Talk:Resident Evil: Damnation

Hiroyuki Kobayashi strikes again
Except not this one. How about an article on this guy? He's a producer of the same of Capcom's greatest hits ever. I'd say he's actually more notable than the other one. --Asperchu (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Plaga infection
Plaga in resident evil 4 were infected by injecting the egg in the vain and slowly, the plaga attach itself to the central nerve and take over its host. hoverer, we saw a plaga infection in that exact same way in resident evil 5, though it was never as clear as that. that section is simply false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLightEvgeny (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Actors
While I found commentary about three main actors from the movie, I can't say the same about the Japanese ones. Should the actors be separated into their own section from development? I kinda wonder if Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children could be used as an example since it's a GA.Tintor2 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit request
Hey, I'm pretty much done copyediting, though I should ask, you mention three Tyrants were deployed but two were destroyed. What happened to the last one? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Revised. Leon and Buddy kill one Tyrant and the others are destroyed like by the airforces kinda like an ending of Jurassic Park.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tintor2: Did a bit more revision; it seemed too wordy and too detailed for a simple plot synopsis. Other than that I think that's everything I need to do for the article. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Reception
Tenryu just copyedited the entire article but Nyxaros reverted most edits for some reason. For example, what's the point of writing Rotten Tomatoes in the lead section if it doesn't say anything about how the movie was received by the critics? The reception is also just written "X says this" rather how most Resident Evil articles are written. Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it says "100% approval rating", which means well-received, which is coming from a reliable source that is cited in the appropriate section. It is better than the made up "mixed reviews". You could have made better use of your time and perhaps already fixed the "problems" you mentioned. The edits were reverted because you cannot add unsourced information and incorrectly/incompletely placed content. ภץאคгöร 20:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Rotten Tomatoes only has five reviews and one is a blog. The actual reviews are more mixed. That's how some critics said in their reviews like how like more action it has instead of horror, the plot being hard to follow, Leon being hard to follow for newcomers, etc. It has positive reviews which I tried adding in the article. Consider other GA articles like Resident Evil 5 which attracted both positive and negative reviews. Also, you keep saying "X says this, Y said that". Copying quotes is not approved here. Read the guidelines for how the reception should be written so don't revert others' efforts to basically going back in time before the coppyedit from the guild.Tintor2 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you don't want to realize your mistakes. You cannot generalize the section with your ideas, and therefore cannot add "mixed reviews" when there is no source for it. There are two reviews that says it is "hard to follow" for newcomers, and two that states it is easy to follow. As a result of this, the copyediting was bad because you (or someone else) removed nearly all of the reviews and only used one review's opinion and cited all of them for that one sentence. The sources differ from each other. There is only one copied quote that was reverted ("the best Resident Evil film to-date"). You are the one that should read the section, the references and the guidelines. Also don't bother searching and comparing other good video game articles for a film article. It's unreasonable. ภץאคгöร 07:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an aggregate of just five reviews isn't very meaningful, especially when the aggregator uses a binary system, as Rotten Tomatoes does. It could be that all five reviews are mixed, and it would still get 100% if Rotten Tomatoes concluded that all of them veered slightly on the positive side. This is why List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes only allows aggregates with at least 20 reviews or a critical consensus. Certainly stating "The film has an approval rating of 100% on review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes." in the lead is hugely misleading in a case like this.
 * Your comments are hurting your case more than anything else, Nyxaros. Edit summaries like "what is the point of writing nonsense and citing sources for it?" and "really?" are inflammatory without providing any reasoning for your edits. In this edit summary you admit that at least some of your changes are consciously deconstructive, which inescapably casts doubt on whether your edits were even done in good faith. You aren't doing any better here on the talk page, making vague assertions of "unsourced information and incorrectly/incompletely placed content" and that "you (or someone else) removed nearly all of the reviews and only used one review's opinion", none of which is apparent from looking at the diffs for the edits. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: There are already three editors involved but I'll go ahead and offer another opinion. I'm a copyeditor and I'm familiar with Copyediting reception sections, which I'll note is an essay and has not been vetted as a guideline. I summarize the arguments as (pro copyedit version) higher/professional quality writing while avoiding excessive quotations and (con copyedit version) combining sources to say something that none of them say independently (WP:SYNTH).  First, I'm going to go ahead and say that I feel the copyedited Reception section is better.  While the quotations were not excessive from a WP:Fair use perspective, paraphrasing and generalizing the quotes give a better summary for encyclopedic tone.  I don't detect any WP:SYNTH in the section.  As for how the Critical response is summarized in the lead, the competing versions are However, critical response was mixed as a result of the film's accessibility and the focus between action and horror scenes. and The film has an approval rating of 100% on review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes.. The latter, while factually true, does not summarize the critical reception in the article, giving undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) to a single source.  The section summarizes more reviews than Rotten Tomatoes does, and it seems neutral, verifiable, and plainly evident to say that the reviews were mixed.  However, as a result showing causality for those mixed reviews is possible WP:SYNTH.  I think I might have written However, critical response was mixed, with praise for its animation but disagreement regarding the film's accessibility and use of action scenes.  This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting diffs of where the content in question has been altered, because it took me a while to figure out what was going on (and I'm still not sure I do).I got pinged to this from another page, but from what I've seen from the article's history, what got reverted was the removal of review excerpts that happened before I did my copyedit. Aside from that, I don't really have much to add as my contributions to this article don't seem to be of importance in this discussion; I'll note I personally dislike how a lot of reception sections in articles are written for reasons outlined in the essay linked; many times I've found that the sections are formulaic with terse sentences: A said this. B said this. C said this. Sometimes there's a topic sentence at the beginning of the paragraph that groups reviews of a similar nature together, but that's not a sure thing. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)