Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017.

Jill Valentine

 * Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a popular character from the Resident Evil video games and films. Article is currently GA, and has received a peer review and a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have 6 votes of support and no opposes, a source review, and an image review. Also two unfinished reviews from people who don't log in very often and are too busy respectively. Let me know if this needs anything else before it can be closed. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Bluesphere
No complains about the prose after a thorough reading; it's well-written, neutral and hardly written in-universe, engaging and complete. Just a few concerns, however:


 * In the lead, the "i" in Internet memes should be in caps since this is observed accordingly below the article.
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Jill was voiced by Catherine Disher in Resident Evil 3 and Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Heidi Anderson voiced her in the 2002 GameCube remake of the first game is unsourced.
 * Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I also notice that the YouTube video in ref #32 is no longer available, so this has to be changed with another one.
 * Can't find a replacement. I'll continue my search tomorrow, may end up just removing this entirely. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely can't find a replacement for that. I've removed everything that was attributed to that source and have added a new source to simply confirm the actress' roles. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Guillory was set to appear in the sequel, Resident Evil: Extinction, but she had commitments to other work. Instead, producers Paul W. S. Anderson and Jeremy Bolt - You already mentioned Paul W. S. Anderson's complete name in the first sentence, so in this one it should just be "Anderson".
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That note you left which talks about a mistake made by Guinness should be referenced for the sake of verifiability.
 * Somebody else made that astute observation and left the note accordingly. I can't find a source which specifically says Guiness is wrong, which is a shame since they clearly are. This source explicitly states Clock Tower came out before Resident Evil (which itself is also obvious but still unreferenced). Do you think that will be good enough? Or do you think I should remove the note and add a sentence to the prose along the lines of " recognized by Guinness World Records 2013: Gamer's Edition as "the first female player character in a survival-horror game, though the character Jennifer Simpson appeared in the survival horror game Clock Tower the year before [new reference]"? It seems a shame to remove this information since it's easily verifiable by the simple fact that Clock Tower came out first. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That source will do nicely; I'm afraid adding the sentence will just impede the flow of the prose. Blue  sphere  16:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work on this article! I am also a fan of the Resident Evil games, (at least the first three, and five) and this article about one of the protagonists brings back a lot of memories. I can support this once you're done with 'em. Blue sphere  05:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review . I've now attempted to address all concerns. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the other editors, Freikorp. Blue  sphere  04:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose, which is good enough that I lulled into just reading the thing. No clangers jumped out at me. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal
Great work on the prose! It is very well written. There is a little point that I would mention: That's it from me. It is a really nice article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "...though she did not end up featuring in the film." This could be cited.
 * I've added a citation for that point. Thanks for your comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work on the article, buddy! The prose is really cool, and interesting! Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Homeostasis07

 * After spending most of the last two hours going through the entire article, I have to say it's one of the most immaculately sourced articles I've come across in quite a while. I tried my damnedest to find something I could complain about here, but couldn't for the life of me find any issues. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and all sources seem to be reliable, have been archived, and have a consistent formatting style. Earwig's tool showed no copyright violation (two sources at slightly less than 25% - and those were quotes; everything else in the 5-15% range). Well done, Freikorp. Source review passed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Support from ProtoDrake
Support - This is one of the best character articles I've seen in a while, and that's speaking as someone whose seen and edited the best and worst of the category. Congrats for this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo
Looking good so far, just found a couple of nitpicks early on: That's all I've noticed so far. I'll come back in a bit with more comments. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Demand from fans wishing to play as Jill led to two more downloadable content (DLC) scenarios (also included in the Gold Edition of Resident Evil 5): Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. Unsourced. This is especially important, as the statement about fans wanting to play as Jill is not in universe information, so there's no excuse there.
 * She is also one of the playable characters in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011), an action game based on "The Mercenaries" minigame from Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5. While I do see Jill in one of the pictures, I think it would be better to have the source mention her name. I was able to find this article by Siliconera, which is considered a reliable source for video game articles.
 * Thanks for your comments . I've addressed both concerns, adding sources and removing the 'demand from fans' statement. Freikorp (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, just following up if you have any further comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again, just following this up one last time as comments on prose seem to be winding up. Do you have any further comments? No worries if you don't. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been following your discussions with SarahSV for a while, and wanted to wait for her issues to be resolved before writing more comments. Let's get back into the swing of things.

Appearances
 * Jill is a playable character in two more downloadable content (DLC) scenarios (also included in the Gold Edition of Resident Evil 5): Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. Downloadable content has just been introduced at this point, so you can't say "in two more DLC scenarios. Also, do we really need to know about the Gold Edition of RE5? This seems like random trivia, and may confuse some readers as to what a Gold Edition even is. My suggested rewrite: "Jill is a playable character in two downloadable content (DLC) scenarios for Resident Evil 5: Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in."
 * Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Link Resident Evil 4 at the end of the third paragraph
 * Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In Resident Evil: Revelations (2012),[19] set in 2005... You haven't mentioned the year any of the other games take place in, so why bother including the year for this game?
 * Because it's the only game not set in the present day, setting it apart from all the others. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * At the end of the fourth paragraph, Rely on Horror is not a reliable source. To be honest, do you even need to include her absence in RE6? I'm sure fans are displeased when any major character is not in a new game from the series. For example, I'm sure that fans were unhappy when she wasn't in RE4. After checking through the first 8 google pages, no reliable source even mentions Jill's absence in RE6, so it's probably not that big of a deal.
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character and Capcom producer Jun Takeuchi said Jill's unlockable "classic look" STARS uniform from the original game was his favorite extra costume in Resident Evil 5. I'll be completely blunt, why should I even care about these two statements. So Voth cosplays as Jill, okay. Cool I guess but ultimately not important. Same goes for Takeuchi's favorite extra costume, every developer and fan are bound to have their favorite costumes, why should I care? You should just remove these two statements since they don't add much.
 * I've removed the statement about Takeuchi's favorite costume. In retrospect that wasn't important. I do like the statement about Voth, mainly because it appears next to a public domain image of exactly what is being described. This is the only public domain image of 'Jill', and assuming this nomination passes it will be the image that it featured on the main page when this is Wikipedia's article of the day. I'd strongly prefer that the free image is given some context within the article. Also I do think it's extremely cool. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Link Clair Redfield in the In films section.
 * Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reception
 * Gamingbolt is not considered a reliable source. Both instances should be removed. For the Jill Sandwich meme, just source the specific scene in the game, although no reliable sources discuss this scene, so you may want to consider removing it entirely.
 * Removed both instances. Freikorp (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll try to take a more in depth look at this section soon, but this section appears to suffer greatly from listicles. Why do I care that Complex ranked her as the 30th greatest video game heroine? I want to know why they thought she was a good heroine (as a side note, you might want to look at the Complex source again, since they straight up call her one of the many idiotic female characters in the game, and that the only reason she's endearing is that she was the original idiotic female character. I'm not saying remove it, I'm just saying build upon these statements and explain why Complex thought she was endearing.) Even though I don't personally agree with some of Sarkeesian's views, I at least appreciate that these paragraphs discuss the specific aspects of the character, and not just that she's a great heroine.

Alright, here's more comments. I'll take a closer look at the reception section hopefully tomorrow (though knowing me, I more than likely will forget about it. So just ping me, and if I don't respond, just keep pinging me. The little number above the bell icon is really the only way of getting my attention). Famous Hobo (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've responded to all your issues in the appearances section, looking forward to your full review of the reception section. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now attempted to address your points so far for the reception section as well. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just pinging you one last time. I understand you haven't been editing Wikipedia recently. Just giving you some warning that considering I have 5 votes of support, as well as separate image and source reviews, I'll probably ping the coordinators to this nomination soon to try and have the discussion closed, and thought I'd give you some notice to finish your review before that happens. Freikorp (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you do ask the coordinators to close it, please ping me beforehand, as I'd appreciate the chance to comment. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was planning to. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

 * Comment. The article quotes someone calling her a "cock tease" because of her clothes. That needs to go, along with anything similar. Also, there should be some discussion of the sexism. Anita Sarkeesian mentions the character in Body Language & The Male Gaze and possibly also in Women as Reward. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to remove the words 'cock tease'? It's sourced. I've even added quote marks around it now to highlight this is the case. Freikorp (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * She's triggered, that's why... Blue  sphere  00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added the information from those sources by Anita Sarkeesian; thanks for finding that it improves the article and was very interesting. Look, I'm going to assume you don't like the 'cock tease' comment because it would rightly be considered by a good chunk of the populace to be in poor taste. I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, but I'm not going to remove it unless consensus rules against me, and not just because I giggled like a schoolboy for an embarrassing amount of time when I stumbled across it. I think it's important to convey to the reader how feminists comment on the character, but also how chauvinistic male gamers talk about her as well. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cock tease" is a misogynist insult and should be removed.

