Talk:Kasumi (Dead or Alive)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Starting review. bridies (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

1

• There's a quote which should be paraphrased to use plain English. Specifically, Kasumi-Den, should just be replaced with "Kasumi's biography" (or whatever word fits best).
• In-universe style and tone issues in the "Dead or Alive series" subsection. Try and clean it up a bit.
• Same with the first paragraph of "other games", which I think is supposed to be describing the plot of Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, but barely makes much sense.
• This doesn't make sense: for which a CD of "100 simulations of boob action voice". The source doesn't seem to make sense of it either: What does [sic] those "boob action voice" simulations sound like? Dunno!.
• "Eye candy" used as a synonym for "attractiveness" again.
• You might consider some subsections in the reception section.

2

• The last paragraph of the "Dead or Alive series" subsection needs sources, as it's subjective interpretation.
• Same with stuff like "Alpha 152 seems to be made up of pure energy, born with an untainted hate of the world and created to destroy all."
• She was played by Devon Aoki, who however bears no physical similarity to the character she portrayed and many felt she appeared to be miscast in this role. Source?
• The film Kiss of the Dragon is referenced... Source?
• Dead or Alive 5 pre-order bonuses included "Kasumi and Ayane Sexy Costume". I can't find this quote in the source.
• Unreality Magazine appears to a blog, not a magazine, and unreliable.
• Negative reception of the game character was relatively rare, mostly involving accusation of sexual objectification. Is there a source which says this specifically? Otherwise it's original synthesis/editorialising.

3

• Broad. Probably not much to this character other than sex appeal, tbh.

4

• Neutral, except maybe the commentary on the film (see above).

5

• Stable.

6

• Images are OK, but improve the FURs. bridies (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. "'Kasumi-Den" is what Itagaki said ("Den" is just "story", like in Ninja Gaiden, nothing about any "biography") and he didn't use "plain English" (neither he did with the title Ninja Gaiden, where the English title doesn't exist). Like where? Of course it's plot, which, yes, "barely makes much sense". And "100 simulations of boob action voice" also properly makes no sense, too, because it's in Engrish and the source didn't translate it to English. Eye candy isn't simply a synonym of "attractiveness", contrary to what Wikipedia claims (2. something intended to be attractive to the eye without being demanding or contributing anything essential / visual images that are pleasing to see but are intellectually undemanding). No need, it's simply by paragraphs.

2. Discussed in reception a lot (maybe it's "subjective interpretation" indeed, but in a good way). See a picture, it's indeed energy (blue/green energy) and remains so in DOA5 too([1]). No source, but also not really needed. Guess I'll look for this one. Apparenty it's totally confused and actually quite other way round, see [2] (the Premium Sexy costumes for A&K were standard, CE just gives them for the other characters too) so this should be removed. Unreality's not a blog, it's an online mag, but also not notable. The following sentences and their refs - of course; if this was a case, everything of the lead is "original synthesis/editorialising". --Niemti (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on the Premium Sexy thing. But you should restore her DOA5 story mode. --Niemti (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Engrish": paraphrase it. We shouldn't be directly quoting stuff that doesn't make any sense. Ditto with "den", just paraphrase the quote so the article uses plain English (Do we have kanji for "den"? Seems to me it's "legend" or "biography", but "story" is fine). If we can't figure out what "simulations of boob action voice" means then leave it out (I think it means samples of her voice when someone is "squeezing, biting and poking" her breasts; and that "simulations" is supposed to be "stimulations").
• The definition of "eye candy" you linked gives it as "informal", as I said. "Eye candy" is actually mentioned earlier in the article and should be linked there, rather than later (if it needs to linked, tbh).
• Statements like "seems to be made of pure energy", or seems to anything regarding primary sources, need a secondary source. Same with the film reference.
• The lead doesn't make statements about what was "...relatively rare, mostly involving...". If you must synthesise claims, keep it general, vague and neutral. bridies (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Kasumi Den was of course simply a wordplay on Ninja Gaiden (there was also a similar wordplay of "Cat or Alive"[3] which is not in the article I think). Now you want to explain this, but you removed the translation of the word "Kasumi"? My English is second-hand. "Made of energy" is like "sky is blue" (when it is blue). Also in DOA5 even a normal Alpha dissolves into energy after she is killed (killed for no apparent reason, but the plot generally is weird and stupid). Oh, and 152 is also turning into Hayate and Ryu (in DOA5). --Niemti (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I just removed that because it's redundant: the first sentence gives the translation of her name. "The sky is blue" (which always seems to be the analogy used in these disagreements, why oh why) is not the same as "made of energy", which is vague, dubious, and would probably make a physicist cry. bridies (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

