Talk:Kitana/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) 08:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting this review and will hopefully get it done within 24-48 hours.

Mid review comment - Currently I think this article is too long and waffles a lot. I've pointed out some of the issues I noticed during my first read through so they can be worked on in the meantime. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the lead is cited because it's a summary of the article (the refs are in the articles, and in this case in Reception section). Related GAs Reptile (Mortal Kombat) and Mileena have such detailed descriptions (these are only MK characters that are GAs) and so do many/most other GAs for vg chars. I'll look into all the other stuff. --Niemti (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the first was me just dropping thoughts in to see if they are cited later. I simply forgot to remove them. Also, regarding those other articles, beware WP:OTHERSTUFF. Additionally, I'd say the do not go into as extensive detail as this article. Thats just my opinion after the first read through though so it may develop as I do some more work. Cheers. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 19:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed everything already. --Niemti (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I still find the reception and design sections too long and effusive. There is no need for that level of detail, it breaks the flow of the article and is of little encyclopedic value. I would like to see this addressed and cut down before I pass this article. The length of the Reptile (Mortal Kombat) article is a much better target length but at less than half, I don't expect you to cut it down completely. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done a small amount of copy editing to cut down the lengthy sections. The reception section is so unweidly I can't even follow it to chop stuff out. It should be completely rewritten in around half the length, remember, you don't need to quote and paraphrase every single reference. It is better to give on example with a couple of references to reviewers with similar opinion. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree on that not being cultural impact, I think it's very much about the character' impact on popular culture and it's also about other things too. I also restored some of design stuff (not the detailed unreferenced descriptions of every appearance, though) and the DLC info too but now it is in promotion. Regarding downsizing reception, I removed some non-notable websites and I'll take a look later. --Niemti (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, and so I did. Note: reception / impact is actually the most important part of any such article, much more than plot-related stuff which should be a minor part of the article (it's this "real world perspective" thing). It's completely other way round as in Mortal Kombat Wikia, where it's all plot and various actual trivia (like a list of all "singnature moves" with detailed descriprtions, or a long list of quotes), while reception is in "trivia" sections, if at all. --Niemti (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Reptile is actually a minor character. He's not big in games (an odd henchman with some unimportant stories except being possessed by Onaga, but that's then Onaga thing), his impact is limited, and he's not actually discussed all that much in comparison (also this article is atrributing only publications and not authors - Kitana's article had no authors too until recently, when it was pointed out to me they should be atrributed by name, and so I did). Also I just noticed Reptile's article discusses the same thing (a few seconds of his appearance in the "MK Rebirth" short film) twice and his reception is an unsorted (not even chronologically) single block of text of tl;dr kind because of poor prose (which should be expanded, if possible, and rewritten in some way or another to make it more interesting and easy to read, including, yes, adding more quotes and other explainations/elaboration). --Niemti (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion that, in following WP policy and GA criteria the reception section of this article is not up to par. It's simply too long and unweildy making it actually very difficult to read. It's very much "Someone said X[ref], and someone said X[ref], and someone else said X[ref], someone said Y[ref] but they also said X[ref], as did someone[ref]." It should be cut down to "Some people said X[ref][ref][ref]." If you want to cite multiple people saying the same thing. As is, there is a great deal of redundant information. I'm going to put this on hold until that section has been rewritten. Continue the good work. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any sign of work on this article other than reverting other users edits. I will be waiting the 7 days and then closing this GAN as unsuccesful if nothing is done to address the points I have raised. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Some people said" is absolutely not enough - not only the specific outlets but the authors of the articles need to be identified (by their names). That's how it is, in all of such articles. And no, just stating their names in the references is also not enough - the names must be in the article body. It was not my idea, that's how the other reviewers want it. Good Articles are like that, Featured Articles are like that also. --Niemti (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)