The article reflects the sources' sexism, rather than contextualizing it or simply not repeating it so much. I can find only two other FAs that focus on female characters in games. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII manages to avoid sexism almost entirely. Cortana (Halo) has problems, but fewer than in this article. Both have much shorter reception sections.
 * I'll trim down the repetition of sexualisation. Being somewhat of a subject matter expert on gaming, neither Cortana nor Characters of Final Fantasy are a good comparison to this article. My perception of the Final Fantasy series is that the female characters in it are designed to be cute, rather than sexual, and coverage on that article is spread out over several characters anyway. And Cortana isn't even human. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The article uses the word "hottest" seven times (in one paragraph); "sexy/sexier/sexiest" seven times; "babe" five times; "attractive" four times; "beauty/beautiful" three times; "hottie" twice; "vixen" twice; "gorgeous" once; "cock teasing" once; "slutty" once; and "douche bag's girlfriend".
 * Another example of it speaking to a heterosexual male readership: "In the 2011 GameZone poll that asked 'who would you rather?', Jill was pitted against Tomb Raider's Lara and won." The source: "Every week we will put two lovely ladies against each other, and it will be up to you to vote on...well, Who would you rather obviously!"
 * Regarding the above two points, and the term 'cock tease', your issues seems to be less with this article and more with society in general. I don't disagree that it's a shame people focus more on Jill's attractiveness and less on her skill, but that's a reflection of society at large. Sure we can trim down coverage from the less notable sources, but the terms 'hottest', 'babe', 'vixen' etc appear multiple time's because that's how she is received within the gaming community. Are you suggesting we pretend that Jill wasn't pitted in a sexist 'who would you rather?' competition? If we remove all the terms that are perceived as sexist, this article will cease being an accurate reflection of how Jill is actually perceived within the gaming community. I am not going to pretend sexist things don't happen. Also Wikipedia is Not censored; I'm not going to remove the term "Cock tease" purely because it is misogynist. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That Anita Sarkeesian was absent has made me wonder, given her prominence, whether there are other sources missing that could offer context.
 * When I work on an article on a video game character, I search for information on things inherently associated with video game characters. Design, appearances, reception among gaming websites etc. It didn't cross my mind to search for what feminist websites had to say about her. Quite frankly I was quite surprised to see any coverage at all, but thanks again for finding it. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The reception section is too long.
 * I've trimmed several sentences out of it. Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The "acclaim" sub-section is 1,239 words, plus the long quote box; two of the paragraphs are c. 450 words each. It should be cut to one paragraph, focusing on the best sources. It's currently a quote farm, full of "me too", low-quality sources, including the Daily Record. "Bad ass" is used three times in one paragraph.
 * I've removed sources that would be considered lower quality, including 'Cheat Code Central', Wirtualna Polska, The Daily Record and Thanh Niên. Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The "memes" sub-section seems long-winded.
 * I'm not seeing a problem here. Can you be more specific? Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The article mixes up logical quotation and aesthetic, e.g.  but  . Please check them all and make them consistent. The MoS favours LQ; see MOS:LQ.
 * Good find. Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are still a few, e.g.  but   SarahSV (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I've got all of them now. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This article by Stephen Harper, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies at the University of Portsmouth, discusses the fetishization of Jill Valentine's body. It's cited in Nick Lacey, Introduction to Film, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 327, also mentioning Jill Valentine. I can see quite a few similar sources. These all need to be mined. SarahSV (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added info from both of these sources. Freikorp (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history, the current version, including the problematic reception section, is very similar to this version of December 2014, before you began editing the article in January 2015 (see WikiHistory). That means you're trying to clean up someone else's writing and choice of sources, which is always difficult. In your shoes, I would rewrite the reception section from scratch, keeping it tight, using only the best sources and making full use of any scholarly sources. SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I adopted this article after the previous writer was permanently banned from editing (for something unrelated to this article), recognising the potential it had underneath all the chaff that had been added to it. If you think the article had a few lower quality sources in it when you first reviewed it, take a close look at how many it had before I started editing it :). It was pretty ridiculous. Anyway I think I did a pretty good job trimming it down before I nominated it for GA, let along FA, and after reading it over again and trimming a little more I am quite pleased with it, so I'm not seeing a need to start from scratch. I've removed several more sentences and sources today. Have a look over all my replies and the article as it stands now and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding Harper and Sarkeesian. You summarized them well.


 * The problem is that the article acts out the sexism, rather than contexualizing it. It's as if the last 10–20 years of scholarship on women in games doesn't exist.


 * The current FAs on video-game characters are: Arbiter (Halo)], Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Cortana (Halo), Flood (Halo), Lightning (Final Fantasy), Master Chief (Halo), MissingNo., Tidus. None have quote farms in the reception/cultural impact sections. The argument that a source said something and therefore it must be included—because NOTCENSORED—is never valid, least of all at FAC. One 343-word paragraph consists entirely of things like she's 26th of the 50 hottest babes, 43rd hottest woman, 12th-hottest girl, etc.


 * The article contains 71 instances of, 38 in the "cultural impact" section, which seems a lot. Does that suggest that the sources are low quality and out-of-date? Have you checked them all? Picking one at random (citation 68, supporting that GameDaily "used her as an example for the archetype of a 'smart and sexy heroine'"), I can't find her name in it.


 * Part of the reception section was in place by 2009, and much of it by 2012.  It should be rewritten, and the acclaim/criticism division should go (calling someone a "vixen" and asking "who would you rather?" isn't really acclaim, by the way). Is "who would you rather?" addressed to female gamers too? How would the female zombies be "cock-teased to death"? The article seems to exclude a lot of readers.


 * The reception section should show familiarity with the scholarship on women in games, and ideally should be framed by it. What was the cultural impact of Jill Valentine? There's something about her in Grimes (from the 2003 DiGRA conference). The following doesn't mention her, but it's an interesting overview: "Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years". I got it from WP:RX and can send you a copy if you like. SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I archive all sources before nominating an article for GA, let alone FAC. I always use Archive.is. If you look at the version of the article you linked to before I first edited it, you'll see the current citation 68 is one of only seven archived sources at the time, and when you mentioned it, was the only source archived to webcitation.org. Somehow it must have slipped through the cracks while I was archiving everything else. I am very confident all the sources I archived myself (being well over 100) accurately back up what is attributed to them. You seem to have found the only exception at random. As indicated above this article has already received a rather thorough source review. I've removed citation 68 now.
 * I don't think any of the sources remaining in the article are low quality. I understand that a high number of them are dead. This may be because I simply found an archived version of the original page rather than where the URL was moved to. Also several formerly prominent video game website, such as 1UP.com, have since been closed down. In my experience video game sources are frequently going down or being moved. It's very frustrating. Does that suggest the sources are out-of-date? Probably. Does that suggest the information they once contained is no longer relevant to the subject? I don't think so. Granted a high percentage of sources are dead, but I've never heard anyone suggest dead urls (that are archived) present a problem before.
 * What is and isn't acclaim and what is and isn't sexist is completely open to interpretation. When I originally started trimming less-notable mentions I specifically left the 'who would you rather' source in because I think its a fantastic way to demonstrate Jill's overwhelming popularity to the reader. She was pitted against Lara Croft, arguably the biggest sex symbol in video gaming, and won. Incidentally the rather large 'Sex symbol' sub-section at the Lara Croft article is an interesting read. Is the 'who would you rather' question addressed at female gamers? It doesn't specifically say male voters only. Granted I believe responses would have been overwhelmingly from males, but I'm absolutely certain some women would have voted in it. One of my best friends happens to be a lesbian gamer and now I'm curious to ask her if she'd prefer Jill or Lara. As the reception section states, Sarah Warn and Lisa Foiles both rank Jill as one of the "hottest" characters. Is it still sexist for women to find women sexual? Would you prefer instances of women sexualising her to be removed also? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually honestly quite curious.
 * I was quite happy to trim the section down, but I'm going to have to wait for a third opinion before I consider completely re-writing an entire section that four other FAC reviewers effectively gave a tick of approval to. Same deal with the cock-tease comment. I might end up pinging all the other reviewers back here as none of them specifically commented on either. I'll probably do that once I finish looking at the sources you've provided and ones like them; I hope I find good information in there to further improve the article. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okeydokey. I've added information from the source you provided. If nothing else, the section on gender issues now rivals the size of the paragraph on her attractiveness. I've reorganised the 'Criticism' section, during which I removed the cock-tease comment, purely because it didn't fit well with how the paragraph is now structured. Can you suggest a new title for this section? I was thinking something along the lines of 'Gender role and sexualisation', but I'm sure there's something more appropriate and catchy. Thanks for offering to send me the other source, I have access to it via my university though. I downloaded a copy and have added it to my reading list:). Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making those changes. It would help if you would mark your minor edits as minor; e.g. . Lots of unmarked minor edits give a misleading impression of authorship when the page history is checked.


 * As you said, most of the article has been written by other editors over several years, and it hasn't changed that much for FAC. Here's the diff of the reception section on 18 Dec 2014 (before your first edit), and the version promoted to GA in January 2015; and the diff of GA and the version you brought to FAC. (I removed the quote boxes because they'd been moved and would have made the diffs unreadable.) The three versions are very similiar; most of the difference is related to citation style.


 * I would get rid of the acclaim/criticism headings and merge the sections under "reception". Remove the paragraph beginning "Jill has been often regarded as ...", which is unreadable, and summarize it in a couple of sentences in your own words rather than quoting, or highlight the most notable sources and leave it there.


