Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive3


 * 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2018.

Jill Valentine

 * Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jill Valentine, a character from the Resident Evil game and film series. It has gone through two unsuccessful FACs, as well as two separate peer reviews. The user who nominated it at FAC previously has said he no longer wants to be involved in the article, so I've decided to adopt it myself. I've methodically gone through all previous FACs and peer reviews and have made a good-faith effort [ie, to the best of my ability] to address every single issue that has ever been raised.

Previous FACs have led to this nomination becoming a loaded issue – to say the least – for some, so I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. If requested, by FAC coordinators, I wouldn't have a problem with informing everyone that I've renominated it. Since I believe the article meets all of the featured criteria anyway, I think it's kind of a moot point. Plus, I think fresh eyes all around may make FAC3 a much more beneficial experience. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Jill_Valentine_original_outfit.png needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Let me know if you don't think any section of the new FUR is sufficient, and I'll try again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Premature nom
Bad idea. This is a common courtesy and better done before starting another nom... The FAC is supposed to be a ceremonious checking of boxes, not the rat pit in which articles are forged through reviewer labor. (not watching, please )  czar  14:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but, in reality, FAC2 was not a "ceremonious checking of boxes". In fact, several of those reviewers – as well as the original nominator – have run for the hills and have expressed their desire to never come anywhere near this article ever again. There are boxes there which will never be checked, regardless of how many pings and messages any of us write. That's why I thought it better to get fresh eyes on this. I'd really prefer to only go down the route of contacting older reviewers as a last resort, if requested by one of the FAC coordinators, because I genuinely believe we're close to rabbit-hole territory with this. (Pinging   to see what any of them think.) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If they don't want to "come anywhere near this article ever again", that's their call to make. The point is the expectation of due diligence by requesting feedback from those editors who have previously expressed interest. The alternative is to waste FAC time by instead barreling through that feedback during a live candidacy. Less ambiguously, I was one of the peer reviewers and I don't think this is near FA quality yet—many of the open discussions in the peer review remain unresolved and they're not easy fixes but issues of sourcing, recasting entire sections, etc. czar  00:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather wait for an FAC coordinator to respond to the issue than argue back and forth with you about the merits of due diligency. Regarding your specific claims that the article is not FA quality, I'd be delighted for you to point out any current issue with sourcing, because in the closing comments of the peer review all that was said was "not to add more "lists of" sources". In fact, I later removed several of these types of sources, and only the best-quality of the pre-existing "lists" currently remain on the article. For the record, even though I did this, I'd like to say now that the entire discussion at PR about removing list-based sources was skewed, and a non-issue to begin with. WP:Listicle relates to stand-alone lists appearing as articles on Wikipedia. There is nothing at WP:Listicle about list-based articles outside of Wikipedia not being WP:RS. And the entire article has been "recast". Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also pinging image reviewer regarding this edit removing the Guillory image on a claim it violates NFCC#8. If you re-read the peer review  (don't forget about the talk page), you'd see that one user claimed the Guillory image had no contextual significance, but that this was addressed/rectified later by adding several sentences about the character's appearance in Resident Evil 3 in both the 'Concept and design' and 'Reception and legacy' sections. Rather than just revert on principal, there is helpfully an image reviewer right here. So per WP:BRD, I'll re-add the image and let the reviewer decide if it violates NFCC#8. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the copyedit/rewrite during the peer review, so I'm aware of the changes since the last FAC. I'm not interested in relitigating past transgressions. No one quoted WP:LISTICLE, so not sure why that's relevant. We don't cite listicles in an encyclopedia, and especially not in FA candidates, because they're generally of the lowest possible quality: often single sentences for each item written more as clickbait than journalism and often from low-quality sources. Like the "top ten babes" claims do not belong in the same room as an encyclopedia, nevertheless as some credible ranking of babes, if that were to even make sense as a measure. If I recall correctly, there were sourcing issues with sussing out the overall plot connective tissue w.r.t. Valentine and sourcing issues with making a coherent narrative of her Reception from disparate academic sources. The biggest issue, however, was the writing, and at a glance I don't see an improvement. The appearances section is not readable, nevertheless at FA-level. It goes into needless detail on jargon and plot detail rather than explaining Valentine's importance in the scene/chronology. You want other opinions? Go for it. I see lots of work left. Oppose.