She's literally created from energy, composed of energy, and dissolves into energy blast when destroyed.[4] (skip to 19 minute and start watching). It's also just a video game. --Niemti (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Energy; energy. "Energy" (and "energy blast"?) is not a word which works here. Maybe just say she's blue and made of an unknown fictional matter. bridies (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you even see this clip? It's no not matter, she's created by generators. Also, it's just a video game where the NORMAL KASUMI TELEPORTS AROUND BECAUSE SHE CAN and her half-sister creates massive energy ("energy energy") blasts from her hand. Due to magic. Which I guess will cause "a physicist" head explode. --Niemti (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So? We write about it from a real-world perspective, from which "seems to be made of pure energy" makes no sense. This is just part of the wider problem of in-universe style in the plot section(s). bridies (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's sure not "pure energy". It's more like "impure" (as in: evil) :D --Niemti (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I tagged "cn" at your "fictional matter" claim. Also "dubious". --Niemti (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Copy edit
• She was later turned into the evil Alpha-152... Does this refer to the in-game story, or is it a design change in the real world? bridies (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Both, retconned in Dimensions (also unlockable in it too). --Niemti (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Same issue: She was originally designed as Kasumi's figure made of light, however in the final game she was changed into a translucent, liquid-like form of Kasumi. So is that "designed by the game's developers", or "designed by DOATEC"? Or both again? :) bridies (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. --Niemti (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Failed Prose still doesn't meet 1a: it's not "clear and concise". The reception section is an overly-long wall of quotes, with little discernible thematic coherence. Fails 5 on edit warring and ownership issues ([5], [6]). bridies (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And you also failed to heck out the actual improvement by me during what you called "edit warring" (archived urls, cited authors, with VERY discernible thematic coherence). --Niemti (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And because you had to be pointed out, the "discernible thematic coherence" goes like that:

1. General
2. Personality
3. Top ninja
4. Top hot

#GameDaily (plus PC Games) (abolished now)

1. Negative
2. Film

And you can just compare it with most GAs, where it's all total mess, not even sorted by dates (or dated at all, besides the worthless "Retrieved" or "last accessed" that is never updated), where dead links are neither noted nor archived, where even merchandise ("promotion") is mixed with reception, etc etc. So I kinda feel insulted now. --Niemti (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've been reviewing a few of these (this nominator's character GANs) at the same time and gave my rationale for adding subsections in another review with similar issues (here and here). I also mentioned subsections in my original comments. Perhaps it was too much to expect the nom to put 2 and 2 together; in any case, when reverting good faith edits, one must provide a reason, which the nominator did not. Hence the edit warring, and WP:OWN violation, as I see it. I trust my opinion regarding what is and isn't coherent prose more than I do Niemti's. bridies (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is "nope" isn't a valid reason to revert "a reason" to revert my improvements (which were still in progress and there were several more)? That included archiving the dead links, but I guess you "trust" the dead links more. You threw a fit because I didn't approve your edit AND your unexplained revert of my edit. --Niemti (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Also "your prose" that you "trust" so much was just bad, including starting the section with a sentence with "Kasumi has also been positively received for her personality traits" - this "also" no longer making any sense. Your whole edit was just to quickly move some stuff around randomly ("popularity in Japan" or "Xbox hotties" =/= "personality traits"):[7] (Btw, don't pust empty lines after section titles.) And what I did was: moving stuff around, but with sense (and much more); archiving dead links; citing authors; various small edits for a better style and flow. --Niemti (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

lol, and just removing "also", wouldn't have been feasible? You have no idea what constitutes bad prose. I put the popularity-in-Japan with the "personality traits" (as you called it) because those are about the only things you wrote about other than her tits and clothes. I didn't "throw a fit". I could and should (dozens of copy edits is more than a "reviewer" should be making) have failed the article in the first place for the very poor prose; I was happy enough to do the copy editing work myself but decided I'd rather not continue in the face of you being a gratuitous pain in the arse. You can't "approve" my edits, as you don't own the article; I gave a rationale for adding subsections (as if the purpose of adding explanatory headings isn't inherently obvious); you haven't given a rationale for having a section the length of which would out of place in the article on WWII, never mind a video game pin-up. bridies (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, because I did so much more, including archiving dead links. But you reverted me, because you apparently "trust" dead links. Or something. Or maybe you didn't even check. And no, you can't force your edits, including reverting constructive (and bigger) edits, "as you don't own the article" neither. Instead of waiting for me to finish (it's done now, and you can check), you threw a fit. And as of "articles on WWII", warfare GAs are quite often really badly written (this one was GAd just less than 1 year ago). And if you think I was the single editor on this article, you're mistaken. And you could find and add all you wanted more, wonder why you didn't. Your previous work was constructive, but now you suddenly threw a fit not even waiting for me to finish, because "I trust my opinion regarding what is and isn't coherent prose more than I do Niemti's" (wtf lol). --Niemti (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, and it's still bad. You've added more editorialising and tenses that don't match, it's still a massive block of quotes, and it still goes on and on essentially saying "she's hot" over and over (that "ninja" paragraph is just "she's a hot ninja"). So it still fails 1a (and probably breadth/depth and neutrality), as well 5. Are we done yet? The only person I see "throwing a fit" is you. bridies (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. I don't know "more editorialising and tenses that don't match" you mean, but it was "a massive block of quotes" and what not in your oh-so perfect edit, too. And no, this paragraph not just "she's a hot ninja" (not completely). I was just expressing my dismay, not throwing a fit, like you did for my revert of your revert (which brought back dead links back). --Niemti (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, just expressing my dismay. Well, I was merely expressing a new-found preference to justifiably fail the article rather than, as I believe I put it, continuing in the face of you being a gratuitous pain in the posterior. As I said. bridies (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, "justifiably fail" for me not readily surrendering to your own edit warring to put your single, quick, unilateral AND misguided edit back in, completely with dead links, in complete disregard of my work (which was still in progress, literally). That was a good one. --Niemti (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What part of does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute don't you understand? bridies (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And it was you who reverted my follow-up edit, which was quite substantial and absolutely constructive (including fixing the non-GamePro dead links) just because you wanted your quick, POOR quality edit back so much. And it was you who "failed" even as I was still rewriting (literally in the middle of my dozen or so edits) not even waiting for me to finish so you could see how it's different then. Also, I guess I should tell you: I just don't like working with you anymore. That's all. --Niemti (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)