Talk:Ada Wong/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this looks a reasonable article. However, I have a number of concerns about the referencing and the prose quality. A number of the references are currently displaying as dead links (#7, #8, #41, #58, #66) and a number of others I am unsure as to whether they are really reliable sources. To list a few, what makes (behindthevoiceactors.com, relyonhorror.com, http://projectumbrella.net, http://uk.ign.com/wikis/resident-evil-6/Ada_Wong (a Wiki), http://bloody-disgusting.com) reliable? A large number of the references have no access date listed, (#2, #3, #4, #5, #8 just to list the first five I came across).

The article assumes a fair bit of knowledge throughout; the main body beings "When Resident Evil 2 was still in development, Ada was known as a researcher named Linda who aided Leon across the game.." No explanation is given about who Leon is. In the following paragraph, the article states "reportedly "chose her as a foundation for Alice." In 2011, Li Bingbing was cast for the film version of Ada," The first bit implies that the character of Alice was based upon Ada, but the second implies that Ada herself was in the series; if both of these things are true, it needs to be made clearer. Most of the last paragraph of the In video games section appears to be unreferenced, along with most of the second and third paragraphs of the In other media section.

I will place this review on hold pending the improvements particularly to the referencing. If these can be completed within a week then I will continue with a more detailed review. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROH is for citing an interview with Cahill, Bloody Disgusting is a major horror film website (it's, like, right here on Wikipedia). Access dates are only needed for the content that is changing, like the Metacritic scores (even as editors actually don't update the access dates when they update the scores, so it's actually rather completely worthless/misleading). The sources for the plot are the games and the films themselves (you can check in their own Wikipedia articles, and even see in walkthroughs/LPs on YouTube in the case of games; to see the films legally you've got to pay, I guess). Leon is explained in the intro ("the protagonist Leon S. Kennedy", with a link to his article) and then explained more in the plot section. Alice is in the films since the first one and Ada was only added in the latest one (in 2012, that is 10 years later). --Niemti (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE states that access dates are required on any occasion a publication date is not provided "the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)", and I would expect to see it on all online references for a Good article. If the film is used as the reference for the information, I would like to see that cited explicitly, but for the video games plots, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines states that "plot sections should also be sourced", and recommends not overusing the game itself as source: for the limited information that has no reference, I think citing the game would be acceptable. The lead should stand-alone from the article, per MOS:LEAD, and so the body of the article should be readable without having read the lead, and vice-versa. Harrias ^talk 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Perfect formatting" of refs is "not required" for a GA at all. Good luck finding spoiler/ending sources for the films and games from the late 2012. Citing the game like what - "A sound of machine gun fire and music" for Carla silently destroying the mystery coccoon? Seriously. --Niemti (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely quoting our guidelines; I don't expect everything to be perfect, that's what Featured status is for. However, I would expect the majority of the article to meet most of the guidelines, and that currently is not the case. If you are not interesting in meeting those guidelines, then I'm not sure we can go any further with this review. If you are happy to work with me in improving what elements we can, then I am more than happy to work with you to do that. Harrias ^talk 16:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not required, at all,[1][2] (quote: "Perfectly formatted citations are not required") and (sensibly) referencing that is impossible (and also it's not containing any "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", maybe except the clone thing). I am interested. --Niemti (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite surprisingly, there was an Ada-centered RE6 detailed spoiler article out there.[3] --Niemti (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away over the weekend, so I'll have another look back over things on Tuesday or Wednesday. Regards, Harrias ^talk 12:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, but a little busy at present. If I don't get to this in the next couple of days, ping me; I may have to step aside and let someone else complete the review. Hopefully time will free up a little though! Apologies for the delay. Harrias ^talk 12:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should a new subpage be started or are you able to finish the review? Wizardman 18:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just wrap up this review then. Here's what I found:

In the second lead paragraph, I would split the sentence in two around "is a mysterious", since it gets rather long-winded.
" to show the answer to some of the game's unanswered mysteries" adding unanswered sounds a bit redundant, since if they were answered they wouldn't be mysteries.
"truth about herself, the vengenful Carla conspired" fix typo

The prose is alright, and if I were to do a FA review I would suggest a lot of prose tightening, but it does fit GA guidelines so I'll put it on hold. Wizardman 04:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were "unanswered" prior to the game's release. Where's the typo? --Niemti (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vengenful. Wizardman 14:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, so passing. Wizardman 18:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]