Talk:Lady (Devil May Cry)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article over the next few hours. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've re-written the lead. This is basically how the rest of the article will look/read after I'm finished with the review, and is something I like to do while I'm reading the body of the article with the GA criteria in mind, and any necessary secondary pages (in this case, DMC3, DMC4 and Characters of Devil May Cry).

Creation and design It just feels as though there's an aspect to this sentence that isn't completely there yet. Perhaps something along the lines of "While the character's designers sought to portray her as a capable fighter, she was dressed in a school uniform in order to appeal to casual gamers." Then you can remove "Character designer" from the next sentence, since the term was introduce in the previous sentence. These sentences naturally read as though they want to be one sentence. I'd suggest replacing the. with a , Wrote her what? I'm assuming 'dialogue', so I'd add that word to this sentence. What does this mean? Cutscenes? If this means what I think it means, it's a pretty big deal. I think this can be explained further. Who is Kyrie? They aren't mentioned/explained anywhere else in the article, so it seems strange to mention her in this one sentence and not explain it. I played DMC4 and can't remember her: I'm assuming she's the main female character Nero interacts with during the game? I'd explain that. After reading the other articles, I know that this refers to DMC4: Special Edition, but the last game referred to by name in the article at this point is DMC3, so "the game's" is misleading. I'd change this to "Originally, Lady was intended to be included as an alternate skin for Devil May Cry 4: Special Edition playable characters, but Itsuno feared a negative backlash." (there's also a typo here: "backslash" instead of "backlash"). Appearances "Demon hybrid" just seems like unnecessary detail, to me. I'd change this to "antagonizing the protagonist Dante", or simply "antagonizing Dante" Could be worded more succinctly. Something like "who eventually takes over her responsibility to stop her father's plans to destroy the world," That's basically what Arkham intends to do at the end of the game, isn't it? Next session
 * "While making her look like a capable fighter, Lady was given a school uniform to appeal to gamers."
 * Fixed per suggestion.
 * "Bingo Morihashi said that Lady was originally meant to be older than Dante. Hideaki Itsuno refused to agree to this believing Japanese players would prefer her younger."
 * Fixed per suggestion
 * "Her appearance was "up in the air for much of development" so Morihashi wrote her with a clear visual in mind."
 * Reworded.
 * "Lady's sex appeal required adjusting scenes from the game."
 * Dibe,
 * "One artist felt he had more time with Lady rather than Kyrie."
 * Elaborated on that.
 * "Originally, Lady was going to be an alternate skin for the game's playable characters"...
 * Done.
 * "antagonizing the demon hybrid Dante"
 * Done.
 * "who is moved by her responsibility to stop Arkham's plans to open the world to the demons' world, and thus decides to take her place upon finding her exhausted."
 * Done.
 * I'd hoped to get all of this done in one session, but this took a bit longer than expected on account of real-world distractions. But after these changes are made, I'd be happy with all of the pre-'Reception' sections of the article. I'll hopefully be able to do all of the 'Reception' section, as well as a GA-source review, by this time tomorrow. This is basically a good article already, it just needed a bit of fine-tuning. I'll see you tomorrow. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead's rewrite and your comments. I tried covering everything you pointed. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, You may have noticed that I made a few changes to the prose of the two sections I highlighted above: Creation and design and Appearances. Nothing major, just a bit of "fine-tuning". I'm satisfied that the prose (including the 'Reception' section) now meets the GA criteria, but feel free to undo anything you don't like. I've also performed a source review, and I'm happy that everything contained on the article is available via its cited source, and that every cited source has been deemed a reliable source at WikiProject Video games/Sources. The one complaint that I have with sources is that some of them aren't fully completed yet: certain foreign-language sources don't have their language included via '|language='; also '|trans-title=' is missing for ref #26; all of the references from #22-#39 are missing authors, dates and work/publisher linkage. I'd be happy to do this all myself at this time tomorrow, if you don't know how and/or you don't mind waiting until tomorrow night. Otherwise, this is ready to be passed. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the revision. I added authors and dates to almost every source except those that said "PlayStation Team". Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay again, I just did a little bit of clean-up to 'Reception', and also took the liberty of adding archives to every reference, which will help enormously if anyone requests a 'good article re-evaluation' in 5 years time. ;) Also neglected to mention last night that I performed an image review: one non-free image used in the infobox to illustrate the character, and another two used in body to illustrate certain sections (with enough coverage/prose to merit their inclusion).


 * This stuff:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:

I'm satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. Well done, Tintor! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit and review. Good luck with Jill's article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)