 * Re: sources. It's unlikely that I randomly found the only problematic source. Have you checked all the offline sources? For example, 31, 34, 44, 62, 77. SarahSV (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: sources. I don't think it's fair to assume other sources are 'problematic'. There's never been any accusation that the sources are misleading. The issue with the one you picked at random was that it was dead and the archival program used didn't appear to save the version properly. No I haven't checked the offline sources, I have assumed good faith of the editor who added them. He had a reputation for accuracy. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Who did add the offline sources? SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:SNAAAAKE!! was the previous 'custodian' of this article. Here is him adding one of the offline sources: . I'm a bit concerned about why you're even looking into this. I mean, are you suggesting someone would add over 100 accurate online sources and then try and sneak in something maliciously via an offline source? The offline sources are not used for anything that is libelous, outrageous, or inconsistent with what other sources say. It strikes me as bad faith. Also just for the record I've never claimed to have written the reception section. I claim to have trimmed, tidied and formatted it consistently to a level I believed was FAC worthy. I don't take credit for other people's work. My userpage clearly states Jill Valentine was a B class article before I touched it.
 * Can you please explain why you removed the Dave Cook source? I think it's relevant to convey to the reader how popular the memes were.
 * I'm also concerned you removed information from the 1UP.com source regarding the Resident Evil 3 outfit. You appear to be bowdlerizing the article of anything you perceive to be sexist, and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be considered to be making contested edits to an article as a reviewer. I think it's relevant to convey to the reader that while the male writer found the costume attractive, he still thought it was inappropriate. This shows that even the target audience for her sexualisation thinks she is being over-sexualised - not just feminists and academics. I think this offers unique insight into her reception that academic sources simply cannot provide. Also calling it a 'Slutty-cop' costume isn't putting the character down, if anything it's a badge of shame on the people who came up with it. Freikorp (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed "14th-greatest video game meme in 2014" because it's silly, and the article is full of it: "'43rd-hottest' woman in video games"; "ninth on their list of top 'video game vixens'", on and on for whole paragraphs. But you're welcome to restore anything. I'm going to leave it there for now. Feel free to ping me if you make substantial changes and if you want me to look again. SarahSV (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on this kind of restructuring? Freikorp (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better, but it needs to be cut down further. Some of the sources seem odd choices, e.g. Daily Record, Thanh Niên, Wirtualna Polska, especially when it's so repetitive (hot, hotter, hottest). SarahSV (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I did a very quick copy edit of the Reception section. That's roughly how I would do it if I had to copy edit that section (without being too radical) rather than rewrite it. I reverted the edit, but note that there are a few LQ errors in the text (LQ doesn't mean always outside), some other punctuation errors (e.g. video game needs a hyphen in "video game mascots"), and some awkward writing. And too many quotes. It's written as if for a tabloid newspaper or press release. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated your edit, with a couple minor tweaks. If the issue of sex appeal was oversized before, conversely I think it's undersized now, which undervalues the character's overwhelming reception in the area. I'll probably trawl through all the old sources later and pick the most relevant quote and source combo I can find and add it in there as well, maybe two at most. I've replaced a couple of the direct quotes with prose. Do you have any other concerns about this article? I'm not good at copy-editing, which is why I always run articles through the Guild of Copy Editors prior to FAC nomination; unless you explicitly point a copy-edit issue (or where you think the wording is awkward) out to me I probably won't find it. Freikorp (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Freikorp, are you making progress reading the scholarly sources? Also, the first two paragraphs of the Reception section need to be merged and tightened considerably. There are still too many low-quality sources saying almost nothing, and too many "deadurl=yes" (50 in the whole article; 14 in Reception). SarahSV (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You asked me about scholarly sources last week in the section below and I replied there.
 * I'm waiting on a review of the reception section from . Four people gave this article support before you started commenting on it. Considering this I'd like the opinions of somebody else on the matter before the article is rewritten anymore to comply with the wishes of one person.
 * You're going to have to point out which sources you consider to be of low-quality. I'm not seeing a problem here, and the article has already received a source review.
 * You're also going to have to show me the official guideline that states I cannot use deadurls that are properly archived once they get to a certain number. I don't see what the problem is. You can still clearly access what the source said before the link went dead. Keep in mind you also said you couldn't see how the split image could be justified whereas our expert on the matter said the justification was sufficient. I really think this deadurl thing isn't a problem on any level whatsoever. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your response. The version brought to FAC made no mention of the scholarship or of Sarkeesian. You added some sources that I found during a 10-minute search, but I can't devote more time to researching this. The article has to be a thorough survey of the sources, per WP:FACR 1(c): "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources".


 * As for which ones are the low-quality sources, I've pointed out examples several times. It's also a problem that you haven't checked the offline sources. SarahSV (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In case it helps, there may be more sources here:

SarahSV (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep bringing up the fact I didn't check what Sarkeesian had to say on the matter as if I've violated some kind of long-standing agreement that her opinions needs to appear in every video-gaming related article. Quite frankly, its insulting.
 * The sources you mentioned as being low quality were The Daily Record, Thanh Niên and Wirtualna Polska. The only one still remaining is Thanh Niên. What exactly is your problem with it? Is it because it's not in English? I deliberately left it in as its pretty much the only source from outside the Anglosphere. I think it subtly conveys to the reader Jill's popularity reaches other cultures. But if you absolutely insist, I'll remove the damn thing just to keep the peace.
 * As I've explained, there are only about a half dozen offline sources, and they are used sparingly. They are also not used to say anything that is controversial, libelous, or inconsistent with what the live sources say. It's not a problem that I adhere assume good faith of experienced editors.
 * Over a third of the reception section is now the opinions of feminists and academics. This is fine. I think it improves the article. I also think it is good coverage from said areas and I don't want to see this article turned into someones coatrack for perceived injustice regarding the sexualisation of female video game characters.
 * Look, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going to ping the other editors back here to see what they have to say on the disputes.      I'm pinging you all as you've all commented on this nomination. The conversation here seems to be repeating itself, so I think we need fresh input. Commenting on any or all of the disputes is welcome.


 * In your opinion, is it a problem that only about 35% of the reception area is the opinion of feminists and academics? Have a look at the section. Do we need more coverage in this section from there types of people?
 * Are any of the online sources too low-quality to be used?
 * There are about half a dozen offline sources; I have not personally checked them. Is this a problem? I have assumed good faith of User:SNAAAAKE!!, who wrote the majority of the prose and added said sources. His online sources added all turned out to be accurate, and the offline sources are used sparingly and are not used to say anything that is controversial, libelous, or could be considered inconsistent with what the live sources say.
 * Is it a problem that so many of the online links are dead (keeping in mind that 100% of links that are no longer live are still completely accessible through archival websites like Archive.is and are formatted and tagged accordingly)? Freikorp (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, it looks like no-one else wants to touch the above conversation. Can't say I blame them. I've also given up on Famous Hobo finishing his review but since I now have six votes of support and a separate support on sources I don't think I really need any further comments from anyone. That being said, I think it's only fair to ask for closing comments. I do think the article is better due to your review, however, I can't help but think you're being overly critical, and I suspect it's because you just plain don't like the article. To put things in context, in over nine years of editing I've never come across someone challenging an offline source that was added by an experienced editor to support a completely non-controversial statement (Incidentally I've since removed one of the existing offline sources and replaced it by citing the film itself as the information appears in the film also. I thought this might be more to your liking as it's more easily verifiable - just download the film if you want to check). I've never seen someone challenge a properly archived dead URLs either. Granted this article has a lot more of them than the average article does, but I honestly do not see a problem with it. I noticed something in your editing also. Bob Mackey had a couple things to say about Jill that could be considered sexist, however in your suggested change you removed all his 'sexist' comments though expanded on his comments that support your point of view. There were over a dozen male editors who made sexualised comments about Jill, but you chose to keep only the two female reviewers who sexualised her. Personally this did not bother me as as far as I'm concerned there's absolutely no difference between a man sexualising a women and a women sexualising a women, but it didn't go un-noticed. Your edits do strike me as a bordering on biased, though I'm willing to accept this may have been unintentional, just as I can assure you I didn't deliberately leave out feminist reception of the character because I don't think their views are important. I honestly didn't even think to look for them, and since the sources are not specifically about Jill (only mentioning her in an overall assessment of female characters) I don't think there's any shame in the fact they weren't already being used. Anyway, I am genuinely interested to know if you have further suggestions. I'm also happy to remove that Thai source if you really don't like it. I do believe that the article has enough sources from people who think it's not appropriate that Jill has been treated as a sex object, and don't want to add anymore for the same reason we don't need a dozen people saying shes the 'hottest babe' in gaming. A couple people saying this is enough. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I'll read through the article again. It will take a couple of days before I get round to it, but if I'm not going to leave another comment, I'll say so at that point. SarahSV (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , just to follow up, I may not have time to get back to this. I'm reviewing another article with a TFA deadline, and it's taking longer than I expected, so I may have to leave things here as far as this one is concerned. If that changes, I'll let you know, but please don't wait for it or let me hold things up. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for letting me know. I'll ping the coordinators; we'll see if they get around to closing it by the time you're ready. Feel free to leave comments on the actual article talk page if you have any concerns once this is closed. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Freikorp, you wrote below that you wanted me to continue the review. I don't have time to continue, but I did write up a draft oppose a few days ago, so I'll post it in case it helps.

SarahSV (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mostly per 1(c).
 * 1) The article was written by a variety of editors over the years, rather than by the nominator. There isn't much difference (apart from citation format) between the 27 June 2017 FAC nom and the January 2015 version promoted to GA, or between the latter and this version of December 2013.
 * 2) Lacks analysis. The nomination made no mention of the scholarly literature on female characters in games. Even Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent critic who discusses this character twice, was missing. I found several academic sources and Freikorp added them, but they should be added carefully after a thorough search. For example, Lynch et al. (2016), which examines the development of female characters from 1983 to 2014, could be mined for sources and used to offer an overview. It "found a pattern of change in sexualization over time that indicates the industry might have reacted to its critics". Perhaps there could be a summary-style section summing up the relevant parts of Gender representation in video games.
 * 3) Little character development. There's little sense of how the character developed from 1996 to the latest appearances in c. 2012, and whether that development was responsive to the scholarly criticism. For example, the article describes one costume as a relic from a period in which game producers concentrated on the teenage-boy demographic. Did the character change as that demographic became less dominant? What year were the nurse's and pirate's outfits, criticized by Sarkeesian, offered? The timeline could be relevant and interesting.
 * 4) Sexist language and trivia. The Cultural impact section as nominated was a long quote farm and very offensive. It called her a "cock tease", "no dick and a set of tits", a "douche bag's girlfriend", "slutty", a "vixen", and, in one paragraph, "hottest" seven times. It compared her to other female characters and asked "who would you rather?". It was also full of trivia: e.g. that she was 26th of 50 hottest game babes. The section did improve during the FAC but only after repeated exchanges, and it would be better to rewrite it than fiddle with it.
 * 5) Unchecked sources. The offline sources haven't been checked. Two examples of unchecked text: this and this, both added by 88.109.27.239 in January 2010. The book sources should all have page numbers (e.g. citation 45).
 * 6) Citation 26, an offline source in Japanese, is used to support: "In the original game, Jill plays differently than Chris as she runs more slowly, can absorb less damage, and is less accurate with firearms." Does this source really say that the creators deliberately made her less capable in every way? And does "less accurate with firearms" in section 1.3 contradict section 1.1., which says she was made "physically weaker than the game's male protagonist", but "was given more skills and weapons to compensate"?
 * 7) Outdated sourcing? When nominated, the article contained 76 instances of  out of 124 references. That density of dead links suggests a pattern of low-quality and outdated sourcing.


