the first character to perform it and that the mechanic has become a staple of the series." I contested his opinion at first but he later pointed out among other things that Jill isn't the only playable character in RE3, and all the characters can do the turn, therefore the 180-degree turn is just a new mechanic of the game itself, even if Jill is the main character. I subsequently removed the sentence.
Sarastro1 said this article had received the most in-depth FAC in recent history, and maybe of all time. We're so far beyond a minimum threshold it's not funny. I assume you read Cortana (Halo). Did it bother you at all? It contains a lot of the problems you were were complaining about at the first FAC. A reception section focusing heavily on her sex appeal. A complete lack of academic coverage. Sources that definitely can't be called 'high-quality'. And it had these issues when it was promoted; they're not a recent addition (though it has admittedly gotten worse since it was promoted). But it's not just Cortana. At the first FAC you cited the complete lack of academic coverage prior to nomination as a reason why the nomination should be failed. I'm not saying your point wasn't valid, but I am going to say that none of the featured articles on vg characters that I've looked have any academic coverage either. My point is we've raised the bar significantly for what is required for a featured article on a video-game character, and also if you had of given a significant review of any of the other featured vg character nominations you no doubt would have (probably justifiably) opposed them as well.
I've spent a significant chunk of my year working on this article, and mainly because I firmly believe it meets FAC standards there's quite frankly only so much further effort I'm willing to put into it. I've also accepted that the article may never be able to satisfy your standards, which are undeniably considerably higher than those of the other reviewers. At this stage because the article has so much support and because only one significant reviewer has a vote that appears to be less than neutral I'd be happy to renominate it again now, though I'm going to try and get the support of others before this happens. I mention this for the purpose of transparency; I don't want it to be a surprise when this review is closed and the article is renominated (though I have no idea whether that is days or weeks away at this stage). For the record at this stage if the article doesn't pass its next FAC I intend to give up and focus on another article; I don't want to keep playing this game forever and I'm sure everybody else doesn't either. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Sorry if I was not very clear; I like how you managed to rewrite the background and design sections, and I also think the removal of Mikami's statement was a good thing. However, as I already explained in the previous FAC, I never liked a gameplay section in the article. Gameplay defines a video game, not a fictional character. Jill's gameplay mechanics are inconsistent across the Resident Evil series, so trying to define her by her gameplay mechanics makes no sense at all. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Writing an article about a fictional character is no easy task, especially when it's about a character that is very inconsistent, not to mention the fact that most of the secondary sources that discuss her are inacurate and full of sexism. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: I'll have to leave it to you and the others to decide whether to have a gameplay section because I'm not in a position to write one on my own. I was hoping that someone would write one that explained how she had changed throughout the games. As a non-gamer, all I can say is that these are the details I find interesting, because they make her distinctive. I'd like to know which attributes she has that are different from other players, and how those attributes are used in the games. Whether it's in a gameplay or design section, I don't mind. The length of her skirt makes no difference to the character in the games (but it's given two images), but that she was the first character to be able to make a 180-degree turn presumably does make a difference, as does the weapons she has, and so on. SarahSV (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: The 180-degree turn is a feature of RE3 and is therefore applied to every playable character who appears in that game. Although Jill is the protagonist of RE3, she is not the only playable character. Carlos Oliveira is also a playable character in RE3 and has the same abilities as Jill. If some gameplay mechanics are considered part of her character design, then we can certainly include them in the design section, but we need a reason for their inclusion. For example, Capcom gave a reason for her RE3 costume, so I think it's fine to mention it. I agree that the non-free image that portrays the character in her RE3 costume is excessive, though. To be honest, the more time I spend reviewing the article, the more I think it needs improving. Maybe it's better for me to step away from it and see what other FA reviewers say if Freikorp wants to renominate it. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Niwi3: okay, thank you, I'll remove the gameplay section. I feel the same way about the article. I started reading the novels after Victoriaearle's post and realized how much work still needs to be done. I hope it isn't renominated any time soon. SarahSV (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm glad we're in agreement over the gameplay section. Look, I am willing to keep working on the article. But at this stage the most frustrating thing is that it's very unclear what needs improving. Saying 'lots of work still needs to be done' isn't helpful if you don't clarify what actually needs to be done. Victoriaearle suggested more of a background section to introduce the character. That's not a bad idea in itself, though in reality I don't think it's appropriate. Let me explain. Niwi3 and myself have played the games, so please believe us when we tell you there really isn't any further details about her personality that can be cited to the games. This information would therefore need to written entirely from the novels, and I see an issue with that. While the novels do contain information about her personality, these are probably entirely the construction of the author who would have been given creative-control to develop whatever personality he wanted for a video game character who (as secondary sources which have since been removed indicated) has very little depth. Valentine is famous for being a video-game character. The novels are no where as popular as the games; most fans of the games wouldn't even be aware of their existence. S.D. Perry was no doubt awarded the contract to write the novelisations and some original novels in an attempt to milk some more money out of the more hardcore fans. I assume the authors of the comic books which feature Valentine (which I have not read and have no intention of tracking down) were given similar creative control to portray the character however they wanted. This is not uncommon in the comic book world. Wolverine (character), for example, is portrayed with significantly different personality types in comics written about him by different authors.
The article currently displays some information unique to Perry's novels in the 'Other appearances' section. It is presented to the reader as if it is only found in the novel, rather than as an accepted fact about the character. I think this is the best way to include any information that is unique to the novels. Like I said, this is an article about a video-game character. Yes, someone was given a contract to write some novels which feature her after she was already famous, but since she is famous for being a video-game character, should we present the information about her in the novels as if they are 'facts' on par with what is found in the games? I don't think so. I would, however, be happy to expand on Perry's information where it currently is. For example in addition to saying she was a thief's accomplice (which incidentally contradicts the information given about her in the games; this highlights that Perry was given free reign to do whatever he wanted with the character) we could add a couple sentences about her personality traits as they appear in that novel. Niwi3, what's your thoughts on this? Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some of the problematic writing is appearing again. I thought there was consensus (a) to focus tightly on the character, not the actors; (b) not to add more sexism; and (c) not to add more "lists of" sources. SarahSV (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Partnership and alternate costumes[edit]

