Talk:Resident Evil 4/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jinnai (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Plot seems to wikilink random terms like U.S. government, but not U.S. Secret Service.

Plot section needs an overhaul. It's very poorly written with tons of mistakes too numerous to list.

Check that again a bit later. ((Done}}

Mostly okay. This could use some checking again because I noticed a heavy use of proper nouns such as "Leon later learns that Jack Krauser, one of Leon's former comrades" instead of "Leon later learns one of his former comrades, Jack Krauser,"

 Done-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of small paragraphs and subsections (such as in Versions and 2 small subsections for merchandise.

Inconsistant usage of "over the shoulder". At the top its hiphenated. At the bottom its in quotes as not hyphenated. Pick one or the other or better yet don't use it outside quotes (and pick one style for quotes).

Manual of Style compliance:

hyphenated words like "over-the-shoulder" as opposed to "third person" or "one-hit kill attacks" as opposed to "killing blow" or "instant kill attack" (as some ideas), "parasitically-controlled humans" to something else (not sure what but that doesn't flow right). When its used by RSes such as #2 it should be quoted and referenced as that's a non-standard term.

Partially dealt with. The term is linked to first third-person shooter which no evidence there would show that the two are the same subject. If Porbably better to rephrase that first instance to something like ...over-the-shoulder third person shooter..."

addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"They are significantly smarter and quicker than the zombies from the previous games in the series. " OR not supported by the source (5)

"Dante" does not need a quote.

149 - title is in all caps.

Not sure because you changed some sources, but 132 is still all caps.

 Done-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

*44 - name in source in all caps.

Sorry. Looks like Hi Corp is spelled with all caps in one instance.

 Done-SCB '92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - waiting for the reliability to be addressed or sources removed.

First and foremost, many titles are improper. Titles should be 'EXACTLY like the page's title, save for MOS compliance.

• 2 - Why is Soptpedia a RS?
• 8 - Why is Gamethink a RS?
• 11 - is outright unreliable as those are user submitted.
  • addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 39 - IGN.com is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
  • addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 53 - GamePro.de is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
  • addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 57 - Why is Slacknews a RS?
• 70 & 71 - Why is andriasang a RS? Also andriasang.com is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
  • Andriasang is reliable, as I stated below, and have addressed the issue-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• 62 - Why is Cheat Code Centra a RS?
• 63 - Why is Games We Like a RS?
• 68 - Why is Cubed3 a RS?
  • Still not convinced its a RS.
• 74 - Why is Capcom-Unity a RS?
  • reliable as a primary source-SCB '92 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• 80 - Why is HI Corp a RS?
• 69 & 81 - Why is Justin Elroy reliable?
• 83 - Why is Touch Arcade a RS?
• 85 - Why is PR-inside a RS?
  • reliable as a primary source-SCB '92 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• 86 - Why is colider a RS? Also collider.com is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
• 87 - Why is levelselect a RS? Also levelselect.co.uk is not the name of the publisher. URL =/= publisher.
• 88 - Why is KingZombie a RS?
• 28, 31, 40, 44, 47, 53 & 141 - needs |trans_title=.
• 150 & 151 - no issue # or date.
• 156 - why is UGO Netowrks reliable (it was only recently aquired by IGN)?
• 157 - why is Jim Sterling reliable?
• 181 - why is Leigh Alexander reliable?

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

based on Kamiya's idea to make a "cool" and "stylish" action game. - looks like a trucated quote with the "cool" and "stylish" seperated like that. If those are important, the quote should be used. If they are in seperate sections, then more of the surrounding statements should be used as it otherwise looks like cherrypiccking parts to quote.

Though the developers tried to make the "coolness" theme fit into the world of Resident Evil, needs a citation after the comma since "coolness" appears to be being quoted, it needs a citation at the first punctunation market after.

Ditto for "hook man version", especially if its name is all lowercase.

Australia received an exclusive collector's edition that comes with the game, and a bonus disc with interviews and creator's footage for both the game and previous Resident Evil installments. - no source

76 (now 83) does not seem to support that entire 2nd paragraph in special editions.

No original research:{

Statements that sound like opinions " that aren't backed up by the source such as:

• "The addition of a laser sight adds a new depth to the aiming" - addition from what? How does it add new depth that the other didn't have?
• "Bullets now affect the enemies specifically where they are shot" - now as opposed to when?
• "Another new aspect of Resident Evil 4" - new as compared to what?

End of 2nd paragraph in Gameplay about Wii is making a OR statement in that its asserting the concept was expanded. That needs a source stating it was "expanded" as such and that its linked to the dynamic cut-scenes.