 * I'd like to point out to the coordinator that the above draft opposes due to several issues that have already been fixed.
 * Thanks for your draft, though I'm a little confused by it. I can only assume it's a bit out of date as several of these issues have already been fixed. Citation 45 was removed before anybody actually questioned it. You suggested a rewrite of the sexism issues, and I agreed to implement it. You chose the wording, yet you're still opposing over it? All of the quotes you mentioned above ("cock tease", "douche bags girlfriend" etc) don't even appear in the article anymore. The quote farm section did not simply "improve", it was drastically shortened from fifteen sentences to two sentences. This is completely fine, but I don't understand how you're still opposing over this particular issue. Also the article did contain 76 instances of, however, as I've recently discovered, these were simply incorrectly tagged. The article currently only has eight dead urls, and these are all archived properly. For the record, three of the offline sources have not been checked by myself, and none of them are used to say anything out of the ordinary. If this nomination insists on assuming bad faith from other editors, I will happily remove all three of them if doing so will result in you not opposing the nomination. Also it's not an FAC requirement for the nominator to have written everything, so I don't understand why you keep bringing up this fact which I have always been open about. I'll continue to address the concerns of the other two reviewers below and get back to the concerns of yours that remain outstanding if anyone else feels the same way you do. Freikorp (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've decided to order two of the three sources I haven't checked on eBay; estimated delivery time within 2 weeks. I'm not ordering the third one (Biohazard 3 Last Escape Official Guide Book) since it's in Japanese and my Japanese isn't good enough to translate accurately. I can assure you regardless of whether this FAC is promoted or not I will check the sources and in the extremely unlikely event that something is inaccurate I will correct it. Also I'd just like to point out there's no contradiction as per point 6 of your last post; Jill is less accurate with firearms, though she is given one at the beginning of the game, whereas the male character only begins with a knife. She is also given skills the male counterpart doesn't have, such as lockpicking. Freikorp (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll butt in here and point out that one reason for concern about not checking all the sources in the article/not writing it all is not that we think you need to ABF about previous editors deliberatly inserting bad information/bad sources/etc... its that we've had too much experience with how an article can slowly drift away from the information being correctly sourced. If editors do not watch with an eagle eye, it's very easy for copyediting/etc to move stuff around, change meaning slightly, or just generally make problems without ANY of the editors doing it meaning to make things worse. It's often the cumulative effect over time and many small edits that cause issues. So, best practice when starting to bring an already existant article up to FA quality is to check every single sentence/word against the sources to make sure the information given is still supported. Doing this isn't ABF about the previous editors, it's just making sure that the foundation of the article is sound before doing the polish/etc work. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That explanation is very helpful, thanks. I wish that had of been explained as the reasoning in the first place. Freikorp (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review
Three of the four images are fair use.


 * The free image, File:Julia Voth as Jill Valentine crop.jpg, is fine; it's from Flickr and is cc-by.
 * It's fine to claim fair use for the lead image, File:Jill Valentine.png, and the page has an appropriate fair-use rationale.
 * I can't see how File:Jill valentine battlesuit.png, a second fair-use image with a similar costume, would be justified, and the fair-use rationale doesn't explain.
 * File:Sienna and Jill.png are two fair-use images in one (Jill Valentine and an actor). The source for one is a YouTube video, but with no indication where the image is, so that should be fixed. The source for the other is a dead link, which should be fixed too. If reliable sources have discussed this clothing or this particular image, those sources should be added to the image page and the discussion should be made clear in the text around the image. Otherwise it isn't clear why fair use is being claimed for both images next to the paragraph that discusses the actor, or why these images were chosen and not some other.

SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the image review. I've removed the battlesuit image. I've updated the dead sources for the fourth image (it wasn't actually sourcing a YouTube video, the old link was just redirecting there). I've also relocated said image to the discussion about the costume and added additional sources and text into the caption. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the battlesuit and updating the links. File:Sienna and Jill.png is now next to the quote-farm paragraph, which doesn't mention Sienna Guillory. To claim fair use you have to show either that the images (both of them) are the subject of commentary or that their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding". See WP:NFCI. For what to include in the rationale, see WP:FUR. SarahSV (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Right, so considering that I've moved it back up to the 'Films' section, adding commentary on how it was a faithful adaptation of the original. I can add information back in on the costumes reception as well if you like. Freikorp (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fair-use hardliner by any means, but I'm having difficulty seeing how both images (her and the actor) could be justified, and I'm not sure even one could. The issue is that she was supposed to be a cop but was wearing a short skirt and tube top. That's easy to explain in words. Was this her regular uniform or was she going undercover or something? The article doesn't say.


 * If I were writing this, I would probably have a section called "Costumes", where I'd explain what she wore and when (including the alternative costumes Sarkeesian mentions), whether the outfits were controversial, and whether they differed from other female characters, using scholarly sources about the representation of women in games to frame the discussion. Also, whether they differed over time, and how that fits with the development of other female characters. How is your reading of the scholarly sources progressing, by the way, and do you intend to add more from them? SarahSV (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The concept of a 'Costume' section is certainly interesting. I had a bit of a look around and I can't find any other video game character that has one. This does not to suggest in itself that it shouldn't be done, but I think it does suggest that such a section is not a priority for an article on this subject. I read through all the sources you provided. I thought I'd harvested enough out of each one to a point where any more might be considered undue weight. I wasn't planning on searching for any more. More may exist, but that's beside the point. There are well over 20 articles that sexualise Jill as one of the "hottest" or sexiest characters, that are now not being used in that manner. I think we can both agree an article should just have an adequate sampling of the sources available on a particular issue, and I think the article has good coverage from feminist and academic sources now. I've actually previously been criticised for adding too much coverage to feminist views in an article before.
 * Back to the issue at hand, I'm no expert on image licensing. Normally my image portion of FAC reviews just consists of me complying with whatever Nikkimaria says (Incidentally if you could weigh in on this Nikki that would be appreciated). Considering the amount of coverage in the article about both the costume, the costume reception, the live-action adaptation of it, and the response to the live-action adaptation, I certainly think the image improves the article. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO there's sufficient commentary there to justify the inclusion of the comparative image. However, the lead image needs more detail in the FUR - "all OK" and "n.a" should definitely be replaced, and purpose expanded. It would also be far better to provide original source details for both parts of the comparison rather than a third-party site with no such details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've added better FUR for the lead image. I did some serious digging and actually found the original source for one of the images, archived from June 2004 . I can't find the original source of the other one. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aoba47

 * This is more of a clarification question, but I was a little confused by the phrase “the game character's various incarnations” in the lead. I have actually never played this franchise (as a huge lover of pretty much all video game genres, I should definitely get to at least one of them), but this phrasing, specifically the “incarnations” part, makes me think that each of the characters’ appearances in each of the games is new rather than a straightforward continuity (i.e. multiple incarnations of Zelda and Link over the course of the Legend of Zelda series). Do you think “incarnations” is the best word here? I might just be overthinking this part though. I am not entirely sure if the (and based on the game character's various incarnations) part is even entirely necessary as the sentence as a whole would still make sense without it.
 * You're right. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In the phrase (Described as "a classic example" of a female horror-game character), attribute who is describing the character as this.
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would include the years in which the films mentioned in the lead were released (either in parenthesis after the title or in the actual sentence itself).
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you possible add more context for this sentence (Jill's outfit in Resident Evil 3 was added as an optional costume in the remake at the request of staff members who were "crazy" about it.)? It is a good sentence with a good citation, but it is not really made clear what the costume that they were crazy about actually is or looks like. I apologize if this information is present in another part of the article already.
 * I don't have access to that offline source, but the context is given in the paragraph above. The outfit was rather skimpy, and reception of it (both positive and negative) is later covered in the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In the phrase (In a separate scene Barry), I would add a comma between “scene” and “Barry”.
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article; once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will support this. I hope you find these comments helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks so much for your comments. I've replied to all your points, and have also made a couple unrelated tweaks in the meantime. Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing all of my comments; you have done a wonderful job with this article. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Either way, good luck with getting this promoted, and with any of your other current projects. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by 1989

 * "and instead preferred" Remove instead.
 * "and featured on many top character lists" Missing a word.
 * "dispose of remaining STARS members" Replace of with the.
 * "Resident Evil 5: Lost in Nightmares" "Desperate Escape" This isn't in italics.
 * "Whenquestioned"
 * "eroticising" Is the article in UK language?
 * writes female "characters who I'd move the quotation move.
 * "based on that of" Remove that of.
 * "Ruff said of her role" Could be phrased better.
 * "Jill was one of the first two player characters in the Resident Evil series." was?
 * "will enter" enters?
 * "the second film in series" Missing a word.
 * "While giving negative reviews of the film itself" Doesn't sound right (read the previous sentence).
 * I'm not seeing the problem here. Feel free to just reword it yourself or point out exactly what is wrong with it . Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I thought Jill was giving negative reviews. It jumped to what she was doing negative reviews. The sentence could be phrased better.
 * Oh I getcha. Fixed. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

When my concerns are addressed, I'll check back. -- 1989 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Jill did not feature" Replace did with was?
 * "In " Add a comma after the years.


 * Hi . Thanks for your comments. I've addressed all of your concerns except one, which I have highlighted above. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply above. -- 1989 23:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks again. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support When you get a chance, could you review Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 23:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
I'm afraid I don't consider this ready for promotion just yet. Of the six supports, the first four were quite cursory and did not really engage much with the article. This would not be a problem, but for the fact that the most in-depth review has come from and. These two users have raised several valid, actionable points, and neither of them have supported yet. The final two supports, posted after the in-depth comments, were concerned mainly with prose or content clarification but do not really address the deeper issues raised in the earlier reviews. Additionally, issues with sourcing were raised after the initial source review, which makes me think that we probably need another, deeper source review. So, despite the number of supports, I really want to see more commentary on the FA criteria, specifically 1b, 1c and 1d. And given the concerns raised above, I'd like reassurance how it meets these criteria, not just a quick "support 1c".

