Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive5

Jill Valentine

 * Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) and Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series. After the previous FAC was closed, I was advised by a coordinator to work with an "experienced" FA writer before renominating. During that time, I've collaborated with – who has written 24 FAs – to improve the article, and I genuinely believe it meets the FA criteria. I also initiated a discussion at a high-profile talk page, in which every previous contributor was pinged, with limited response. I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria, and would appreciate as much feedback as possible. Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05
Going to give this a look per a request on my talk page from ; I'm a gamer but not very familiar with the Resident Evil series, so hopefully I can give this a good look. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All issues are resolved now - this looks really good! Happy to offer a support here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Collapse|title=Resolved issues|

Grammar check

 * Lede
 * I would change the mention of appearing in the film series to be in the past-tense, as the series has seemingly concluded. This could be modified if she appears in a reboot, but for now the series is done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Concept and design
 * Not sure a dash is needed in "story-line". Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Replaced with "storyline". A majority of the sources I have checked use "storyline" as one word without the dash. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Would change "was redesigned" to "has been redesigned" since the series is ongoing.
 * Revised. That makes sense to me so thank you for the catch. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Appearances
 * Remove the comma before "and that its undead occupants are scientists who had been developing the T-virus mutagen".
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * What are the continuity reasons preventing the characters from Resident Evil 2 from appearing?
 * According to the Resident Evil 3: Nemesis article, the game takes place a day before Resident Evil 2. I think that is what being referenced, but I will leave this up to Homeostasis07. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s fine. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expanded on this point. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the comma before "capable of infecting the aquatic ecosystem"
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the comma after "but before her career in law enforcement".
 * I think the comma is needed here. I admit that I am pretty bad with commas though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to compromise by using a semicolon. Both points are related to one another, so I figured this was correct usage. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You might could include a mention that the character did not return for the final Resident Evil film, when she was evidently killed offscreen. Bloody Disgusting said this was a major plothole.
 * That is a good point. I remember in a past FAC, a reviewer did not believe Bloody Disgusting is a good source for a FA. According to this interview with Milla Jovovich, Sienna Guillory was not invited back because "there are a lot of characters in the Resident Evil franchise and it’s difficult to have everybody involved". I do not believe the source is considered appropriate for an FA, but it is an interview so that context may make it appropriate. I will look up more information on it, and Homeostasis07 probably knows more than me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. The main thing is that since the series is over and she didn’t appear in the last film, it might be worth noting that she didn’t and/or why. It’s not a major issue but it just is something that might worth noting for completion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing it out, and I agree that it is worth further discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Aoba and I have expanded this sentence using your source, as well as some others Aoba found. Although Bloody Disgusting was removed during a previous FA nomination, I never especially believed its exclusion was merited. It's a pretty huge website in terms of horror movies/hard rock music, and has had exclusive interviews with some pretty big names since then. Plus, this particular author has also written for The Austin Chronicle and Consequence of Sound, so I believe his article would be easily defensible from even the most stringent of source reviewer. In any case, there's now another 2 sources to fall back on. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wording is excellent. This definitely rounds out that section imo. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reception and legacy
 * I might remove "has" from "has consistently received negative reviews", since the film series has evidently been completed.
 * Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HD/Derek Support on prose

 * Not a fan of video games so I hope my review would be as objective as possible. Comments arriving within a few days, HĐ (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Made several read-throughs and I'm happy to give this nomination a support based on prose. It's comprehensive and not filled with trivial information. The article is really a product of hard work and resilience! As for other issues like sources and media, I'm not equipped with proper tools to do such tasks, so I'll leave it to other reviewers to spotcheck. A quick suggestion (which wouldn't impact my support whatsoever): there's a harv error for the source cited in "Further readings". Consider fixing it? HĐ (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: fixed the harv error by myself. To see harv-related errors, you should install some special documentation... I forgot what it's called, will try to find it here's the detailed guide to install the script: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Best of luck with the article, HĐ (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, and for fixing the harv error. I've installed the script, so this shouldn't happen again. ;) Thanks again for your time in reviewing the article. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Darkwarriorblake