 * re: the Guillory img, WP:NFCC#8 says that the non-free image needs to have some (textual) significance to warrant depiction or put another way, what textual allusion warrants visual depiction such that the reader's understanding would be impaired if not depicted? There's no need for a side-by-side comparing the actress to a model of the character—we can fully understand that they're dressed similarly from the text alone, if that even needed to be explained. No aspect of her costume/clothing is discussed so as to warrant another non-free image, nevertheless with the actress (who has free-use headshot equivalents). czar  01:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTICLE was quoted on two separate occasions at PR. Currently, there are a total of nine list sources on the article, four of which – the most contentious – are used to reference the text: Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists that rank characters based on their sex appeal.[84] In 2011, The Escapist's Lisa Foiles said she was "one of the hottest female character designs ever".[85] Three more are used to reference the text: "Gaming publications have listed Valentine among the most popular and iconic video game characters ever created." The remaining two are used to reference text discussing Valentine's relationship with her partner Chris Redfield, and are far from "click-bait journalism". Regarding your claim that "there were sourcing issues with sussing out the overall plot connective tissue w.r.t. Valentine", the actual quote from PR is: This has all been done, although you are now claiming that as a result the article "goes into needless detail on jargon and plot detail". This is another problem with contacting previous reviewers: so many people want different things, and it will be impossible to write an article that fits with everyone's demands. I find it strange that you're opposing and at the same time saying that "at a glance [you] don't see an improvement" in the writing. Doing more than glancing would let you see one of your later points ("sourcing issues with making a coherent narrative of her Reception from disparate academic sources") has been done. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of 'Reception and legacy' do this explicitly. You travelled from "Contact previous reviewers" to your current position so quickly and so flimsily that it leads me to believe you are simply reacting out of spite. So, yes, other opinions are necessary, at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I was involved in resolving the listicle issue myself and didn't raise it as a point of current contention so I'm not sure what you have to gain by repeating it back to me. The problems with the prose—in the Appearance section as a prominent example—are so stark that they warrant no more than a "glance": unvaried sentence structure, zero narrative or signposting connecting each paragraph, knots of jargon rather than an overview written for a general audience, no assertion of why the plot points are important to Valentine the character rather than a recapitulation of basic plot. Parts of the Reception continue to read like a laundry list of mentions rather than an integrated whole. I've been following this article for long enough to know what change looks like, but change hardly comes to prose that is beyond reproach. Good luck with your review. czar  05:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, I'm not adversed to contacting previous reviewers. I'm more than prepared to spend the next 6 months of my life doing this. I'd just prefer not to. But if needs be... needs be. This entire discussion is evidence of how messy this whole article has become, which is why I'm still waiting for FAC coordinators to tell me I must contact previous reviewers. I'm still talking about WP:Listicles because you claimed unresolved issues from PR regarding source quality was one of your reasons in opposing this nomination; but the listicle "issue" was the only unresolved issue with sourcing at the time of the PR being closed. And it's now resolved. Your second complaint, "sourcing issues with making a coherent narrative of her Reception from disparate academic sources", has also been resolved—there are 2 whole paragraphs about this now. You want more? Because you'd arguably be in WP:UNDUE territory there. So, as far as I can see, the only remaining complaint you have with the article is a [relatively] minor prose issue in Appearances, (ie, "connective tissue"), which is hardly an insurmountable task for FAC. Vis-a-vis this, I've just made this edit which removed all jargon and non-essential info from Appearances. Let me know what you think about Appearances and – more importantly – Reception now... because, as I said, I really don't believe these challenges to be insurmountable at this stage. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...if entire sections need to be rewritten then the article wasn't ready for FAC. I don't have the time to walk through all the changes this article needs. "Appearances" is better on the jargon front, but it still reads like a hodge podge of info. If I wanted a series overview, I'd read the series article. There's very little showing her character development, import of the plot, signposting major themes in the plot as they relate to her, etc. All things I'd expect to read in an encyclopedia's overview. That's both a sourcing and writing issue as there are plenty of sources that go over the plot—it just needs more attention than rearranging what is already there. I still think the "Reception" reads like a laundry list of factoids and would need more "connective tissue" to be "engaging and of a professional standard". The issue isn't more academic sources but turning a series of mere mentions of (or allusions to) JV into a scaffolded, coherent paragraph. Alas,  czar  02:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Sorry, but I'm going to close this as it's clear that open issues have not been resolved from the last FAC. The last peer review seems to have been closed in frustration with issues still on the table. FAC is not a venue for bringing something up to standard. I'd advise open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating this article again. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.