I think we can get there quickly, but I really would like that reassurance. As an aside (that I seem to make quite often), it would benefit the nominators of video game articles if these FACs did not attract superficial review; there are too many that attract one line supports, and this does a severe disservice to both the article and the nominator. When closing, we do not judge the number of supports, but the depth of review. Finally, it is a pity that Sarah's comments were dismissed a little (which is how it reads to me; although I'm sure that was not the intention, it certainly comes across like that) so hastily and in quite a defensive manner. She does raise some points which would concern me in closing this, which I consider actionable, or at the very least deserving a more detailed rebuttal. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would have loved to have finished their review. I literally pinged them six times trying to get them to finish it before I gave up. It is not fair to expect me to have support from someone who did not finish their review. I also asked  for any outstanding concerns, but she said she was busy and didn't want to hold the nomination up. While I will admit I was keen to get this nomination closed so I could focus on other articles, I would have preferred for her review to have been finished as well. I am happy to wait for more comments from her now.
 * I pinged several people to weigh in on Sarah's review as I was, and remain, very reluctant to do such a drastic rewrite of an article to address the concern's of only one person, and especially since that one person clearly feels extremely passionately about the particular issue they were addressing. Nobody joined the conversation. I also firmly believe Sarah's concerns about sources are not valid. As I stated in my rebuttal, in over nine years of editing I've never seen someone challenge an offline source added by an experienced editor to back-up a completely non-controversial statement. I think this is particularly overly critical as only about half a dozen of the over 100 sources are offline; it's not like a difficulty in verifying sources is a systemic problem within the article. Accordingly, I'm not going to do anything about the offline sources unless other people weigh in and consensus rules against me.
 * I've gone to great lengths trying to get people to review this nomination, and gone to greater lengths to get neutral people to weigh in on contested points so a clear and unbiased consensus can be reached. I'll happily wait for further comments in the hopes that these things will occur. Freikorp (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

 * What makes http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com a high quality reliable source? I'm not seeing that sources are cited for the information nor is there a readily identifiable editorial group.
 * Replaced all uses, mostly with citing the credits of the game's themselves. Freikorp (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.qj.net a high quality reliable source? Again, I"m not seeing a lot of information on who is the "QJ net team"
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.siliconera.com a high quality reliable source? Nothing about their editorial process or fact checking.
 * Two uses have been replaced, the third has been removed. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One with IGN, the other with Kotaku . Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason we need three cites on "In addition, she makes a guest appearance in Under the Skin (with Carlos and Nemesis), and has a character card in the SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash series. She appears as a playable character in the crossover tactical role-playing games Project X Zone and its sequel, wearing her costume from Revelations,"? The Kotaku seems rather unnecessary here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://bloody-disgusting.com a high quality reliable source? Not seeing anything on their site about their editoral process.
 * I'm confident this source meets WP:RS, however, I'm willing to accept it might not be considered high-quality. I've replaced or removed all the other sources you've listed here (with two specific exceptions as noted). Accordingly, is there any wiggle room on this? The sources are not used for anything controversial or likely to be contested. Freikorp (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You might find Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches helpful, but note that it predates the upgrading of the FA requirement from "reliable sources" to "high quality reliable sources". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes https://residentevil.com.br a high quality reliable source?
 * Replaced. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Replaced with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Convention Scene. Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, two problems. One... the new source is sourcing "Kari Wahlgren assumed the role in Marvel vs. Capcom 3; Michelle Ruff lent her voice to the character in Resident Evil: Revelations." but the new source does not mention Kari Wahlgren at all. So that needs to have a source. Second, given Convention Scene's about page, it sounds like its a personal website, what makes it high quality? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://collider.com/sienna-guillory-resident-evil-5-retribution-interview/ a high quality reliable source? Note that according to our wiki article on the site, it wasn't bought by a magazine until 2015, and this article dates from 2012.
 * Have you considered it was probably bought because of it's established reputation? Of all the sources you've questioned, this is only one of two (the other being the afterellen source) that I am going to challenge as being high-quality. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for it being bought for that reason? Otherwise, that's just speculation and doesn't show that it's a high quality source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that prior to 2015 they shouldn't be considered high quality? Or that they didn't have a good reputation at the time? Don't you think that kind of argument goes both ways? This source in question is an interview. Are you suggesting that prior to becoming a high-quality source, their interviews were inaccurate? Or falsified? Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have to have one - the onus is on the nominators to show that the article meets the criteria. It would be helpful, since this interview predates their purchase, if we could see an "about us" or "staff" listing for when the article was originally posted. Just because something is an interview doesn't make it instantly reliable. It is only as good as the person/website/etc publishing the interview, and we need to know what their reputation was BEFORE they were purchased. They very may well be reliable and high quality now, but this is under a different management. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay... this source is ... just plain offensive as a female. And all for "Footage of Jill is featured in a Resident Evil-themed pachinko machine." which is only barely supported by the "article". REALLY?
 * The article is crude, yes, but it's only used for a completely neutral statement so I didn't see an issue with it. Fact: footage of Jill is featured in a Resident Evil-themed pachinko machine. If you insist though, I'll remove the statement and the source. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The standard is "high quality". I can't say that any source that uses such images (and in fact gives off the vibe that the whole point of the "informational post" was to let them post the images) is going to make me think it's "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not fussed either way, so I've removed it. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If I removed the source, I also removed what it was sourcing. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.denofgeek.com/us a high quality reliable source? It at least lists an editorial team but what makes them a GOOD editorial team?
 * The source is only used to support that a certain video game came out a year before another one. How good does the editorial team have to be to figure that out? Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they kinda need to have some expertise in the subject area or as journalists. Since they don't post their sources, we have to judge reliablity from the people putting out the information. And keep in mind the requirement at FAC isn't just WP:RS, but that the sources be "high quality". You need to take it a step beyond just barely making the grade as far as reliable. To be quite frank, I could have challenged most of the sources used - many of the sources are not really up to "high quality". The only pure video game sites I'd consider really high quality are IGN and the various prima guides. Most of the rest are just barely meeting the RS standard. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not interesting in contesting this one further either. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes https://www.tomsguide.com an important site to feature their opinion on Jill Valentine?
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Same for http://www.afterellen.com, why is their opinion important?
 * Sarah Warn is a notable writer commenting on the character in a notable source. What makes her opinion unimportant? Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So... we have a wikipedia article on them... and? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.psu.com/news a high quality reliable source? Just saying they are experts doesn't make them ones...
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=6997 a high quality source? It looks like some random guy's opinion, why do we care?
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * These sentences "Stephen Harper, senior lecturer in media studies at the University of Portsmouth, notes that in the film Resident Evil: Apocalypse, the camera frequently follows Jill and Alice from behind. Jill's first appearance in the film shows her legs—in a miniskirt—rather than her face. The next scene, shot from below, focuses on her legs and buttocks as she walks toward the police station.[42][91]" are sourced to the actual article by Harper and this google books snippet. The way the footnotes are placed it says that the snippet sources BOTH sentences, which I can see pretty clearly that it doesn't. Did you actually get the book? Using google snippets is a very unreliable thing to do for sourcing - you don't see enough to get the full context. I'm not seeing what the Lacey citation adds here - you're citing the original source for Lacey's information. Harper's article sources this information fine - we don't need Lacey's repeat of the information just to pad the sourcing out.
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * TV Tropes is a wiki. It is NOT a high quality reliable source and it needs to go.
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The information was backed up by other sources as well, so just the source in this case. Freikorp (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.eeggs.com a high quality reliable source?
 * Happy to remove this one without contesting as there are alternate sources which back up the statement. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.cheatcc.com a high quality reliable source?
 * Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Found these sources that may have information of use:
 * http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/11312.58174.pdf
 * Jill only features in one paragraph here: "Jill‘s reappearance [in RE5] is significant since she is the only character that is restored from the controlling parasite, and does not need to be killed. Like the woman in White Zombie she is not held accountable for her actions when infected because Jill, like the Western woman in White Zombie is, although also essentially generic, assumed to be generically good." I can't see a way to use this paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the fact that a scholar considers Jill's character is this way is very relevant, actually. This is an article about the game character - if we need to be told that some sites consider her character sexy or similar, surely opinions on the character that do not deal with her sexuality are also relevant? If we're only putting in "sexy" characteristics, we've got an issue with comprehensiveness. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What gives you the impression only sexy characteristics are in the article? And please don't link to a former version of the article, I'm talking about the article we have now. I'm hardly seeing any coverage remaining in that area. I'm seeing more coverage of people being upset she's sexy. Anyway, can you suggest where I should add this information? And what I should add from it? Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think this is useful information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And I still don't see how I could use it. Any suggestions on how I can will be given serious consideration. Freikorp (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412011402676
 * Jill only gets one mention in this one: "[In contrast to Sheva], Chris' relationship with Jill Valentine, his former partner from the original Resident Evil game, is articulated as loyalty, rather than romance." I'll use this to expand the paragraph about Chris' relationship with Jill. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * http://www.participations.org/volume%204/issue%202/4_02_lay.htm
 * This gives an account of the narrative of the first game, which is already in the article. Other than that is only briefly mentions that in comparison to the film versions, Jill as she appears in the first game doesn't have much depth. "The only thing we know about Jill Valentine for instance is that she is the ‘master of unlocking’." I don't see this as helpful at all. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again - this speaks to her character.... surely we can include non-sex-related characteristics? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added information from this source to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/view/27/0
 * One mention here: "Jill Valentine and Claire Redfern of the Resident Evil series (1997, 1998) also exemplify the ways in which a female protagonist with slightly different skills from a male counterpart can be used to alter gameplay of the same scenario." I've used this to add a sentence to the 'Gameplay' section. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * https://pure.itu.dk/ws/files/80594879/HarrerPichlmair_PCG15.pdf
 * This source is very interesting, but not overly relevant. Jill only gets three passing mentions as being part of a much larger problem purely because she happens to be White. "[W]hen Sheva is introduced and talks for the very first time about “partnership”, it triggers Chris’ flashback of Jill - the white woman that ought to be on his side", "[C]haracters like Excella, Wesker, and Jill Valentine represent us with the powerful impact of a white world of science, technology", "Upon Chris’ command, [Sheva, a negro] is willing to eradicate all things black from her home continent, until white blonde Jill is resurrected towards the end of the game and Sheva is history." I'm not planning to use this at this stage. Freikorp (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * https://search.proquest.com/openview/8b6cbda1f2f38cb69df9dcc7e37ac4d3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=506319
 * I don't have access to the full article and the preview doesn't mention Jill. Will happily read through this if someone can send it to me. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=15474348&AN=86285787&h=96ERa25isAA%2ffHgY6GtdtiawZsf43E8piiE4X6wiPIq1VhMgYxzrgp4haNZiQi8rUo5lCziV48WNB06iSdBpCQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d15474348%26AN%3d86285787
 * As above. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-49331-6_8
 * Same again. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412015575363
 * This one only mentions that Jill is a playable character, then just talks about what made the series so successful. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * http://www.kinephanos.ca/Revue_files/2017_Trepanier_Bonenfant.pdf
 * This source is good. I've used it to add two sentences to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is also this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=XENXAwAAQBAJ&dq=%22jill+valentine%22+%22resident+evil%22&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s which would seem to be almost a necessity to consult.
 * Boy that book had some interesting analysis. I've added a couple sentences to the reception section accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think there would be more than just a couple of sentences - how did you access the book? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I purchased it via Google Play. "Valentine" gets seven hits within the book's prose, and nothing that focuses entirely on her. The first just mentions her in a list of several characters. The second mention is the one I have added to the article. The third time mentions her in passing, specifically noting that Chris seems more concerned with saving Jill than with saving the people of the fictional African nation they are in. The fourth is a passing mention of what Chris thinks when he looks at Jill and Sheva together (that the world is worth saving). The fifth mention is extremely brief, simply listing Jill's mind control device in Resident Evil 5 among several other things as examples of medical brutality. The sixth mention briefly mentions that the "protective nature" of both Jill and Claire Redfield contrasts with the temperament of the Resident Evil character Alice. The final mentions just states that Alice rescues Jill and her group of survivors in Resident Evil: Apocalypse, and notes that Jill is impressed with Alice's skills, considering them to be superhuman (which they are). Freikorp (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing. There are just too many sources that are iffy along with some that are outright not reliable. And there appear to be a number of sources that have not been consulted. Quite frankly, it's not well sourced, even for a video game article. I did run earwig's tool and it's fine. I didn't do a spot check of any sources to see if they fully support the information, because so many of the sources are questionable that I didn't want to waste effort. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thorough review. I've made some replies already, and will address all of your others concerns shortly. Freikorp (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to all your concerns about questionable sources. I'll start going through your list of potential sources shortly. Also you mentioned you haven't done spot checking yet. I thought I'd just point out in case you didn't notice that the original source review said that they did that quite thoroughly. Freikorp (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the original "source review" let TV Tropes pass as well as a number of other very questionable sources, I'm not going to take a thing for granted here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just trying to save you some time, there's a difference between not noticing a source is unreliable and going through and checking each source actually supports what it is said to. Anyway, I've now made a reply to each one of your listed questionable sources and potential sources. I've also expanded the article with several sentences based on the new sources. Also as I've stated above, if I removed the source, I also removed the information it was sourcing, unless said information was also backed up by a separate reference. Looking forward to your reply. Freikorp (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the newer discussion below has probably taken up most of the time you would have wanted to dedicate to this review; I wasn't expected such a long debate to take place in my absence. That being said, I had already responded to all of your concerns above, yet there is only one strikethrough. Is there any chance you could go through the rest of my replies, and at the very least, strike any issues you believe are addressed? I put a lot of effort into reading those sources you provided and adding information from them that I thought was relevant. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repeat - it was my husband's birthday. It was also one of the regularly scheduled meetings for the online gaming company I work for. I have to attend those. This weekend I had my high school reunion AND a funeral. I will TRY to get to it when I can, but frankly, this is getting insane. How many more times do I have to say I'm busy.... and will get to it when I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand you're busy. I appreciate the time you took out to do the review in the first place. As I said, I wasn't expecting a long debate to happen yesterday. I hope it doesn't detract from following up your review. If things are that hectic take your time though, I have regularly experienced Wiki-related stress and did not wish this review to add to yours. Freikorp (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up my replies. As you've probably noticed, this nomination has been closed, however Sarastro1 recommended I continue to work with reviewers, which I intend to do. I have made a couple replies to you above, and will make more later. Just wanted to let you know I am still working on addressing your concerns, though I won't ping you back here again or hold it against you if you don't reply now that the review is closed. Freikorp (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that some of these 143 newspaper results may have useful information or may be used to replace sources under question above. Was a newspaper source undertaken? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I searched some newspapers looking for sources on how Sienna Guillory's portrayal of Jill in the films was received, though I could do a more in depth search. I'll take a look later, though based on my experience a significant amount of those hits if not the overwhelming majority are just going to mention Jill in passing as a main character in two of the films; i found a lot of that in my searches. Freikorp (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