 * I'm not a fan of having the Japanese/Hepburn translsations in the opening of an English article. I feel like this " ジル・バレンタイン" doesn't help anyone and it should probably be handed like it as on Japanese made games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. That said I won't not support it because of that, but I think it is something worth considering.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "She was introduced as one of two player characters in the original Resident Evil (1996), making her the first playable female character in the survival horror genre." seems like it's saying something more complex than it needs to be. Maybe something like "Introduced as one of two playable characters in the original Resident Evil (1996), Valentine is the first female player character in the survival horror genre."
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've read the entire article and I would say it is generally thorough. I was gonna bring up the Jill Sandwich meme but I can see you covered that as well. The only thing I would consider missing is any concept around her RE3 appearance. It seems to skip Nemesis almost completely there for the RE:Make and then on to RE:5. I see mentions of her casual clothing elsewhere but it seems like it'd belong in the concept part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will leave this part up to Homeostasis07 as he is more familiar with the games than myself. Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was actually a previous collaborator who suggested I remove those descriptions from the prose. I tried to compromise by placing them in other sections of the article where I considered them relevant, but obviously it wasn't a good idea in the first place—you're the 3rd person to bring this up as an issue [here and elsewhere]. I've happily re-incorporated those descriptions of her RE3 appearance to their rightful place, in 'Concept and design'. Thanks for your time in reviewing the article. It's definitely been a big help. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll support this. I don't know if it has had an image review but the last image seems to be two copyrighted images together, and with the infobox image it may be too much, but the Fair Use rationales seem OK to me. I'm not an expert though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and that is understandable. I will leave the image usage up to Homeostasis07, but I also understand the importance of keeping non-free media usage to a minimal. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd love to be able to replace this image with a decent Creative Commons one, but the only pictures of Valentine in this particular outfit to be found on either CC or Flickr just... aren't very good. I actually don't hate that last one, but would there be a way of cutting out the Chris cosplayer without having to upload a new version? But I still don't think it's particularly representative of Jill Valentine, and a pretty solid case could easily be made for contextual significance with the current image(s)—a whole paragraph is dedicated to the reception of its various guises, and the image has an explanatory FUR, so its use should be fine. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is a lot of commentary on it so it should hopefully be fine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack
Lead
 * "she is first playable female character in the survival horror genre" > she was the first playable female character...
 * Added. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Concept and design
 * "expertise in weapons and explosives handling and lock picking", is weapons and explosives handling meant to be one phrase? If not, drop the and for a comma.
 * The sentence is saying that she has expertise in both weapon handling (pistols, shotguns, rifles, etc.), and also the handling of larger explosive ammunition/firearms (grenades, rocket launchers, etc.)—if that makes sense. I've rephrased to hopefully make this clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Her outfit in the game is a police uniform consisting of a beret, shoulder pads, tactical pants and combat boots", no t-shirt?
 * The source doesn't mention the T-shirt, but it's clearly implied by the corresponding imagery, so I've added. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd start the third paragraph with Valentine's instead of her.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Voice-over and live-action actors
 * "original game's live-action cutscenes and did the voice work were", wordings a little clunky here. What about "recorded the woice work"?
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In the Resident Evil series
 * "Every game in the series took place in the fictional American city", I think maybe "is set" rather than took place may work better.
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "retreated into searching for colleagues", retreated would suggest they were forced back into the mansion. "entered into..." perhaps?
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A couple of minor prose suggestions based on a quick run through. Kosack (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your suggestions, Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm not an expert on video game articles, but this seems like a good candidate for FA for me based on content and prose. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by E.3
Disclaimer: this is my first FA review and I am not a gamer, but I know the series and character. Overall there is a very engaging writing style to a non gamer. Just some prose suggestions
 * "She is described as being intelligent, brave and loyal, and as having expertise in weapons and explosives handling and lock picking." I would divide this sentence. Do you need to state who describes her as intelligent brave and loyal?
 * I will leave this point up to Homeostasis07 as he is more familiar with the games than myself. I think this sentence is referring to how the game describes her or presents her, but I could be mistaken. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've specified which publications described the character in those terms. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "although the project leader positioned it on her chest to maximize her sex appeal" is this necessary, I don't see what it adds to the article.
 * I would say that it is necessary because it explains how her character design changed for the game. It adds to the reader's understanding of how the character was developed and presented for that game. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Making the article as asexual as possible (considering Victoria's comments below) may be a good thing, so I've removed until she responds. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes thats my main concern with this review, but it appears to be being addressed :) -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   02:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "to show more of her body" -> would change to "to highlight her body contours" -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   02:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I will leave that up to Homeostasis07. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Revised. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "visually appealing" how about tough, strong and and aesthetically attractive means the character potentially appeals to a broad demographic audience?
 * I have replaced the "visually appealing" part with a quote from the source to be more precise. I know "tough" and "strong" have their own distinct nuances, but I would be uncertain about using them both in the same sentence as it is a little repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, I don't think "tough, strong and aesthetically attractive" requires quote marks, so I've paraphrased. Hopefully you're both happy with the change. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise it reads pretty well and the previous issues seem to have been addressed. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for your comments, I believe I've resolved them all. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My concerns around sexualisation have been satisfactorily addressed, however as this is my first FA review, and I am male, I offer tentative support based on the final decision of 's review. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For the record – and for any new reviewers watching – the article went through a massive 2-month-long peer review way back in November 2017, where the sexism issue was discussed and dealt with comprehensively (both the article's original nominator and the reviewers who initially complained about said sexism formed a clear consensus on how to proceed). I've tried my best to follow that consensus since then. I guess that's up to others to review at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as discussed above based on my comments and Victoriaearle's review. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   11:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Support from Victoria
A couple of points:
 * Per the FAC instructions, have the primary contributors been notified/consulted re this FAC?
 * They were all pinged to this discussion at VG Talk on August 9, where I stated my intention to renominate and asked if there were any issues that needed resolving before doing so. The conversation was automatically archived on August 25, and I gave a few days grace period for anyone to contact me. I've had to link the conversation the way I have because it somehow vanishes from the archives after this edit. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:FACR 1.c, are high-quality reliable sources predominately used? I.e this 2019 compilation of essays includes a number of essays about Resident Evil and Jill Valentine. It should be included. Likewise, this book published in 2018, and a number of sources noted on Google scholar.
 * Both of the sources linked to (The World of Scary Video Games: A Study in Videoludic Horror and The Playful Undead and Video Games: Critical Analyses of Zombies and Gameplay) are actually used in the article already. Although the latter is a reprint of a source which was removed by consensus during the last peer review, I think I've found an acceptable way of reintroducing that particular one. All of the most useful sources listed at Google Scholar feature on the article. The others either don't contain anything particularly enlightening, or were also removed by consensus during the PR stage. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue of gender in video games was raised in previous FACs & the PR and Mikami's vision re designing characters has been previously discussed: it seems to me important, to satisfy criteria 1.b (thorough) & c (neutral & without bias), that his visions be teased out. He was adamant that Jill not be sexualized or objectified, that the characters are first and foremost human. The Guardian article tells us about Mikami:

and in his own words he explains,

and,

continuing,
 * This concept needs to be teased out from the beginning. As written the article tells us about Jill's various outfits and hair color, in other words, objectifying her, yet the essays in the newly released books put those aspects in context, which needs to be added.
 * Regarding the quotes, the general point of the first is presented in the article using a more verbose source; the second quote features in the article verbatim; the final two quotes are paraphrased and have been expanded using academic sources in the second paragraph of 'Reception and legacy', which I feel is where they belong. I don't see anything in either of the listed sources above which alter the context of anything currently presented in the article. Please feel free to correct if I've missed something blindingly obvious (which has happened before). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Finally, there are lingering prose issues throughout. Examples only - "is identified", "describes her personality as consisting of intelligence, bravery and loyalty", "is set, are set, is set", "Valentine returned", "she attempts", "She is also included", "the character also appears", lots of jarring tense shifts from past to present and use of past perfect, i.e "have depicted", "have resulted", "have claimed".
 * Aoba47 has fixed several of these. I'll have a run-through the entire article momentarily to make everything past tense and remove some excessive verbing. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The structure is still off, i.e the "Reception" section is extremely stuffed and for some reason Mikami's premise isn't even mentioned until that point ("Shinji Mikami, expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games") when it should occur at the beginning.
 * Mikami's "premise" is in its current position because of feedback given to me from several past contributors. If you feel strongly that it would work better near the beginning, I'd have no objection doing that. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Between you mentioning this and some of the comments made by E.3 above, I've decided it's best to move this to as early a section as possible prose-wise (the latter half of the first paragraph of 'Concept and design'). Let's just hope the people who objected to it appearing there in the first place don't object to it in the meantime. =( Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a full review, but they are issues that need attention. Victoria (tk) 02:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. Hopefully you'll understand my reasoning for contending some of the points, and that I'll be able to resolve everything else soon. Cheers, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Re sourcing: it's really best to lean as much as possible on high quality secondary sources, which do exist. Perron is noted in the references but only used a single time to cite a sentence that includes three other citations. Similarly, the Sara Grimes piece, a good secondary source, is only used a single time to cite a sentence with multiple references. If a point isn't contentious there's no reason to provide more than a single citation and best practice to lean as much as possible on high quality secondary sources, even if that requires swapping out or eliminating some of the lower quality primary or industry sources.A quick glance at Sara Grimes piece reveals that Jill's name is mentioned at least 39 times; Paul Martin's piece has 30+ mentions. So those can be mined extensively, and should be. MacCallum's piece appears only to be used twice with direct quotes (don't forget to provide the ref directly at the end of the quotation), but here are a few important samples/snippets from her work: This goes to characteristics & the fact they have their own story arcs and aren't supporting characters

This is already used in the article, but I'm not sure Mikami's quotation should be stacked immediately after. One of them should be paraphrased; probably MacCallum. But the male gaze goes to a different concept than Mikami's

This goes to the fact that in the later iterations, moving away from Mikami's influence, Jill's redesign realigns her with the more stereotypical game heroine, and goes to the fact that the mind-control device (the location of its placement is irrelevant) does just that: it controls her, and the character becomes something other than the original design concept.

There's lots and re “male gaze” w/ citations to other sources; those sources might be worth trying to find and looking at. This explains the reasons for the redesigns, but again explains that she's "whitened". Though this seems like it would fit in the reception section, anything to do with design should be removed from that section, though this passage covers both the reasons for the redesign and the subsequent reception.

A number of secondary sources compare Jill (i.e Mikami's Jill) to Lara Croft. It might worth trying to run those down (I think I noted that in some of the g-scholar snippets)

