Talk:Albert Wesker/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 09:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

In a minute day or two, this review will be released into the atmosphere, ensuring complete global penetration. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead and Concept
 * Lead looks good on first read
 * I'm not sure it's great practice to open the entire body of the article with a huge blockquote. I would recommend moving it to a side box at least, especially since it duplicates content that's already in the article and cited to the same source
 * Not sure you need 4 refs for Wesker's clothing
 * I would move the last two sentences in "Concept" para 2 (starting with "He was designed to thematically contrast...") to the next paragraph, which concerns RE5.
 * Then I would revise that paragraph to start with Wesker being the primary villain, go into how he was designed to contrast Chris: maybe something like, "Wesker serves as the primary antagonist in Resident Evil 5. His design for that game was updated to contrast with Chris, who is the game's protagonist." Then get into their personality conflict or whatever.
 * As a side note, can you clarify how Wesker was designed to contrast with Chris in RE5? What changed relative to his previous depictions?
 * Link Sheva?


 * Portrayal
 * The portrayal subsection feels long enough that it could be its own section. I would also suggest moving it down past Appearances, since it seems most logical to discuss the character in the order of how he was developed, then appearances/plot summary, then move on to how he was portrayed and by whom in what games.
 * This would allow you to trim the fat, as currently the Appearances and Portrayals sections overlap and repeat each other somewhat. Make the Appearances section solely a summary of the in-universe plot, and save the IRL details for Portrayals so there's a clear delineation of what goes where and why.
 * That would also make it tidier to split the portrayal section into two sections for "Main games" and "other appearances" (or whatever you want to call the sections), which I think would make things clearer
 * Since Jason O'Mara isn't mentioned until well into the Portrayals section, the image of O'Mara should be moved down so as to not be confusing
 * If Ken Lally did mocap for Wesker, why is Douglas pictured with mocap dots? Did they both do mocap for him? Needs clarified
 * "In Dead by Daylight..." this paragraph starts with a couple of English VAs, then whips over to Japanese VAs in...movies? it doesn't say?, then back over to (I think?) mocap guys? This really needs to be organized better and provide context.
 * Then in the next paragraph we're back to English VAs in a game film we've already mentioned the Japanese VA for.
 * Frankly I'm not even sure it's necessary to mention the dub VAs for the live action films, since it's not like we list every international dub voice for live-action English films, and I don't see any RS coverage of the dub performance specifically.


 * Appearances
 * I don't really know the sourcing situation, but is there anything that covers Wesker's fictional bio for before the games started? (I don't know if it's intended as a complete mystery or if the info exists somewhere)
 * "Afterwards, Wesker continues to sell viral agents and BOWs on the black market." needs a ref
 * I tweaked some wording here and there. In para 3 of "In Resident Evil series", the last line doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. Why would his appearance in a separate canon matter to his permadeath in the game series? It should be moved down into "films"
 * Opening sentence of Para 4 doesn't make sense. It says "Wesker also appears in other game series", but then describes Resident Evil games
 * Not sure I love the reliance on primary sourcing for "Other appearances" - for example, does it matter if Wesker appeared in an amateur film if no independent sourcing reported on it?
 * Lead mentions novelizations but they're nowhere in the text.


 * Reception
 * To be honest, I think this reception section could do with a lot of reworking. In general, you get the best results when you organize a reception section by theme, and I really think doing that would help here.
 * The opening paragraph is a series of positive affirmations about Wesker, with no apparent narrative flow or organizing principle. We talk about his appearance in MVC3 before we talk about his presence in the mainline games, which ought to be more important.
 * There's a lot of lengthy quotes that I think could be trimmed down and paraphrased. Overquoting gets in the way of encyclopedic writing and can be distracting to the reader. Better to save only the punchiest, most interesting bits for quoting.
 * Was there any reception of his appearances in particular games? What about his earlier appearances? Currently we have a bunch of "best of" type quotes and some comments about his death, but not much about his reception earlier
 * I suspect the opening sentence about "top villain lists" or whatever could be revised so that it isn't like, 6 refs for a single sentence. Why is Guinness being called out specifically over any other gaming publication? Why cite two GamesRader listicles?
 * We don't really need to quote the titles of articles we're citing
 * "comparing him with other video game villains including Bowser and Sephiroth" - it would be interesting to know what specific facets of these two they compared Wesker to
 * Similarly, he defines what it means to be a villain in RE? Do they say what aspects of him they consider definitive?
 * The entire quote about MVC3 is extraneous - it's a really lengthy way of saying that GamesRadar likes Wesker
 * How does Wesker's death scene "show the character's strength"? That feels like an odd thing to say, normally death indicates weakness
 * The second part of the GamingBolt quote comes out of nowhere - when did we start talking about bringing Wesker back?
 * The Nazi aesthetic comment from Polygon is really interesting - it surprises me that it's the only comment on his physical character design.
 * People reading this article may not be familiar with Agent Smith, and it's not really useful to the reader to quote a comparison without any context to why he's being compared
 * I'm not sure that people being mad he wasn't in RE4: Mercs counts as negative reception
 * Is there no reception of anyone else's portrayal of him live action?

This is, frankly, going to need a lot of work before it can pass GA. I understand that it's been through GA1 and a GOCE copyedit, but it still feels unpolished and disorganized. I'm also extremely dubious about the reliance on primary sources and listicles; although that isn't a GACR, I suspect it's not helping. Better sourcing might provide better material to mine from. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * StarScream1007 Hey. Seems like the article has tons of issues. Unfortunately, life is getting bussier. I could help if you're still working on this slowly. Any plan on what to do now?  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 14:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you taking the time to review the article and offer constructive feedback. It's very helpful, but sadly, I'm also fairly busy and won't have time to work on this for a week for so. You can end the GA2 Review as a fail for now. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate - I would've been happy to wait. Hopefully the feedback will be useful to you in the future at least. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)