Talk:Sarah Kerrigan

Kerrigan is NOT an antagonist

She is actually a protagonist, as she is playable not only in Brood War in the final campaign, she is the main protagonist in Starcraft II: Heart of the Swarm. By definition, she is a protagonist as it is her point of view the game takes overall. Evil characters can be protagonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.125.9 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kerrigan is best classified as an anti-heroine.

Pre-infestation picture?

Might we be able to get a pre-infestation picture of Kerrigan? TomStar81 21:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll look for one.

PS the plot outline for StarCraft: Hybrid contains Kerrigan's life story. Just follow the link. Kimera757 16:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is an unofficial one out there where someone has extremely carefully and skillfully doctored the Brood War art of Kerrigan (that we are using now) to extrapolate how she might have looked before infestation based on her ingame portrait. It looks a bit like Famke Jansen. Take a look. We could crop it down to just the neck and head and use it one for the human part of the article, with the infested official equivalent for the Zerg part. Nothing saying that the image has to be official, especially when there are no decent official ones of human Kerrigan anywhere. I've emailed the creator, if we get his permission there's no reason why it can't be used. -- S@bre 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's Make This Article Better!

Hey guys,

I think we should try to improve this article in an attempt to make it a featured article.

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 15:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• That will be easier said than done. We need to more sources, we need to have reliable sources, and we need to find better pictures of Kerrigan both before and after her transformation (In other words, Kerrigan the ghost and Darth Kerrigan, ruler of the scith I mean Zerg :-). We also need to move the quotes out of the body of the article and into their own section, and we need get all the "see also" stuff out of the individual sections and into one big section at the end. We should also attempt to lose the "trivia" section, because FAC people tend to frown on such sections. The last challenge will be convincing the FAC voters that this article is encyclopedic and not just a massive collection of "cruft", but we can worry about that when the time comes. TomStar81 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One step at a time buddy, at least finnally the initial quote (how embarrasing for wikipedia) was removed, now all other quotes out of place must be removed. Theres something about fanboys that just make them write crappy articles (or just to write them as if this was a magazine or a forum), i dont know what it is.

I took upon myself to slightly "improve" this article... To be more specific, I moved the quotations down to a "quotes" section that I made over the "trivia" section... I should also note that I'll see myself forced to remove the picture "infestedkerrigan3" unless someone can verify it as being official artwork... As a final note, I'd recommend you to use the image "Kerrigan" insted of the image "infestedkerrigan3", and replace the image "Kerrigan" with a picture of her face instead (the official "Brood war" image oughta do)... Other then that, it's a pretty neat article in general. 217.208.27.92 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • What's with the current picture? It is a rather small picture of a book cover, and I see no Kerrigan (infested or otherwise) in it. It absolutely needs to be changed ASAP. - Demon! 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is Kerrigan, but it definitely needs to be replaced. You can hardly tell it's her. It's so small. Kuribo 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just copy and paste what I said above as it's relevant here too: There is an unofficial one out there where someone has extremely carefully and skillfully doctored the Brood War art of Kerrigan (that we are using now) to extrapolate how she might have looked before infestation based on her ingame portrait. It looks a bit like Famke Jansen. Take a look. We could crop it down to just the neck and head and use it one for the human part of the article, with the infested official equivalent for the Zerg part. To my knowledge there is nothing saying that the image has to be official, especially when there are no decent official ones of human Kerrigan anywhere. I've emailed the creator, so if we get his permission there's no reason why it can't be used. -- S@bre 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerrigan.png

Image:Kerrigan.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

If people are adament on redrecting, would they make sure that links to here are removed, especialy if they are in the same article that this page is being redirected to! Also, please make sure that redirects to this page are removed, as this just makes unnecessary pages!Stikman 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there is a large edit to many SC articles. This page will eventually be remade. Talk to myself or User:S@bre for details, and for why this is going on, talk to User:A Man In Black. The Clawed One 23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"One concept art shows her in human form" - it ain't there!

