Talk:Ashley Graham (Resident Evil)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 00:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Other than needing a light copyedit, all previous concerns I had were addressed, and the article is far more detailed and thorough. To boot it was actually a pleasure to read also. No problem with passing it for Good Article status.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Pre-GAN notes
For posterity, copy of my pre-GAN notes from User_talk:GlatorNator: Hello! I noticed Ashley still hadn't gone through the GAN process, so I wanted to share some thoughts on it before I took a swing on things I feel may be a problem for the article:
 * There are many single paragraph subsections, several of these feel like they can be worked into the parent sections for the most part. Citing promotional material or media such as figures or promotional videos may help bolster the other appearances part (I know they did this for RE8 for example with the puppet shorts).
 * Can the overall appearances section be fleshed out any more? It feels short and stubby. What about any points you play as the character, or characterization? You can cite in-game dialogue or scenes for this information if need be. And if she is playable for any length of time how does she compare to Leon? What about any particular gameplay elements or costumes specific to her that can be unlocked during the course of the game?
 * The second image showcasing Ashley is a fair use image, meaning it needs better rationale in the body of the article. A lot of the reception seems to focus on her original portrayal being negative, is there an image that can be used instead to convey this while also showing the original Ashley?

I hope that helps. I would like to review it definitely, there's a lot of good work here. I just have those concerns and I'd rather not drop them on you during the GAN itself given how things are lately.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! Really appreciate all your recent works on the character articles. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change to the OG 2005 image. The new screenshot was quite bad, you couldn't see anything at all. I understand Kung Fu Man's concern but that screenshot wasn't an improvement. Actually, the current concept image actually isn't that bad. It shows her with legs crossed and a skirt. You can see her thighs. I think it's suitable for the context. TarkusAB talk / contrib 00:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you were right. Thanks for weighing in. Regards. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 11:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)