Talk:Kasumi (Dead or Alive)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 08:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review with Judgesurreal77

Overall excellent work, take your time and work through the issues, and let me know if you need clarification or help.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The sentence next to reference 18 does not say why fans found her Dimensions costume controversial.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I would use the User:Dispenser/Checklinks tool because some of your links are timing out or dead, such as that guy with the glasses. Also, I looked at most of your references, and a few I would like to hear about their reliability in this case;Team ninja, Joy Stick division, QJ net, Digital entertainment news, and Game Target.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	There seems to be at least one paragraph that has no references, make sure paragraphs have at least one each.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image fair use rationale for the clones is too bare bones and generic. Why is it needed for this article? What crucial information does it convey?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Here is one area the article would benefit; unless the image of the clones is very important, perhaps the image should be replaced with one of the character doing her signature move, the high kick, which could go anywhere, even in the controversy section. Also, any coplayers dress as her? Could get another free image for the reception section.
	7. Overall assessment.	Closing as not passed, due to failing to establish the sources used are reliable, and for refusing to make or allow changes such as removing or replacing dead links. It a shame, a little work and less wikilawyering would have made it an easy pass. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed "controversial", controversies are elsewhere. --Niemti (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Just to clarify, why were fans upset? Readers, like myself, would love to know why the fans would be upset about her normally highly praised "clothing". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Some/many were, on the forums and such. I can see how this outfit is kinda ugly.

Now,

• Team Ninja
• QuickJump is citing this interview: [1] (Xbox Nation is a defunct magazine, about it: [2])
• Digital Entertainment News: I suppose they would be sued by sue-happy Tecomo lawyers if the interview was fake. (They, and the interview, was still online in 2011.)
• Gaming Target (correct name)
• Joystick Division (correct name)

I don't understand "too bare bones and generic". It conveys.... um, how Alpha-152 looks like? (While regular Alpha looks like the real Kasumi, just in a different outfit.[3][4]) I think an image of a signature move would rather be completely generic, like this high kick is just a completly vertical kick.[5] I can't really think about anything essential to illustrate this section, all of the free pics from Commons are aready in use (all 2). --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

--Niemti (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Which paragraph? (Btw, in "Mistakes to avoid": Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.)). --Niemti (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you really just move the images I moved back to where they were before with discussing it? It is very hostile to revert edits of a GA reviewer who is very experienced at building GA's and FA', and who is trying to help you pass this article, please do not do so again. Second, please add more detail to the fair use description, tell us why the image needs to be shown in the article, why its crucial we see an image of Alpha-152. Third, take my suggestion, as I took time to review your article, and get an image of the high kick, as it is notable per your own article, or explain to me why the Alpha-152 image is notable. Fourth, look around and see if their is a free use image of anyone cosplaying as the character. it would be good to have a free use image, especially as the article heads to Featured Status. Finally, add details to the sentence that says why the costume was disliked by fans, people would want that detail explained. If any of these ideas is disagreeable to you, I would say that the article, in its present state, is not fit for Good Article Status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You did it? Why would you do it? The white space was enormous even with just with my 22 inch 1680 x 1050 (which is not very big, so just imagine how it would like with this 27 inch 2560 x 1440 and such, or even something larger still - it would be like an entire screen of white space, or even more). It's for GA (I never go to FA). It is obviously crucial because Kasumi Alpha-152 looks basically nothing like Kasumi (as you can see?), the high kick is just very high and really nothing that needs an image (and the sources show these covers too,[6] plus the covers can be only used to illustrate works on Wikipedia and only on the top of the article). All of free images are aleady used (which means all 2 of them, and I was actually suprised to find even these 2). The source says nothing about why exactly was it disliked and I can't go into fan opinions because of notability/original research. --Niemti (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Here, take a look: [7] (and it's not even an actually big monitor). Well, so I did it, but that's really strange, and I've never heard about such criteria anywhere - please give me a link about it (especially since Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria.). OK, just found it (not that I agree). --Niemti (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So, everything OK now? --Niemti (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bump (let's make it quick). --Niemti (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)