Talk:Dizzy (Guilty Gear)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: QuicoleJR (talk · contribs) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take this one. @Kung Fu Man: I'm impressed with how many high-quality characters articles you have been able to produce! QuicoleJR (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, just a reminder ping about this, if you wanted it to count for the backlog drive. -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely forgot about it. I should have my review ready in a day or two. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: The first review of the article is done, and I did not find many issues. Waiting on the spotcheck until one of these comments is addressed.

Dizzy has been well received since her release, praise for both her design but also her character as portrayed in her gameplay. The grammar here is wrong. Also, I'm not sure what the second part means.

Fixed, cut it down to be simpler.

I personally don't think that the lead should include opinions from the Reception section that are not held by more than one person. However, I could potentially see an argument for keeping the study in the lead.

I tweaked the study mention to make it clear it was one study, but I do think singular views can work in articles like this.

Dizzy has been a playable character in all subsequent Guilty Gear games, with the exception of Guilty Gear 2 and Guilty Gear Strive. Why was she not in those two? Is there a story reason?

Nothing really specific regarding Strive, with Guilty Gear 2 it was a copyright issue but there's nothing I can cite that states that specifically regarding Dizzy, so it's better just left untouched (most of the Guilty Gear roster was left out of 2 for the same reason)

Not strictly required to meet the criteria, but this section could do with some changes to comply with WP:NONENG. There are several Japanese news sources that could be replaced with English ones that serve the same purpose. This would also make it much easier for me to perform the spotcheck.

I've used what english sources I could there, most of the sources are simply confirming a character's presence in a Japanese title and should work fine in google translate to confirm that statement. As for the books, there's no English equivalent for most of them.

This character seems to have had a lot of merchandise, so I'm not sure if including figures referenced only to a database is needed. I would not object to this if there was less RS-covered merch, but there is so much that I think the section would be fine without it. I am open to an argument for keeping it, though.

I feel it's important to show the various merch in this case, namely that each appearance got its own figure even, as it helps illustrate the long-term visibility of a character especially a fighting game character, where many are lucky to even get a figure if any at all.

Does Gavin Jasper really deserve his own paragraph? I feel like it could be merged with the paragraph above or below it.

Jasper's statements cover her role in the story and examinations of it, while the preceding paragraph is more about her design and various elements of it. The third paragraph is more criticism, but also covering the negative connotations in that author's view regarding her character and her designated age, so it can't be merged there either.

QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Hit up everything I could, lemme know if I missed anything or if there's more to fix!

@Kung Fu Man: With the comments about Japanese sources above, I was more referring to the Merchandise section. For example, Siliconera could be used for the whiskey, and even adds the extra context of what type of whiskey it is. Like I said, not strictly required, just something to think about. I will make another pass over the article soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, any further progress? Ideally, this review should be wrapped up pretty soon. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been really busy lately. Should hopefully finish this in a day or two. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Alright, I've been looking through the article, and here is my second pass:

and bangs that frame her face. I might just be dumb, but what does “frame her face” mean?

It's when the hair comes down the sides of the face, sometimes cupping the chin as well. Think like a picture frame. Common figure of speech.

When developing Guilty Gear X, series creator Daisuke Ishiwatari decided early on that the game's final boss would be female to continue a trend from the previous game. The previous game was the first game in the series. I am not sure I would call that a trend.

Reworded as he was calling it a trend here

he wanted to her happy and smiling "for once", What?

Added missing word.

One of her strongest attacks, "Imperial Ray", is an attack shared with Justice. Shared how?

Removed bit about Justice.

The Nendoroid source could be switched out with an English equivalent per NOTENG, like with the whiskey source. Not strictly required, but it would be a good idea.

Fixed.

I feel like Ciolek’s review is given too much space, especially since it isn't even primarily about Dizzy, and refers to “some fans” in its wording. I understand keeping the source in the article, but I think that the “homoerotic subtext” part should be cut, since it isn't even that heavily focused on Dizzy.

Cut that bit and the some fans bit, kept it simple.

I went through some of the sources, and this article passes the spot-check.

QuicoleJR (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Should be everything!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I will not be available tomorrow, and I'm a bit short on time today. I will try to finish the review on Sunday or Monday. I figured that it would be important to mention this here. Please ping me if you don't get a response by then. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Just dropping a shout, I have this evening free and if there's anything I need to touch on that would be the best time for us to finish this GAN if there's anything left to touch up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: That sounds good. I looked it over several times, and I only found a couple of issues to fix.

One key challenge they focused on was designing her was creating a character The grammar here is all wrong.

Fixed.

A side story was additionally included, where the main timeline Dizzy attempts to deliver a letter to Testament. Is Testament in the main or alternate timeline here? Also, why does it specify that Dizzy ‘’attempted’’ to deliver the letter? Did she fail?

Clarified.

At the same time, he lamented how while she was portrayed as strong, she was constantly held back due to her pacifism and plot contrivance. This article was written years after the other one, so “at the same time” is incorrect.

Fixed the wording. The two articles are nestled for their shared thoughts so I wanted to avoid "in another article" for the worder, so "However" should hopefully suffice.

By the way, I'm sorry that this review has taken so long. I was busier than I anticipated these last few weeks. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, everything should be knocked out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: Just tossing a ping, I know you tend to get busy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do it right now, will try to get it done tomorrow or Thursday. Really sorry about this, I know it must be frustrating. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I reviewed the article again, and I only found one more comment.

but few defensive options outside of her high mobility, What do you mean by mobility? Movement speed? Jump height? Something else entirely?

This review should be almost done now. Sorry that this took so long. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR Exactly the way the devs worded it in regards to her, she has high mobility. I feel going more in depth would just result in going trivial, most folks can visualize what that means I reckon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair. I will make another pass over the article, and give you my thoughts after that. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR For a controversial subject I could understand it needing another pass but this is getting a bit excessive, especially when you're clearly doing other things on the site and I'm freeing up my time to hope you get this done. I've never had a GAN that's needed THIS much scrutiny.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Sorry, I probably should have ended this review a while ago. I just made another pass, and I didn't find any more changes to make, so I think that we are good here. I am finally going to pass this article. Sorry that it took so long. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.