Also the New York Times has articles available on the various releases and some are interesting in that they explain the premise of the first game, (not being able to shoot unless standing still; the danger of running out of ammunition (hence having extra ammunition is an advantage)). My suggestion is to look for, use and swap out as many sources as possible; i.e the section re the battle suit and lightening is discussed extensively in the secondary sources, whereas the Kotaku piece is promotional (it's selling an action figure). Don't rush the effort and ping me when ready to me revisit. Oh, one last thing, the consensus version (yes, it was almost there) is this one. It might be worth comparing to the current version. Victoria (tk) 00:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC) I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, some comments re a few edits that I made and reverted.
 * Thanks for the insights, Victoria. I believe I have a fairly solid sense of where you want the article to go, and I have taken extensive notes from the Grimes and Perron sources (and a few others). I've been busy in real life (as well as finishing up some other reviews), so have only been able to make a partial attempt at it so far. I will hopefully have a few hours free tomorrow, so you should see some progress soon. Just thought I'd update everyone, and let you know I've not been ignoring you. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. I'm not here every day, so no enormous rush. Best to take the time to get it right. Victoria (tk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I've tried my best to rephrase the article, with the general theme of your review running throughout. I think I've done a good job, but would appreciate your feedback at this point. The only thing I've not been able to incorporate so far has been moving all (i.e., all but one) of the design descriptions from 'Reception and legacy' to 'Concept and design'→I can't find a way of introducing the film series to that section (which is very much secondary to the game series). So I've left the commentary of her appearance in Resident Evil: Apocalypse where it is for now. Hope you don't mind. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here I eliminated some low-level links, tightened the prose, left an inline comment (I thought I'd read she was the first playable female protagonist, not only in the horror genre, but I could be misremembering), the reader needs an explanation of her universe, i.e formerly of Delta Force begs the question of what she's doing now?
 * Valentine is the first playable female character in the survival horror genre. It is still notable benchmark. Some reports claim Samus Aran, who first appears in a 1986 game, is the first playable female protagonist, but I cannot say with absolute certain on that regard. I am certain though that Valentine is not the first ever as I can think of a few other examples prior to the first Resident Evil game. I believe later games retconned Valentine's past in the Delta Force, but I cannot say with absolute certainty. I have seen some fans speculate that her Delta Force membership does not makes given her age and the year in which the first game is set, but that is pure speculation. I will leave the rest of the comments up to Homeostasis07 as he is more of an expert on the matter than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The first point is in parentheses, not a big deal and not worth quibbling over; the second point goes to the prose and flow: the reader is told she was formerly a member of Delta Force, but what is her job at the opening of Resident Evil? Presumably that information is useful, no? Victoria (tk) 22:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I clarified the part about the first playable female protagonist in case you were interested to know more about it. I do not disagree with your point about the Delta Force. Apologies if my response read that way. I was trying to respond with my understanding of the character and the franchise's treatment of her past Delta Force experience. I have a limited knowledge of the franchise's plot, but I believe Valentine is a member of a special forces division called the Special Tactics and Rescue Service at the start of the first game. would know for certain though. I agree that this information is useful and should be addressed in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, I was short with you; was in the kitchen, multitasking & always a bad time of day to edit. I'd do something along the lines of "Formerly a member of Delta Force, where she excelled in bomb disposal, at the start of Resident Evil she is a member of Special Tactics and Rescue Service". I believe the article mentions the other positions she holds in the subsequent games. Victoria (tk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have incorporated it into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your work on the article. I liked your edits, so have tried my best to incorporate as many of your points to (at least) the first paragraph of 'Concept and design'. I'll hopefully be able to address everything else tomorrow (fair warning: I'm taking the day off work to have some dental work done—I should be OK afterwards, but if I make some strange edits, you'll know why). As far as Jill being the "first playable female protagonist" goes, I don't believe that's accurate. As Aoba said, there's Samus from Metroid (1986, who is also discussed in the Grimes source), but also Karen/Karla from Alien Storm (1991) and (perhaps) the original, Ms. Pac-Man (1982, if you want to count an amorphous yellow blob with a bow on top as female). And as far as I'm aware, Jill's backstory has never been retconned. She's 22 in the original game, which would be more than enough time for her to complete the 6 months of training it takes to join Delta Force in real life. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here I bundled together the Mikami material for better flow, to set up the creation and multiple re-creations issues, and tightened the prose.
 * Here I kept together the issues re the original design vs. the subsequent re-designs & critical commentary. I added an inline re the quote from Kotaku, (there are better secondary sources & it seems a bit long).
 * Here I repositioned that paragraph again for flow, and the repositioned it again. Then I reverted it all for you and to put your heads together and discuss.
 * Some other general comments re issues still to be resolved in that section: per the criteria it's really best to swap out lower level sources for secondary, i.e Capcom, Guinness, Kotaku, etc. can all be replaced. I realize they are RS, but not necessarily the best available. Try cutting down who says what to avoid clunky prose; and try to tighten the prose. There are still tense issues, but I'm thinking about those. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried my best to incorporate as many of your points as I could with this and subsequent edits. I know I read something along the lines of Valentine being "the first playable female character in the survival horror genre" in one of the academic sources, but for the life of me I can't find it again. Any ideas on where it is? (MacCallum-Stewart page 255, but she doesn't include the "survival horror" caveat in her quantification, and I believe it'd be misleading to repeat that here). Also, could you post some direct links to NYT sources? I read 2 NYT articles (about an unrelated, real-life Jill Valentine and a review of RE: Apocalypse, which I added to the article) before their paywall kicked in and I couldn't read anymore. I managed to find this RE3 review on archive.org, but it's fairly useless... in that it doesn't discuss JV with any specificity. Any help with NYT would be appreciated. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Review of Resident Evil 6 here, which recaps original Resident Evil. Review of Resident Evil:3 here - scroll down a bit and there's a para re Jill. Both of these are good sources for the reception section too; which still needs trimming down. The NYT allows five free articles per month, so Aoba might be able to grab them. I've not had a chance to review the changes and need to read through the article, but have been out for a few days and probably won't be able to get back here today. Victoria (tk) 13:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits in an attempt to fix the structure and to tighten the prose, but I'm not wedded to them and don't mind if you all decide to revert all of them. This is a really difficult article to get right and I understand why so many people have previously been involved.Basically there are a number of contradictions that need to be explained and resolved:
 * The contradiction between Mikami's premise of an independent, non-objectified Jill and the subsequent iterations of Jill in sexy miniskirt, in body suit, etc., i.e objectified, and the fact that her costumes are a feature of the gameplay, whereas Redfield's are not.
 * There are additional contradictions in the article's structure: "Concept and design" discusses her various appearances (literally) in the various iterations of the series - appearances. The "Appearances" section presents the various plot outlines. "Reception" tells us she's independent and that she's a mascot. It tells us that she's a "competent, clever and professional" soldier, and yet that game publications rank her according to sex appeal.
 * Resolving these contradictions is really difficult, yet it's the underlying issue with getting the article right. My sense is that everything that's presented is to an extent right; Mikami's premise is what it is and then the character was changed; critics discuss different and contradictory facets of the character. The big problem is how to walk the line of not objectifying and overemphasizing physical appearance (personally I think there's too much emphasis on costumes); how to present the contradictions in the criticism. The structural issues are easier to fix, but not so easy in the framework of a FAC. I'm not not sure how much more help I can give, except to tell you to at least try to tighten the prose throughout. Still thinking about how to resolve these conflicts. I really think it would be helpful to get back some of the other editors who've struggled with this article in the past, because the previous editors are basically saying the same thing, but we've all been using different wording, if that makes sense? It would be really nice if we could fix it once and for all, but I think I'm out of my league. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and edits to the article, they've been very helpful. With regards to the article's current structure, I've been following the MOS for Video Game Characters up until now, which I'm beginning to think is insufficient for FA (at least in its current format). I modelled the 'Appearances' section on Lightning (Final Fantasy) (an FA), but definitely agree that it's somewhat of a misnomer for such a section to delve into plot details. I think Kain (Legacy of Kain) would be a better template to use. Or is there another character-specific MOS you think would be more beneficial? Over the past 15 months, I've tried to work with all of the users who've opposed this article, but your comments here have been by far the most informative and productive. Many of the other users have moved on, which is understandable considering FAC1 was way back in August 2017. I'm aware I still need to rectify several of the points you mentioned on September 15th, and will additionally try to amend the article using my own common sense during the next few days. Thanks again for your time and effort. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