 * My main concern has to do with the sources, their positioning in the article, and, in places, their apparent redundancy, and their questionable quality. The over-sourcing or over-lapping sourcing makes it difficult to find things in edit mode or to conduct a rational source review. Below, I've suggested ways to make the sourcing more clear, and I've tossed in a few suggestions about prose or MOS issues. I share the concerns expressed by SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth, and I appreciate that you've begun to address them. It will be difficult, though, to adequately address all of these concerns quickly since deepening the analysis will require research, which takes time.


 * In video games
 * ¶1 "as they inspect the mansion and battle its undead residents" – Although the mansion is mentioned in the lead, this is its first mention in the main text. It's not clear whether the Arklay Research Facility biological warfare site includes things other than the mansion or whether the mansion is the whole site.
 * ¶1 Link undead or explain it?
 * ¶1 "Bravo team's sole survivor" – What does "Bravo team" refer to? This is the first time it's mentioned.
 * ¶1 and ¶2 There are two sets of sentences in each of these paragraphs with two back-to-back citations apiece. Are both of them needed in each case? If so, are they situated in the right places?
 * ¶3 "In Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007), she works with Chris Redfield to expose and destroy the Umbrella Corporation by raiding their research facility in Russia, defeating Umbrella's newest bioweapon creature, T-ALOS.[8][10][12] – Do all three citations support all the claims in the sentence? If so, could you choose the one from the most high quality RS and just use it? If not, could you insert the citations right after the claims they support? This would de-clutter and would make it easier to check sources.
 * ¶3 There are three more sets of sentences in this paragraph with two back-to-back citations apiece. I have the same questions about these. Are they all needed? If so, are they situated in the right place?
 * I've removed one of the sources as being unnecessary. The reason I have two sources in other places is because one is an Official Youtube video, which is unarchivable and may be deleted at any moment. In the event that the video link goes dead I want the article to still be adequately sourced. Anyway, I think two sources is completely acceptable. Freikorp (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I find citation 14, which forms one of the pairs mentioned above, puzzling. It links to Resident Evil 5 on Wikipedia, but the source seems to be elsewhere. Not sure how to interpret this. Finetooth (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was citing a scene within the video game Resident Evil 5. It isn't necessary though so I've deleted it to reduce confusion. Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶5 Ditto for the back-to-back citations in this paragraph.


 * Gameplay
 * ¶2 "She can also heal the player's active character if she is used as a support character." – To make this more clear, add "game" before "player"?
 * ¶2 "In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Jill is available as a DLC character, and was given a complete overhaul, with her appearance and move-set being based on her Resident Evil 5 incarnation and using teleportation moves reminiscent of those employed by Albert Wesker." – I'd suggest replacing with "with plus -ing" construction by splitting the sentence, thus: "In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Jill is available as a DLC character, and was given a complete overhaul. Her appearance and move-set are based on her Resident Evil 5 incarnation, and her teleportation moves are reminiscent of those employed by Albert Wesker."


 * Reception
 * ¶1 "She has often been viewed as one of the most attractive women in video games, and has been featured in numerous lists ranking female characters by their sex appeal."[72][73][74][75][76] – Five citations for the minor claim that she's attractive seems unnecessary, and the long string of citation parameters clutters the article in edit mode. Why not pick the highest quality RS from the group and use just that one?
 * Just using one wouldn't support the statement that she has been featured in numerous lists. Have a look at paragraph four of this version of the article to see what this has already been reduced from. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current version is much better than the earlier one. I would take it a step further by altering the sentences in question to read, "She has been viewed as one of the most attractive women in video games. In 2010 and 2011 respectively, Sarah Warn of AfterEllen.com and Lisa Foiles of The Escapist placed her in the top five "hottest" women in gaming, with Foiles describing her as "one of the hottest female character designs ever".[74][75] The two citations support all of the claims in both sentences, and [72], [73], and [76] can be deleted. The images in the article make clear that some of the attraction is sexual, as do the "hottest" claims. More proof is redundant. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶1 "In 2010 and 2011 respectively, Sarah Warn of AfterEllen.com and Lisa Foiles of The Escapist placed her in the top five "hottest" women in gaming, with Foiles describing her as "one of the hottest female character designs ever".[77][78] – One of these would be enough, I think, since they both say "hottest". Could you pick the one from the highest quality source and just use it instead of both?
 * I'm inclined to leave both, partially because both commentators are notable but also because this coverage has already been reduced significantly. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Memes
 * ¶1 "The line "You were almost a Jill sandwich", spoken by Barry Burton in the first Resident Evil game after Jill was almost crushed by a falling ceiling trap, sparked an Internet meme of "Jill Sandwich".[90][91][92][93] – To reduce clutter, use just one high quality citation that supports the claim. If you actually need more than one, each supporting a different claim in the sentence, insert the citations where they are needed so that readers can tell at a glance which citation is supporting which claim.
 * I've removed two of the sources. I'm worried if there's only one someone will contest the meme as not being popular enough to mention. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Better. If anyone says the meme is too insignificant to mention, you might cite "Dawn of the Digital Dead: The Zombie as Interactive Social Satire in American Popular Culture", which mentions the Jill Sandwich. Finetooth (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶1 "Barry refers to Jill as the "Master of Unlocking" – The Manual of Style advises against linking from within a direct quote. You could solve the problem here by removing the quotation marks, which don't seem necessary.
 * ¶1 "In a separate scene, Barry refers to Jill as the 'Master of Unlocking', leading to a 'Master of Unlocking' meme; the dialog was removed in the remake of the game."[93][94][95] – Do you really need all three citations?
 * Removed one mention as above. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶1 "...and in 2014 Dave Cook of NowGamer ranked "Jill Sandwich" as the 14th-greatest video game meme." – This seems like one example too many. Your point is well made by the rest of the sentence. I would just delete Dave Cook.
 * ¶2 "The memes were referenced by Capcom in the mobile game Resident Evil: Uprising, and in the unrelated game Dead Rising, which featured a sandwich shop named 'Jill's Sandwiches'. In 2012, Complex included the 'Jill's Sandwiches' shop on a list of the best Easter eggs in video games."[93][99] – Do both citations support all of the claims in the sentence? If so, pick the best one and delete the other. If not, insert the citations right after the claim(s) they support.