@SlimVirgin: in your edit summary, you said the article is 'better' without any coverage of the reception of the relationship between Redfield and Valentine. Can you clarify why removing any reception of their partnership makes the article better?

At some point the information about modifying the camera angles to reduce up-skirting was also removed. The reason I thought this was relevant to mention is because the article goes into significant detail with complaints about the character being oversexualised by the developers. Here is an example of the developers actually going out of their way to reduce her being sexualised. Yes, I know they wouldn't have had to make the effort to do this if they hadn't have put her in a short skirt in the first place, but I think this conveys a message to the reader that the developers do have limits on how much they sexualise characters. Why was this information removed?

Also why did you add the line 'In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked: one in her catsuit from the game, and one in her Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance uniform.' A consensus was reached to remove this information on the grounds we're not building a list of every alternate costume that she has been featured in, rather just the notable ones that are later mentioned in secondary sources. Freikorp (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Why I am closing this review[edit]

Three editors (including myself) recommended expanding the article with information about Guillory's experience portraying Valentine. One of those editors complained that SlimVirgin was removing content with vague edit summaries rather than discussing issues, and simply dismissing the opinions of others. I share this complaint. Before citing issues like this as his reason for leaving the peer review, this editor stated his reasons for why information about Guillory's experience should be included. I followed up his comment with my own opinions on why the information should be included, also stating that I was going to add back a shortened version of the content that SlimVirgin removed due to there now being three votes of support and only one opposer who had not followed up the conversation. I even clarified in my post that I was completely open to my summary being reworded. SlimVirgin never responded to the discussion, but today has chosen to remove the information yet again with the same vague edit summary. Similarly in the 'More design information' Niwi3 provided new information about the character's design for the purpose of expanding the article. I summarised the information he added and left a comment stating this and asking for opinions on the summary I made. He didn't raise any objections to my summary in his following comment. Rather than joining in a discussion on how the information could be summarised better, SlimVirgin has simply removed it. SlimVirgin has also ignored the last several messages I have written on this peer review, though has continued to talk to others/write new messages as if my comments aren't even there. Note the timestamps: I specifically pinged her to the section above this one regarding her recent edits though she ignored me and instead commented on the issue to nobody in particular at the section above that; she made an edit to the article itself more than half an hour later so there's no possibility there was an edit conflict and she didn't see my ping. I was planning on leaving this review open for at least another several days if not weeks, but since the only person opposing the nomination is completely ignoring me, I see absolutely no reason why my peer review should remain open. Also while there have been comments that the article needs further improvement, with the exception of the suggestion for more background information from the novels, which I wrote a long rebuttal to, nobody has explicitly said what needs to be improved. If anybody has any further suggestions for improving please make them on either my talk page or the article's talk page. I'll leave this open for one more day to see if anyone else has any closing comments. Freikorp (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems pointless to close it and move the discussion to the talk page. Issues still under discussion include whether there is consensus (a) to focus on the character, not the actors; (b) not to add more sexism; (c) not to add more "lists of" sources; (d) whether to use the novels as sources; (e) whether to retain the non-free skirt image, especially of the actor; and (f) how to edit the lead. SarahSV (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I've since realised it's not possible for this discussion to continue anywhere as long as you're editing the article. You revert anything added to the article that you don't like, regardless of how many people support its inclusion, and as soon as the tide turns against you simply cease responding to the discusssion yet continue in your reverting what you don't like. Between the FAC and PR no less than four other editors have stated how appalled they are with your behaviour, though every time someone criticices you you simply ignore them and continue with what you were doing anyway. Several people have criticised me during this process as well; I've taken their feedback on board. I'm aware of my limitations. If you're not aware that you're an extremely painful person to collaborate with due to your complete disregard for the opinions of others, you're delusional. It's too stressful trying to improve an article when you revert all of my edits and also ignore all of my attemptes to discuss the issues, so I've decided the only constructive thing I can do about the matter is take the article off my watchlist and move onto another project. So congratulations. It took four months of solid work, but your behaviour has finally driven away each and every editor who does not share your world view. Do whatever you want with the article; I've had enough. Freikorp (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)