The concept art with Kerrigan's human appearance is not on the Blizzard site anymore, apparently. I removed the link, so if anyone knows of a different location that has a copy of the image, please add a link to it. --The Fifth Horseman 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

NVM, found it elsewhere and replaced the old link. --The Fifth Horseman 15:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

This is definitely a solid B-class, and I'd say you're not that far off Good Article status. Here are some ideas to help you get there:

• You'll need to make sure you've got everything covered in terms of sources. The two apparently unsourced statements which jump out at me are the last sentence in the StarCraft section and the bit about World of Warcraft in the Other Appearances section. Have a look for any others.
• Per WP:MOS, in-line citation tag thingies should go after punctuation, not before. Example: A female psychic aged twenty-six[1], should be A female psychic aged twenty-six,[1]
• The Critical Reception section has a {{sect-stub}} tag. If you can find more information to flesh out this section, definitely do so, as currently there are only two different sources.
• Another note about the Reception section: you only need the in-line citation thing at the end of the paragraph, as you're using one source for the entire paragraph.
• Any information available on the creation of the character? This would go quite well with the information on Campbell's voice-over of the character.
• If there are any other useful images, put them in. There's plenty of space for one or two more images.

Though those are probably all fairly obvious points, that should cover all the points regarding getting you to Good Article, but have a look at WP:GA? and the articles at WP:VG#Featured content to see if there's anything there which might help you. If you have any further questions, then feel free to ask. Una Laguna^Talk 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken external links

The links to the transcripts are all broken... not sure if this has been previously mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.248.193 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. I contacted the site webmaster, he says that they are having trouble with their software, but they are working on fixing it. The urls will be updated when they restore the content. -- Sabre (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

GA-status review

Hello. This is my first GA review, so please bear with me and feel free to point out on my talk page if I'm following something out of line.
This article is near GA status - it is neutral and verifiable, independent notability is well established, and I especially appreciate the amount of out-of-universe content and critical analysis of the character.
The primary issue with the text is the in-universe plot descriptions. These are very, very difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with the fictional game world. The large amount of wikilinks make it possible for someone interested in learning more about this fiction to have their questions answered - but we must consider the audience of Wikipedia, which will consist of readers who are not necessarily interested in those topics. It's not even mentioned until halfway down the article that StarCraft is a video game! Some sentences in this section are overly lengthy and difficult to process, such as:

She presents herself on the dark templar homeworld Shakuras where she informs Zeratul and the new templar praetor Artanis of a new Overmind growing on Char,[34] manipulating the Protoss into destroying rival Zerg broods on Shakuras[35] by brainwashing the dark templar matriarch Raszagal.

Yikes. Look at all those terms and proper names to contend with: overmind, templar, Shakuras, Zeratul, praetor, Artanis, Char, Protoss, Zerg, Raszagal...all in a long run-on sentence. How is the non-StarCraft fan supposed to process this information?
Also importantly...the concept of "infestation" is never clearly explained, and it seems to be rather central to this character's story.
If the clarity of prose can be cleaned up, this could be a good article. As it stands, though, it needs substantial work revising the in-universe content. Explain, don't tell. Focus on the subject of the article. Don't assume your readers are familiar with the fictional universe. I am placing this GA nomination on hold. - Chardish (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit. What about now? The Clawed One (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that a certain level of in-universe plot descriptions are inevitable. You cited, among other words, "Protoss, Zerg, Shakuras and Char", but both Char and Shakuras are explained in the article, and the Protoss and Zerg have their own pages, so this one really isn't the place to blow into a description of StarCraft's races. The Clawed One (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You made good changes. but I'd like to hold out on making another review for a few more days in order to give it time for other editors to clean up and review the changes themselves. In addition, there are still some issues that need addressing (sentence structure edited for clarity, mentioning what StarCraft is, probably worth mentioning more about "infestation," etc.)

I agree with your assessment that some amount of in-universe terminology is necessary. However, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize knowledge. This necessarily means that some details will be omitted for the sake of clarity and understanding.

Here are some questions that popped out in my mind while looking at the terminology that I could see a reader having:

• I see "Protoss dark templar," "Protoss," and "dark templar" all as three separate terms. Are all Protoss "dark templar?" Are all "dark templar" Protoss?
• Locations. Is "the Confederate capital Tarsonis" a planet? Is "Antiga Prime" a colony world? Or a city?
• "The Overmind immediately launches the bulk of the Swarm in an invasion." What's the Swarm?
• "Kerrigan regains her independence." When did she lose her independence?

