Talk:Leo Kliesen

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leo Kliesen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

1. I see that Bajiquan is referenced, but I question if it's notable enough to mention in the infobox. I understand the value of including fighting styles in the infobox for fighting game characters, but I wonder if it shouldn't be reserved for characters whose fighting style is the subject of commentary. NOTE: I have not actually verified whether the reception covers his fighting style yet, this was just food for thought in case it wasn't (which I'll find out soon).
   1. I think with fighting game characters it's always been assumed to be a thing to include with the character's description because it helps give a better sense of how they play visually or their personality (think like trying to explain Dhalsim without yoga).

Images

1. The lead image appears to be outdated, with missing fields
   1. Fixed
2. I feel like Leo's lead image is a bit tall, squishing the Conception and design section.
   1. Bit unavoidable due to their ageho, shrunk it to 90% upright to try and fix

Conception and design

1. The infobox squishing the Conception and design section is worsened by the screenshot, which I feel could be placed in the Reception section to avoid that.
   1. Moved down to appearances.

Appearances

1. Should the VA details be here?
   1. No further dev info as it were, so fits with how other articles handle such.
2. I feel that the gameplay discussion might make more sense before the manga discussion.
   1. Fixed

Reception

1. "He cited players using blogs and message board that when discussing the character acknowledged Leo's gender ambiguity, but still questioned if the character was male or female directly afterward." Not sure what this means? Are the forum users acknowledging their gender ambiguity and then questioning it anyway?
   1. Fixed the wording, but yeah that's exactly what they're doing.

Spotcheck

1. Is this a reliable source?
   1. their About us is very detailed page and I've used them on Good article nominations prior.
2. Is this a reliable source?
   1. Dunai Games is a major news outlet in Indonesia, and is primarily used here to corroborate information from the game's credits as a secondary source.
3. Is this a reliable source?
   1. Major british outlet, used in the same way as Dunai to corroborate game credits.
4. Is this a reliable source?
   1. Removed after careful checking.
5. Is this a reliable source?
   1. Former print magazine, used to be partnered with GamePro, major German gaming publication.
6. Reviewed [1] [2] [3] [4] All good, except the fourth, which does not make clear that Leo is in the game. I found this site instead: [5]
   1. Replaced

All right, passed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Jaggi article

@Kung Fu Man: Saw the mention on Discord. Not related to the current editing, but I'm not a huge fan of the Jaggi source used in the article currently. The section on Leo isn't very long, and can be read a few different ways, and... I'm not here to beat up on poor English, but given that the author makes a number of grammatical blunders ("Unchartered 2" repeatedly, errors like a missing "the" before "USA's position", etc.), it seems sketchy to do a very close reading of the phrasing in the Leo section. More generally, I'm just not really certain I buy Jaggi did a particularly deep research on the topic of Leo specifically. What did she mean by "mature content?" Were these complaints anything deeper than people on Twitter? Who knows. The methodology section does not fill me with hope, either, and the conclusion isn't really about either fan reception or later official use. Any objections to just ditching the sentence entirely? Surely there's some other source that covers complaints if they were relevant. SnowFire (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel it needs to be kept to make the subsequent sources work well, even if it's weaker. It's a lynchpin.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)