,, sorry for the delay in getting back here, but I was waiting for the work to be finished. I've undone the hatting and struck resolved points instead. Eventually I'll move things to the talk page but we're not quite at that point yet. Re unresolved points already mentioned, taking it from the top:
 * To repeat, procedural but because prominently mentioned in the first paragraph of the Featured article candidates page, in my view it would be polite to drop a note directly on the talk pages of the primary contributors. If the coords disagree, they'll tell me. Ping &
 * Prose - still needs work overall. Some specific examples (to emphasize, these are examples only)"
 * wordiness i.e. "A writer for The New York Times said the game series was intentionally designed to make players nervous, explaining that whichever character they chose would be "perpetually low on ammunition and prone to all sorts of attacks from the shadows. ... More troubling, the players couldn't shoot [enemies] unless they stood still themselves."[12] >> is the attribution needed?, can “A writer for New York Times” be eliminated? can this be reworded?  i.e “The game series was designed to make players nervous, 'perpetually low on ammunition and prone to all sorts of attacks from the shadows', unable to shoot unless in danger while standing still"? If it's not rewritten at least please fix the pronoun discrepancy between "A writer" and the next sentence that begins with "They elaborated" ...
 * Please check the tenses throughout. When writing about literature, the norm is to use what's called the literary present (sorry, our article is crappy). What's the norm for video games? Please check other articles. The convention should be something along the lines that the game can be played right now in the present even though designed in the past so we'd write, “Jill is”, “players shoot enemies”. Past is used for something that happened in the past, i.,e "Mikami explained", and even trickier is that you have past-perfect, i.e "characters have been redesigned", i.,e the redesign happened in the past & has been ongoing. My advice would be to check with someone how to write the reception section; in my view if a game/film received good /bad/lukewarm reviews in the past it's prob ok to say "in 2000, such and such wrote", but it gets tricky when tying to each reviewer (a good argument to avoid that); the norm is to use the literary present, because we can read the review right now in the present.