 * References
 * Citation 93 links to a page that is essentially blank.
 * Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments . I've just finished addressing Ealdgyth's concerns about questionable sources, and all of your concerns as well. I've put strikethroughs through anything I think I have unquestionably addressed, and have commented under anything that I believe may need further attention from you. Looking forward to your feedback on these changes. Freikorp (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed your strikes: it's always best not to strike the comments of reviewers, and it makes it harder for the coordinators to see if the reviewers' concerns have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I only really did that cause I thought the section would get a bit long if I put in new lines in just to write "done" under everything. Anyway, in that case if something doesn't have a comment directly underneath it, that means its been fixed. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the final two remaining points . :) Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response to my questions and suggestions. I'm prepared to support on criteria 1a (prose), 1d (neutrality), and 1e (stability). About 1b, I'm a little less certain, but the article seems to me to be comprehensive. That leaves 1c (well-researched), and here I defer to Ealdgyth, whose judgments on research and sourcing I trust more than my own. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your review. I appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: Sexism and Sources (comments from Homeostasis)
OK. So certain aspects of this review need to be addressed ASAP, in the interests of moving this along.


 * I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good, in terms of criteria 1b and 1c. Jill Valentine is one of the most high-profile female characters in video gaming history, and some of the critical commentary made about her since the mid-90's has definitely been sexist. This was fairly and accurately represented in the article as it was, but the bulk of your arguments seemed to stem from sexism in the video gaming industry and the role of female characters in video games, generally, and had little to do with the article itself. This is a major, current, high-profile issue within the industry, and should never have been raised in the context of a featured article review for one individual character. Maybe WikiProject Video games can address the issue. It was never Freikorp's responsibility to do so. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Freikorp has removed/replaced many of the sources you considered questionable, but has rightly contested some of your other claims. Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: "What makes X a high-quality reliable source?" or "What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?". Much earlier in the review, another user posted a link to this, which established that Quick Jump, Siliconera and Tom's Guide – all sites you continue to question – ARE reliable sources; you additionally went on to question the use of Collider, Den of Geek, Bloody Disgusting, and also the work Sarah Warn. The latter is a distinguished author, the former are longstanding publications with a dedicated editorial staff. So your continued opposition seems strange to me. On that basis, will you reconsider your opposition? Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's coming up to a month now since you last contributed. Since suggested that they're taking your non-involvement to mean a tentative oppose, do you wish to quickly comment on whether that's the case, or have your issues been dealt with? Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To address your point - It took me over an hour to do this one source review. It isn't my job to add that to my already rather heavy workload of doing source reviews. I do about 15 or 20 a month. All the articles I review get the same questions - it isn't my job to do the justification, it's the person nominating who needs to show that their sources meets the FA criteria. I actually went to the bother of hunting through Google Scholar for other sources - that's not something I usually do. But, hey, just make me MORE motivated to do more video game source reviews... and I haven't had a lot of time to return to this because .. .hey, I'm a volunteer. It was my high school reunion this last weekend and today is my husband's birthday. Forgive me for being not at someone's beck and call. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And further... telling Sarah that she's made the article worse is just plain insulting. I get that you think the article was better before but Sarah's one of our better reviewers and while we do not always agree (we've butted heads in the past over FACs I'd brought up) ... the idea is to have a better article. It isn't to have an article that sounds like a videogame website's review - it's meant for a broad audience and needs to reflect ALL the scholarship, not just videogame journalism. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no need to get offended. That wasn't my intention. I understand you're a volunteer – we all are – but I think I raised some genuine issues with some of the criticisms being directed at the article, and why I think they should never have been brought up, or are no longer an issue at this point. I never said Sarah made the article worse, just that some of her criticisms have damaged the article's comprehensiveness and representativeness. Do you have any thoughts about the sources I've mentioned above? Do you still think it's right to oppose this nomination because of them? Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" sure reads like "the article is worse" to me. If you didn't intend that, it might be a good idea to rework your phrasing. As to the sources, I'm still waiting to be shown how they are high quality reliable sources. I helpfully dug up a Signpost article I did on thow to demonstrate that a source is reliable. Nothing has addressed that actual issue - just a link to the videogame project saying the sites are reliable. But, AGAIN, the requirement at FAC isn't just WP:RS, but high quality. To be utterly frank, most of the sites on that list from the VG project are at best borderline reliable. They do not meet the high quality bar at FAC. IGN and Eurogamer are barely meeting the high quality bar. And, yes, I DO game, and I AM familiar with much of gaming journalism. So I do have a clue. For the moment, my oppose stands because I'm not being shown anything that makes these questioned sources high quality. And the more time I have to spend repeating this and answering questions, the more you're dragging me away from my husband on his birthday. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That page I linked to clearly illustrates – and links to – multiple conversations on how consensus was formed on each and every one of those sources. Wikipedia considers them reliable. You don't? This isn't a good time for you, but I'm clearly not forcing anyone to be on their computer on their husband's birthday. I'm going offline now. I won't respond here for another 24 hours. Enjoy your day. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The criteria at FAC are not simply reliable but "HIGH QUALITY". I cannot emphasize that enough. It is a step above just plain reliable. It's right there in Featured article criteria at 1.c. "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate" and I'm not seeing that some of these sources have been met. And to be honest, the fact that I was able to turn up several sources that had not been consulted prior to me digging them up doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "well-researched" part being met either. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Straight away, I have to say that it is extremely unhelpful for reviewers to post comments such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" and "Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: "What makes X a high-quality reliable source?" or "What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?"." No-one is required to do anything here, we are all volunteers. Alienating reviewers is an absolutely certain way to make sure that others steer clear of these articles at FAC, and without reviewers, nothing is going to pass. Simple. Another point that I am repeatedly labouring is that video game reviewers are often their own worst enemy, both in terms of cursory review and in what appears to be happening here: closing ranks. I'm absolutely sure that this is not the intention, but it is certainly coming across that way. And I would recommend not trying to tell source reviewers how to do their job: has been doing this for years and years, and you will not find a better source reviewer here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Summing up how I see this at the moment: We have six supports, which I have noted before. There are now two opposes and who is happy on most things but defers to Ealdgyth on the sourcing issue, and the incomplete review from  (who I might add, is under no obligation to reply further here). I would judge some of the response to the opposes (and not necessarily by the nominator) to be less than optimal, but they are valid opposes which the reviewers do not consider to have been fully addressed. Where does this leave us? There is certainly no consensus to promote here, and I consider it unlikely that we are going to reach such a consensus. Where does that leave us? Unless I see that we are moving towards that consensus, I'm likely to archive this fairly soon. That would require the usual two-week cooling-off period, away from FAC, for these issues to be thrashed out. Given how untidy this is starting to get, I really think this might be the best option, but I'm prepared to hold off for a little longer to see what happens. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely amazing. My entire point all along was that SlimVirgin brought up the issue of sexism in video gaming when it clearly wasn't appropriate to do so. Ealdgyth has been arguing over "high-quality" when the term is "purposefully vague" and can be determined at random by each individual reviewer. Also, in this case, it appears that "high-quality" is being used to disregard community-based consensus. Famous Hobo is, of course, under no obligation to reply further here but – on the other hand – is it then fair of you to use his unfinished review as one of the reasons for not promoting the article? If two users who've opposed go AWOL, how is it possible to constructively address their criticism? Freikorp bent over backwards to address many of the points raised by these users, implementing the vast majority of them, although contesting just a handful of Ealdgyth's. Regarding Ealdgyth's opposition, please read her source review, Sarastro1—particularly the part where Ealdgyth suggested multiple links and Freikorp went through each individual one and explained if they were used or not, and why—primarily if they turned out to be irrelevant, or if they were inaccessible. After Freikorp did all this, Ealdgyth then opposed, saying that "Given that the original "source review" let TV Tropes pass as well as a number of other very questionable sources, I'm not going to take a thing for granted here." Freikorp had already removed the TV Tropes reference, and the majority of the others which were mentioned. Ealdgyth is even being vague about where the goalposts are at this point: "And to be honest, the fact that I was able to turn up several sources that had not been consulted prior to me digging them up doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "well-researched" part being met either." Freikorp had already incorporated the sources Ealdgyth found, or explained why they couldn't be used, so why is this even being raised as an issue?  That's why you need to take a step back and look closer at this, . This nomination has been going around in circles for over a month—hence why I started this debate in the first place. How can it be possible to reach a consensus when the coordinator is using the opinion of two users who won't update their stance on addressed issues, and when another user keeps using out-of-date, conflicting arguments about what they're actually looking for? Freikorp has implemented the vast majority of the suggested improvements from opposing users, but this nomination is circling the drain. It's time for some investigative work, wouldn't you say? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am NOT using conflicting arguments nor am I changing the standards. These are the same standards I apply to all the source reviews I conduct. It appears I haven't done enough pop culture or video game source reviews lately, because it appears being held to the standards the rest of FAC has to meet is causing problems. My oppose stands. I do not see any thing showing that shows that the contested sources have been demonstrated to be high quality reliable sources. I will try to get back and strike the resolved issues but the non-replaced sources need to be shown to be up to the FAC criteria. And I remain concerned that the research was spotty, although I am (not yet) opposing on that ground because I haven't had time to dig further on that subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Look, I never meant for this to get this messy, and it was never my intention to cause anyone any offense, or to attack the validity of their work. It just seems incredibly frustrating and unfair for someone like Freikorp to go through all this work, implementing – it seems to me – practically every single suggestion that has been recommended, but to then be confronted with criticism that seems ever-expanding in scope: ie, he solves one issue like replacing a source, then is told that the article is unfit because other sources have "not been consulted". He incorporates the work of Anita Sarkeesian into the article [there are actually 3 others there at this point, as well], then is told there are other scholarly sources available. Is the availability of other – unidentified – sources genuinely the issue here? Maybe we can take a step back from the mess I've created here (sorry), take a fresh look at the sources as they are now, and collectively figure out what has to be done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Break

