Talk:Elexis Sinclaire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 06:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, let's dig into this one shall we?
 * First issue that comes to mind is a question on whether or not two free-use pictures of Ms. Beauchamp are necessary. While I'm all for representing her appearance as the character in the article, it does seem more "fluff" to bulk it up rather than actually serving any weight. In addition the first image may be mistaken by the reader as representing the character which it is not.
 * Lead is far too small and a single paragraph. It should be a summary of the article, addressing all fronts.
 * First sentence of videogame appearances is very poorly written. The very first sentence feels more like a bio from a video game and opinionated, rather than sticking to just facts. This could be summarized much better and much more easily, and the transition to actually discussing her roles in the games vs. discussing her background is a rather jarring effect as a reader.
 * "but she wields no weapons at any point in the actual game (in the story mode)" Parenthesis in instances like this should be avoided for the sake of legibility and flow. For example, "but she wields no weapons at any point in the actual game's story mode" comes forth much cleaner and doesn't bring the reader to an abrupt stop mid-sentence. Several smaller sentences can also be re-written to combine with their neighboring sentences too for the sake of prose, such as noting who her voice actress is and then discussing her approach to the character.
 * You stated the first design was rejected. By whom?
 * Reference #5 may be more appropriately placed at the comma, again for the sake of legibility.
 * Almost every section of this article is a single paragraph. Generally as a rule these should be avoided. If you can't flesh out a sub-section to discuss it further, combining sections together might be the best approach.
 * As much as I hate to say it, might be better to simply go with "masturbating" over "pleasuring herself" to be direct with what the easter egg is actually showing. Given the nature of the character, pleasuring herself could come across very differently to reader's not familiar with the term (yes, they exist).
 * The reception of her character's appearance in the OVA should probably go into the reception section even if brief. It doesn't quite mesh with discussing her role in it.
 * Mid-sentence references again in the promotion section, and no references for the 2005 expo. This section itself might be best merged into the reception section to discuss promotion of the character in greater detail, while also bulking up the earlier mention of Beauchamp representing the character at promotional functions.
 * The first sentence of the last paragraph in reception is rather poorly written. Oddly enough this is the strongest section of the whole article. I would check on the reliability of some sources though, such as ActionTrip.

All in all, I have to fail this GA without bias. Too much work is required to fix it up to the point that when done it'll be a very different article. You have a very solid B-class here, but it needs more bulk and a heavy cleanup before it can proceed to GA. Things like character design and more insight behind the character's development would easily help discuss the subject here too. Have any of the developers gone into more depth on her as a subject? As it stands she's a very solid B-class subject for wikipedia, but by no means can I say it should be GA-quality material. Sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No idea who (and why) decided to reject this look. My guess is they actually quietly scrapped the whole "SIN2" thing and began working on SiN Episodes from a scratch and it wasn't just a working title. Interviews are tricky, becuase they're mostly already lost due the Internet "rot" (even on the websites that still exist, with GameSpot and GameSpy being among the worst offenders in deleting the old content). --Niemti (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, all already done. --Niemti (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)