 * Which brings me to the reception section that's still stuffed, i.e overly long, in my view. Is there any way to use summary style and not quote every single review, especially since the franchise has been been around for 25+ years? Converting to summary style would solve the quoting/attributing and I believe awkward grammar as well as making it easier to read.
 * Finally, sourcing: "comprehensive" is not satisfied by using all available sources, but rather identifying, finding, and leaning on the best available sources. I'm seeing significant progress but lower quality sources can be swapped for the higher quality secondary sources. Off the top of my head the best sources are MacCallum, Grimes, the New York Times, the Guardian.
 * Sorry, stopping, very tired. Please ask questions about anything that doesn't make sense. More later, Victoria (tk) 00:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback (BTW, as far as I'm aware, the pings don't work unless accompanied by a new signature—i.e., the 4 ~'s; if so...  & ... I'd love some feedback at this point from either of you as to how best help the article get promoted). Re contacting all previous commentators, that's what I did prior to FAC4, which didn't help matters much: a few provided feedback, several voiced moral support with no real feedback, others ignored the messages I left on their talk pages altogether. Which was to be expected, quite frankly, since FAC1 occurred over 2 years ago. I'll leave some messages at previous-opposing user's talk pages once I feel I've made some progress on this latest commentary. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, won't bore you with the details. But I believe Aoba and I have resolved all of the remaining issues. And as far as I can see, from reading FAs Lightning and Tidus, 'Appearances' sections use literary present, the exception here being the descriptive sentence introducing it (Raccoon City's nuclear destruction). Regarding tense usage, past tense is used for definitives (Jill Valentine was introduced; was the first playable female, etc.) but literary present is used in 'Appearances' (with the exception of in-product flashbacks, where I believe past tense is appropriate). I feel confident in making all of the developmental details past tense, since RE7 (the last original game) used a faceless character from the first-person perspective... which was the most successful Capcom game in nearly 15 years, so I don't see Capcom making any character-specific RE games this side of 2030. Let us know what you think about the prose as it current stands. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ditto, , got delayed myself for a few days. Will try to take a look this evening. Victoria (tk) 22:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Take as much time as you need. Your comments have helped to improve the article immensely. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I was without internet over the weekend, fell behind, and won't get through this tonight. I made a few edits, but reverted myself because of tagging.
 * Basically the issue I still have is what I explained in this post.
 * I think the "Concept" section is still muddled and would prefer someone else take a look; or I simply need accept that I'm unable to review a popular culture article.
 * Could you please explain what you find "muddled" about this section? Apologies for the question, but I want to make sure I fully understand what you mean before making any further changes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe she's referring to the fact that she said 3 weeks ago the 'Reception' section is "stuffed and for some reason Mikami's premise isn't even mentioned until that point", and that those details needed to be moved to 'Concept and design'. So since those details have been moved, now 'Concept and design' is "muddled". There's only so much one can do with the MOS for Video Game Characters, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I think the important points are now all together; re Mikami's design, and how the subsequent re-designs changed the original character. The issue, for me, is that the it's not flowing well from one point to the next. That's what I meant by muddled - it's a term I use for my own articles when I have trouble getting a point just right. Sometimes, it takes time to shuffle things around until everything falls into place so it flows well, if that makes better sense? Anyway, will take another look tomorrow. I do think progress has been made since this version, when I first starting looking at it seriously. Sorry, but need to go now. Victoria (tk) 01:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not offended; hopefully, I did not cause any offense either. I was merely asking for clarification. I will read through the section more tomorrow when I get the chance and focus on building stronger transitions between the paragraphs. Thank you for your help so far, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure she was referring to me. ;) In which case I'd need to apologise. Those things I said I wouldn't "bore you with" have definitely impacted my mood these past few days (all related to my aforementioned dental work: which caused a gum infection, which has spread to my left ear canal, which is causing some horrible migraines). Started antibiotics today, so will hopefully be in a better mood tomorrow. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Re the NYT section re low ammunition, I was thinking something more along the lines of this point, "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis offers an easy mode, but it's still difficult. You begin as Jill Valentine, a cop, but you'll eventually change characters. Jill's goal is to leave town, a process made especially difficult by a creature whose sole purpose is to kill all the members of the elite police team Jill belonged to. NYT Evil & repitition", which is more Jill-centered. But I can understand why you used the material you did. I'm just not sure it works well in the flow.
 * I don't particularly understand what you mean by quoting an entire paragraph from this article. What exactly could be paraphrased from this? That Nemesis has an "easy mode"? That's the only thing in that quote not currently included on the article using other sources. Carlos Oliviera; Jill's goal in RE3 is to escape Raccoon City before its nuclear destruction; Nemesis's "sole" task being to kill all remaining members of the RE1 team—this is already on the article, referenced to both this source and several of the academic ones. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically I need to think about it and try another run through. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd still like someone like, who raised the issues of the discrepancies to take a look, or to have who's put a lot of work into the article take a look.
