Wikipedia:Peer review/R. Mika/archive1

R. Mika

I've listed this article for peer review because I want some thoughts on the general content of this article before sending it to GAN. I do feel that the potential is there.

Thanks, Kokoro20 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• First time I've seen a character article with credible sourcing in a long time.
• Avoid "controversy" sections
• The butt-slapping is gratuitous on incessant replay, even if it is the entire point of the article. I'd convert it to webm (if the fair use allows for it at all—most cases I've seen of fair use videos were murky).

czar 22:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What would you suggest I rename the section then? Or perhaps should I just have it all under one reception section?

Well, Wikipedia is not censored, and I do feel it fits fine (and better than a still image would) with the controversy surrounding it. Kokoro20 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'd just remove the header and absorb it into Reception. I suggested converting the garish GIF into webm video format, which plays on-click. I didn't even suggest not picturing it so "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't even factor. czar 16:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I must have misunderstood you. Well, I don't know how exactly to convert it to webm, so I may need to just leave it as a gif. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it fails WP:Lead due to its short introduction. I haven't played Street Fighter V but doesn't every character in the game has a story mode? That could be helpful. I would suggest using Rufus (Street Fighter) as an example. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I think the lead summarizes the article pretty well as it is. What would you suggest to add? Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from IDV

(edit conflict) In addition to what Czar said above:

• Pretty much all the quotes seem possible to paraphrase. I recommend that you do this.
• Street Fighter V is not a long title, so I don't think it's necessary to shorten it to "SFV"
• I wouldn't say that her breasts are covered by two hearts, but rather that her clothes have a heart pattern in the breast area - the current wording makes it sound like she's wearing pasties or something. It'd be nice if you could find a source for the design and the design change.
• Not all refs have an access-date, and some only have the month filled in.
• Some of the refs use the YYYY-MM-DD format - change them to be consistent with the rest.
• You do not currently refer to the websites in a consistent way - for instance you write "Kotaku", but also "Destructoid". USgamer should be written like so and not as two words. PC Gamer should be written as two words and not in all lowercase letters. Eurogamer and some others should have their names written out, and not their URLs.
• You don't need to credit the Game Informer ref to the "Staff" - if they don't specify who wrote it, you can just leave out the author parameters entirely.

--IDV^talk 01:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@IDV:

1. I have tried paraphrasing some of this already. What else would you suggest to paraphrase?

2. I disagree. While Street Fighter V is not a long title, I don't see the need to say the full name every single time. I should be pretty easy to deduce that SFV means Street Fighter V anyway.

3. That's a good point. I'll see about changing that part.

I'll fix the rest later. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns now, @IDV:. Anything else before I nominate this for GA? Kokoro20 (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There are still a couple of "|accessdate=May 2016" that should be changed to an exact date. As for paraphrasing, well, long quotes such as "I can say that I have nothing against, er, voluptuous women in games. Or even scantily-clad women. My problem has always been women characters whom I'm expected to take seriously while they slay dragons/wander the desert/travel the frozen wastes while baring their midriff through the majority of their journey" should be changed, especially since there are quite a few of them in the article. For this one, I guess you could do something like - [...] an example of positive female gender representation, writing that she did not have anything against sexually attractive or half-clothed female video game characters as long as they are not meant to be taken seriously. If it gets too long, you can split it into two sentences.--IDV^talk 12:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@IDV: I've tried fixing those parts now. I went ahead and split that quote into two sentences. Anything else? Kokoro20 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Satellizer

• I don't think merging the controversy section into reception is a great idea imo. After reading WP:CSECTION (I'll be honest - I didn't know that the policy even existed, and I've never seen it actually applied) I believe the gist of it is that "criticism" sections are generally to be avoided as they exclusively criticize the subject matter and are thus non-neutral. However, here, the "controversy" section here is covered in an entirely neutral fashion - you have sources supporting the censorship, and others suggesting it's nonsense. Not only that, it isn't even "criticism" per se, it's just acknowledging that a problem with censorship took place and the gamer community has mixed feelings about it. NPOV is hardly an issue here. Merging the controversy into reception is problematic as the "controversy" section is about R. Mika's butt slap action in SFV and "reception" is analysis of the character as a whole. They are two different subjects. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point, @Satellizer:. I wasn't too keen on merging those sections together, honestly. Also, note that WP:CSECTION is only an essay anyway, not a policy. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)