Fixed the last 2 myself. I would still want to know how the first comes to be.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

System requirements should be removed, at least recommended. That info is generally for advertising and even if its on the box, the "recommended" settings are a biased opinion from a source (the developers) to close to the game to say if they are truely the "recommended" levels. The info is also WP:CRUFT material that doesn't improve the encyclopedia. The minimum system requirements are probably still okay, but should be moved to the infoxbox where there is a field for them (it can be noted its for the PC version there).

Too much focus on different versions and special editions stuff. It looks like a promotion of advertising. The different versions should be covered and pre-order stuff should be condensed. There is repeat info here such as repreating the new content that was mentioned previously in 2 sections and a lot of excessive detail, especially on the SE stuff and treating the mobile versions as wholely unqiue.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

Fan mods, even fixes, should not be mentioned without RS coverage. It's giving undue weight to them.

Too many review scores noted in tables. Not only does this interrupt prose, it also dimishes more important ratings by promoting less important sources as having equal validity and certain scores as more important than others. Any score covered in Gamerankings or Metacritic should be removed as its being given a kind of double-promotion in the charts. It's fine to keep the info in the prose.

Still too many. There are 2 schools of thought for those I've seen elsewhere, but both of them would reduce them further. The first is when there are tons of scores to just list 1 score for each rank (an 10/5-star rank gets one, a 6/3-star rank gets another and its editorial decision which, though sites like IGN>RPGamer. The second is to not include any sites listed by metacritic or gamerankings. It's a lot better, but imo still too much. That list can probably be collapsed too if the info is listed in the prose.

Dealt with.∞陣内Jinnai 22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:Pass

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images havefair use rationales:

The chainsaw image is still under copyright as the primary aspect of the image is a copyrighted object, a specific chainsaw controller, not of a chainsaw in general.

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

File:Resident Evil 4 Ganado village.png - the caption has OR

File:Resident evil 4 chainsaw controller.jpg - while the caption is accurate it what it describes, it doesn't give context or contribute to the article.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

This is decent, but still not GA level. In addition to comments above, I'd also consider deviding Development into 2 sections, one for the scrapped scenerios and one for the final version. This will help readers distinquish pre-development of the final game from when the actual game began development. This particular aspect is not a part of the GA review though.

I'll give 1 week to fix the issues and address the RS concenrs.∞陣内Jinnai 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.

Thanks for the review, I'll work on it through the next 7 days; I can tell you that according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General, Andriasang and UGO Networks are reliable sources; and I want to ask, if the system requirements are used for ad purposes, why does this template exist?-SCB '92 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Legacy. That's mostly why. And the fact no one has really contested it. I can tell you though that the recommeded would be considered too close to the source to be a viable idea of what the "recommended" scope is. Minimum is probablly okay as it could be viewed as though if you tried to run on it below that, its doing so at your own risk. It's also considered a bit biased in general in that those systems tend to list specific companies like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc. Which is a form of advertising. For WP, no names should be used unless its abolsutely essential for running without hacks (like the OS).

Also you'll find very little support for system requirements and less so for recommended. There's still enough for the minimum to keep it though.∞陣内Jinnai 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General, Shacknews (not Slacknews) is reliable-SCB '92 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this discussion, though not confirmed, Cubed3 is reliable-SCB '92 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced about Cubed3 being a generally RS, mostly because that section of IGN i believe was user contributed. Go ask at RS/N, find some other RS sites that use it or see if the union section is covered solevley by staff.∞陣内Jinnai 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the Manual of Style compliance issues, the No Original Research issues, and the Illustrated by images issues-SCB '92 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you tomorrow. I don't have time for a thorough review today.∞陣内Jinnai 16:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Said I'd get back to it sunday and here it is wednesday. I have gone through a prelim check and noted some issues that were fixed and others that still need addressing. I'll have to go through the sources again and check the plot later. On the whole a lot of progress was made, but there are still some work to be done.∞陣内Jinnai 21:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick update before i check sources.∞陣内Jinnai 22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I checked over the sourcing info and only a few things were fixed, some of which I did myself for OR.

Right now with 3 being fail, I'd have to fail it, but I'll give another day or so since I took so long getting back.∞陣内Jinnai 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While much work has been done on this article to improve it, core segments that conform with WP:V and to a lesser extent WP:NOR have not bee done. While some of those sources I question may indeed be RSes, I doubt they all are as many appear to be fansites, blogs or other sites that lack editorial oversight and no evidence to support they would qualify as self-published sources reliable for Wikipedia. This isn't 1 or 2 questionable sources, but a number.

As for the prose for story, its much better, but I still feel something is off. If it were that alone I'd go ahead and pass it though as a GA doesn't have to be perfect.∞陣内Jinnai 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)