 * I've reinstated most of the edits you made this evening, with the exception of that one sentence: I thought you trimmed too many things into the one sentence, and didn't feel that the "standing still" aspect was properly explained. I have no problem with commenting on the article at this point – although she ignored all my talk page messages and pings so far – and also  Thanks for all your work so far. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * and just popping in to acknowledge that I've seen all of this. My sense is that we're making enough progress to justify continuing. I noted that Aoba made a number of edits last night but haven't had time to read through the article; will try again to get to it this evening. Also, Homeostasis, if sounds as if a few days rest would do you some good. I'm not in a rush, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 20:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for those edits. I was trying to test out a few ideas on how to best address some of the points raised above. I will refrain from making any further edits to the article to allow you (and anyone else) to read through the article in full and form a full understanding/assessment of it. I think it would be helpful for me to not look at the article for a day or two as some distance may be helpful so I can review everything again with a fresh perspective to catch any mistakes or awkward phrasing that I may be reading over. Again, apologies for the edits, and I will not be changing anything until I hear back from you. Take as much time as you need! I agree there is no reason to rush, and the focus should be on making the article as strong and cohesive as it can be. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * don't apologize! I've just skimmed through and it's reading much better. I think you managed to unmuddle it (if that's a word), so nice work. I need perspective too, and I'm too tired at the moment to give it my full attention, so I'll give it another day or so in case either of you wants to make any additional tweaks. Then I'll read through top to bottom. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 23:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And unmuddle should definitely be a word lol. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a few more edits, mostly copy-editing at this point. Given the amount of work done and the significant progress I support at this point. I'm sure both of you will be happy to hear that! Thanks, btw for putting in the effort. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wanted to point out this edit, because I was trying to avoid the "some" which begs for a clarification tag, so I checked and realized both are women; one a professor of digital media, the other a game designer & game journalist so I rephrased, but you might not like it & I don't mind if it gets tweaked. It did make me realize that in the post-Gamergate era we really should mention Anita Sarkeesian's comments which, I believe, did get coverage in secondary sources.
 * In this edit I reworded/copyedited but not entirely successfully and might have messed up the verb structure as you have it (I had "literary present" beaten into me and don't seem to be able to think any other way), so feel free to fix/reword/tweak.
 * For the record, I still think there's a bit too much emphasis on the many costumes; now that the article explains that redesigns & costumes are a staple of the franchise it gets a little repetitive reading about it, but I recognize the work that's been done during the FAC, so only mentioning at this point.
 * Just so the coords know, I've not looked at source formatting or images files.
 * Thank you for the support and for your help in the review as a whole. I will research Sarkessian's comments further and see if there are any secondary sources. I am quite terrible with tenses so I completely understand. I knew at one point in my life what the correct tense was for literary analysis, but I have since gotten that quite muddled. I will also look into the parts about the costumes in the future. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, Victoriaearle. As a user who had opposed during previous FACs, this means a lot. I believe I've rectified all remaining tensing issues. Also, I've reintroduced Anita Sarkeesian's commentary, although I'm not especially happy with the source quality (I've used the best I could find). I recall reading a paragraph of one of the secondary sources opening with "As per Sarkeesian", but remember thinking the paragraph didn't explain much. Will try to find again and hopefully rephrase what's there using that source. Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from DAP
There aren't many comments to add that haven't already been addressed. My only concerns with this article are the instances where A) an inline citation disrupts the flow and readability and B) a sentence lacks clarity because the source information has not been properly paraphrased/integrated.
 * "'In 2014, Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games. In addition to not eroticizing female characters, he said he refused to portray women who were submissive to men and wrote female characters "who discover their independence as the game progresses, or who already know they are independent but have that tested against a series of challenges'", per B. This does a poor job of illustrating the connection between Valentine's persona and Mikami's vision of his female characters. Since it is pertinent information, however, you could say something like "Mikami's vision of Valentine reflected his desire to portray female characters that either sought independence, or have their already-found independence challenged in the story".
 * Revised. I have used your suggestion as I agree that it works better, but please let me know if further work is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "she discovered the property was a façade for a biological warfare laboratory operated by the Umbrella Corporation and that its undead occupants are scientists who had been developing the T-virus mutagen", clunky. These are separate clauses, "she discovered the property was a façade for a biological warfare laboratory operated by the Umbrella Corporation, where".
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "Mikami explained that Resident Evil 2 protagonist Claire Redfield was due to feature as the lead in the concurrently-produced Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000)", per A. Also repetitive since Mikami's name is already mentioned in the prior sentence.
 * I believe Mikami's name is used here because the previous sentence mentions both Mikami and the director for Nemesis, and the name is repeated to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation with the director. However, I can still make the adjustment if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all. Great work otherwise, and apologies for the late review! DAP 💅 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion, and there is no need to apologize. It is always important to get as many perspectives as possible on an article to get it in the best possible shape. I believe that I addressed your points, but please let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, I believe Aoba47 has rectified all of your comments, but please let us know if there's anything else you'd like to see done. Cheers. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything looks good. Happy to provide my support. DAP  💅 03:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
Just a placeholder to remind myself that image and source reviews are still to come and have been requested at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Any chance of either an image or source review? I ask because you source reviewed FAC4, and image reviewed FAC3 (images in current version of the article are the same as FAC3). Would appreciate any help in moving this along. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Source comments
I intended to begin a full source review but getting tripped up on some early issues:
 * I'm having trouble parsing your citation strategy. What is the purpose of the "Works cited" section when it doesn't include all the works you've cited? Is it meant to be just books? There seem to be things other than books in there, so I'm unsure what's going on.