 * Homeostasis07, I opposed on the basis of 1(c), which Ealdgyth quoted above ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."). When I first read the article, there were no scholarly sources; Sarkeesian was missing (the editor who apparently wrote much of the article was topic-banned from Anita Sarkeesian—discussion here); and it contained lots of poor sourcing and sexist slurs. In an article about a black character, would editors simply repeat racist slurs because some sources used them? I found a few scholarly sources during a five-minute search, and they were added to the article, but that's not what's meant by "well-researched". I don't want to be put in a position where I'm effectively writing parts of the article.  The article needs a better structure, some analysis, a sense of the character's development, a full use of high-quality sources, something about the scholarly debate on sexism and female characters in video games, and the writing could be clearer. I suggest that it be archived so that the nominator can work on it without the pressure of an open FAC. SarahSV (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the article as it currently stands? Every one of these issues has been resolved! Structure, clear and engaging prose, an entire paragraph detailing not only the sexism received by Jill, but the diametric use of sexuality by another female character in the series—anymore on this issue than a paragraph would be overkill and unnecessary for this article, and would be better placed elsewhere. Regarding sexism/racism: yes, if a movie character was insulted in broadly racist terms by mainstream media, then I would consider it an essential part of a featured article to be representative of that. I would also disagree that the article ever had an abundance of sexist slurs, and suggesting that the banned users' history is somehow indicative of the quality of this article is a serious overstep, and pretty damn unfair. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I must say I wasn't expecting such a long debate to take place in between me logging into Wikipedia., I noticed you approached both Finetooth and Ealdgyth asking for them to weigh in here. I really appreciate you doing that. The most frustrating thing at this FAC has been people not finishing their reviews. We're all volunteers, and nobody is under obligations. That being said, if you don't finish your review, and don't reply back once the nominator has attempted to address all your concerns, then your opposition or undecided stance shouldn't be given any weight at all. I had the same problem at my first FLC. Two people opposed on certain grounds, then disappeared. I attempted to address all their concerns and pinged them back, but they never commented again. Eventually the coordinator appeared to agree with me that their opposition was accordingly not valid, and promoted the article.
 * You'll notice there's a reoccurring theme among reviewers. Everybody single reviewer who has followed up my replies is supporting the nomination (noting of course that Finetooth has referred one point back to Ealdgyth). The only opposes and neutral stance, have come from people who haven't yet responded to my rebuttals and attempts to address their concerns. If you go through the discussion, and take note of my rebuttals, you'll notice that SlimVirgin frequently ignores counter-points I make to her concerns. She also has not responded directly to my attempts to address all of her noted concerns. To be fair, she has clarified that she does not have the time to complete her review; her 'oppose' draft is exactly that, a draft, and as I have noted above it opposes due to several issues that have unquestionably been resolved, and on several other points that I have at least attempted to fix. I have also addressed/replied to 100% of concerns raised by Ealdgyth. I don't think it's fair to count her vote of opposition until she replies to all the work I have done and clarifies whether it's still not good enough or not. Freikorp (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * so above, I'm told no pressure but here my oppose should be discounted because I haven't gotten back to it? Which is it? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both. Take your time replying if you're busy. But considering I've attempted to address all your concerns it's my opinion your oppose shouldn't be given much weight until you do. That's all. Freikorp (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Homeostasis07, the history of the article is relevant because the nominator isn't the author. The author was criticized many times for exactly this kind of article: an overfocus on sexuality in articles about female characters; adding any source to support that focus, regardless of quality or repetition; and producing "fan fiction" sections with too much detail that are hard to follow. The article has improved during the FAC, but it needs an improvement in kind, not degree. For example, there really isn't any sense of the character's evolution, and that's not something that can be fixed during an FAC because it takes time to research it, decide how to structure it, and write it. SarahSV (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * can you give me an example of an article with the kind of 'character evolution' section you think this article should have? I don't understand what you want. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Further comment by Finetooth
Freikorp, there is another possible solution here. You could take charge of the situation by withdrawing the article and working on it over the coming weeks. If you do that, you would save everyone involved in this FAC from spending more time on this particular nomination. If I were you, I would replace lower-quality sources with high-quality sources before re-nominating. I found one high-quality source, which I mentioned in my comments above, by searching on JSTOR. SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth have suggested others. I think it likely that even more exist, but it will take time and effort to track them down. I'm not a gamer, hence my hesitation about 1b (comprehensiveness), but research is research no matter what the subject; you never know what you might find. Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your suggestion Finetooth. The issue with that is that I don't see any major work that needs to be done. If I withdraw the nomination, I'd pretty much just be waiting the standard two weeks before I nominate the same version again. I already added all the sources suggested by SlimVirgin, and read all the ones Ealdgyth suggested (at least the ones I could access) and added anything I thought was relevant. I replaced 90% of the sources Ealdgyth complained were not high quality; the last I contested and will continue to contest as I believe they are of an accepted standard. I will admit this article lacked coverage from academic sources when I nominated it, but I think it has adequate coverage now. It seems that two sources is more than enough to say Jill is perceived as one of the 'sexiest' characters, even though literally dozens of extra sources support this. Using that comparison, I don't see why I need, for example, any more than the current four academic sources complaining Jill is over-sexualised. I'm not doubting there's another academic source out there that shares this complaint. My argument is that if I add any more it will not only be unnecessary, it might be undue weight. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Adequate" is not the same as "the very best", and six supports is not the same as consensus. Finetooth (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I meant adequate by the standards of FAC, not in general. To put things in context, I thought I already had enough coverage from feminists before I added material from Ealdgyth's sources, but I added it anyway. My point is I didn't add this additional content because I thought the article was lacking coverage in this area, I added it in order to address the specific concerns of a reviewer in the hopes this would help get their support. I do not think the article is lacking comprehensiveness in any particular area. Freikorp (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I see no further benefit in this remaining open, as we seem to be going round in circles somewhat. No matter which way we look at this, there is no consensus to promote here and we’re not realistically going to get that consensus in this FAC. We all need to remember that an article will not be promoted without the consensus of reviewers, not just how many supports there are. I think the best idea I've seen in Finetooth's. I'm going to archive this shortly. After the usual two-week wait, this can be renominated; I would recommend working with the reviewers here to achieve a consensus of what should be in the article. Given that it is unlikely that will happen, at the very least I think we would benefit from a fresh start. However, the nominator should bear in mind that the same issues could arise again at the next FAC; just because a few editors disagree with the issues raised here does not mean that they can be ignored in a FAC. I realise that this is unlikely to be a popular decision, but I think it is the best way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Oh grandma, what strange timing you have". You close this just as Ealdgyth said: "It appears I haven't done enough pop culture or video game source reviews lately, because it appears being held to the standards the rest of FAC has to meet is causing problems." She was provided links to a list of sources considered reliable by the rest of Wikipedia, but grew stubborn and dug her heels in when she was confronted about her lack of knowledge. And I put that quote in green because it appears you had trouble recognizing that two quotations in one of my previous responses – that you used as fodder when you attacked me for being an "extremely unhelpful", "alienating" and "less than optimal" contributor – were direct quotations from comments made earlier by the same user, ie: "What makes Bloody Disgusting a high-quality reliable source?" and "What makes Sarah Warn so important as to have her opinion featured on the article?", repeated ad nauseum. Sorry, Freikorp, this was on the verge of turning around, but one of the coordinators used it as an excuse for doing what they wanted to do several weeks ago, "it is a pity that Sarah's comments were dismissed a little (which is how it reads to me; although I'm sure that was not the intention, it certainly comes across like that) so hastily and in quite a defensive manner. She does raise some points which would concern me in closing this, which I consider actionable, or at the very least deserving a more detailed rebuttal."—said in reference to Sarah's complaints about sexism in video gaming: which had no business being brought up in this review. It seems some people took issue to the brevity of my initial source review: a mistake I won't be making again. When you renominate, I'll be the first responder, with the most detailed damned source review this page has ever seen. And I'll make sure to stick around to personally respond to every single criticism those two users could conceivably make—if they care to show their heads again. That's a promise. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was half expecting this nomination to be closed, but I must say I was hoping you'd at least wait for Ealdgyth to finish her review first. She just made her second round of replies, and struck more than half her concerns in the process. Nevertheless I'm not going to make a bid deal out of this. As noted above, I ordered two offline sources to address Sarah's concerns that I hadn't checked them personally. I'll wait for them to turn up in the mail and check whether they are accurately sourced in this article, and will expand from them if I can. In the meantime I'll continue fixing or at least replying to any suggestion that gets made here, as I always have. As I believe the article already meets featured standards I'll renominate this in two weeks or after my I finish reviewing my ordered offline sources, whichever comes last. Freikorp (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.