 * From the best of my understanding, the "Works cited" section has the full citations to the book and article sources, and the "References" section has the page numbers for these sources and the web sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Works cited" section is a complete list of the offline sources used on the article (novels, periodicals, official strategy guides containing descriptive content from character developers, academic papers, etc.); "References" contains all the online sources, while noting the page numbers of the offline sources using the SFN formatting. I'd like to move the only remaining periodical in 'References' (#56: 'Keeping the Nightmare Alive'), but you can't use the SFN formatting unless you have a cited author, which this article has neglected to do. Hopefully this has made things clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't actually think Guinness is considered a reliable source for anything other than that they awarded someone with something. They're not well-known for being thorough in their research and their claims are often disputed. So I think you'll need to find a better source for Valentine being the first playable female character in the genre, and anything else you're using them for.
 * That is a good point. After doing more research on the subject, I do not believe the "the first playable female character in the genre" claim is correct. The 1992 survival horror game Alone in the Dark has a playable female character (Emily Hartwood) four years before Valentine was playable in Resident Evil. I am going to remove the claim from the article, but I would also like to get Homeostasis07's opinion. Given Alone in the Dark, I think it is safe to say that this is false. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Fn 114... I find this statement and its collection of citations troubling. The prose indicates causation, but none of those sources support that claim. And why are those four examples particularly notable or relevant? They seem like mostly fluff pieces. Also, the sentence contains a that/which error.
 * Understandable. Would it be better to change that sentence to something like the following: (Valentine, however, has been included on lists that rank characters on their sex appeal.)? It would remove the causation concern in favor of a blanket statement that Valentine has received attention from media outlets based on her perceived sex appeal. I am hesitant about removing the sentence and citations altogether as Valentine has received quite a bit of focus for this perceived sex appeal so I am trying to think of a way to better represent that information. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideally I'd prefer to see one or two strong secondary source summarizing the phenomenon, rather than writing that she got placed on a bunch of lists of sexy video game characters and providing a handful of examples. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Homeostasis07 has a better grasp on the sources (and whether or not there are stronger secondary sources that could replace the ones in question in the suggested way) so I will leave that up to him. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I spent several hours re-reading the secondary sources, but couldn't find any mention of this. So I've removed both the sentence and the sources for the time being. I'll re-add if and when I find a secondary source to back up the claim. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good intermediate measure but I think it's something that's likely to be correct, so the solution is to find the appropriate sources that verify the connection. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as I want to find a secondary source and re-add the information, I've just spent another 3 hours scouring and can't find anything connecting the sentiment with a high-quality (secondary) reference. All I found was this, which isn't secondary and doesn't specifically address the issue at hand. Let me know if this is an issue for promotion and I'll search again tomorrow (though I'm not hopeful I can find anything: I've re-read all the secondary sources currently included on the article, as well as a bunch of others). Or would it be acceptable to reintroduce Aoba's more neutral wording above, sourced with the most high-quality reference I'd previously removed? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find a secondary source confirming that Valentine has appeared on lists of characters based on their sex appeal, but I have found the following which I think could be used instead to make an altogether more substantial point: Geek Heroines: An Encyclopedia of Female Heroes in Popular Culture by Karen M. Walsh, page 172: "Despite his [character creator Shinji Mikami's] anti-oversexualized female character beliefs, the Jill Valentine costume for Resident Evil 3 overtly deviated from her previous clothing. The form-fitting tube top under-mined the previous iteration's utilitarianism. However, by her next incorporation in the series, the art had reverted to a more militaristic style." This quote provides causation for the discrepancy in the character's sudden shift in appearance, and highlights how such a difference is notable with regard to Mikami's original iteration of the character. I believe the whole paragraph can be recast using this new source, which I've done in my sandbox. Let me know if you're satisfied with my rewrite there, and I'll transfer to the article. transferred to the article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to check with a couple library databases tomorrow and see if I can find something. I'm concerned that we'll be missing a key point just because we can't find the appropriate sources for it. This would create a comprehensiveness issue. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I didn't really find anything worthwhile. I'll try to wrap up the source review soon so we can assess whether this is ready for promotion. I'll be recusing since I've left more in-depth comments, so, I'll ask you to look at this in a couple days. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help! I have also tried to do some further research on the matter and was creative with my search terms, but I could not find anything really concrete or worthwhile either. I appreciate your help with the source review as it has helped to improve the article a lot. Hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll be back with more in the coming days. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review so far. I have left responses to the comments above. I hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Fn 117: Are there words missing from the footnote? The statement doesn't make sense to me. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Revised. Thank you for catching that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Some footnotes that state page numbers have a terminal period and others don't—make consistent. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have corrected this. The difference was due to how certain sources use sfn and others use harvnb. The sfn citation/coding seems to automatically add the terminal period while the harvnb does not. I have manually added the period for the harvnb sources for consistency. I would encourage you to look through the citations again to make sure I caught everything though. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't really care for your citation system on this article. I find it confusing. But, me personally liking it is not a requirement for FA. I am satisfied that the sources are all in order now. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this out while I was away, Aoba. To be clear, the article primilarly uses the SFN formatting for book/academic/offline references (with page numbers included). However, SFN does not allow the usage of  so, in certain circumstances when a single page number is cited for different content over different sections, I've used HARVNB instead, which does allow  . Hope this has made things clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Jill_Valentine_original_outfit.png: source link appears to go to a different image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems the source website has changed some of their image URLs. I've fixed this now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)