Also review sentence structure and grammar. Try editing it for clarity.

Not a terminology issue, but: "Kerrigan is confirmed to appear in StarCraft II." Why "confirmed?" Was there doubt, and if so, who confirmed this? If there wasn't any doubt, why not just say "will appear in?" Think about these things as you examine the article closely. Nitpick every sentence!

Anyway, it's my job to review, not to create a to-do list. As it stands, you're making progress, but it needs more work. Thanks : ) - Chardish (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit more of a cleanup, but I don't think that it is up to what you were after yet. I've done my best to explain some terms, I've removed some bits of information for context, but I have to admit that perhaps a to-do list of some sort may be helpful: "sentence clarity" is a very vague piece of terminology, and for the most part I cannot see any major problems with the sentences, and when I asked David Fuchs for his views on the plot sections he didn't mention any major issues like that. I need some precise points where you think that sentences need to be redone, because I can't see them. Point 5 of how to review a good article: "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review.", providing specific points for problems with sentences and grammar can help do just that (don't take that the wrong way as me trying to tell me how to do your job).

She presents herself on the dark templar homeworld Shakuras where she informs Zeratul and the new templar praetor Artanis of a new Overmind growing on Char, manipulating the Protoss into destroying rival Zerg broods on Shakuras by brainwashing the dark templar matriarch Raszagal.

For this bit, I feel its necessary to point out that a number of these terms (should) have been explained beforehand: Zeratul, Overmind, Char, Protoss, Zerg, have all appeared in the previous section, where they should all have now been explained sufficiently. I've also removed various references to the dark templar, its simply far easier as the amount of space involved as to explaining the differences between the dark templar and regular Protoss society opens a pandora's box of more terms that would need explaining. The actual fact that they are dark templar extends little further in relevance in this article than that they use different psionic powers than other Protoss so that point alone is the only reference to Zeratul being a dark templar. Anyway, that particular sentence now reads:

She presents herself on the Protoss colony world Shakuras, where she informs Zeratul and the Protoss of a new Overmind growing on Char, manipulating the Protoss into destroying Zerg forces running rival to her goals.

Protoss has been explained in the section on StarCraft, as has Zeratul, Overmind and Char. Shakuras is at its most basic level a colony world, so its refered to as such. As you said, some detail is lost, but it should read clearer. However, as I put above, I'm struggling to see whats broken, and if I can't see whats broken I can't fix it, so please, put in some specific points where things need to be redone. Part of reviewing is telling someone exactly where they've gone wrong. I've updated the todo list template at the top, please add to that if necessary, and please provide specific points to fix. -- Sabre (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, great job Sabre. Much easier to read and process. The StarCraft: Brood War section in particular is much clearer. I also did a little bit of fixing myself, since my only objections to the prose were some nitpicky details. One last question (and this is something I should have recognized earlier) - is there any criticism of or negative reactions to the character that could go in the "Reception" section? Right now there's nothing but praise. This doesn't surprise me, since StarCraft appears to be a very well-received game. If there is no notable criticism of the character from respectable critics, that's fine, but if there is, it needs to go in the article. - Chardish (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is, I've not been able to find it. The most negative criticism comes from that WomensGamers site, which has a negative note about inital appearance impression, but it balances that out for praise overall. I'm afraid reception on these characters is a bit hard to find online, the game is ten years old, most online sources came into existance after the game. For the time being, I doubt there's anything else to put in the reception section, which is a shame. However, I'm sure with the release of StarCraft II there'll be new sources to cover the character from across the net. Problem there is that that's not going to be any time soon. -- Sabre (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you guys feel based on your research that there's no notable critical viewpoint, then I don't see any major flaws with this article, and I feel fine passing it as a good article. Good job taking a topic with high cruft potential and making a GA out of it. - Chardish (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, thanks to the hard work of editors clarifying in-universe content.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Well-sourced, too!

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Editors attest that there is no notable criticism of the character. Pass.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: An image of how the character appears in the game might be worthy of inclusion. As it stands, though, the images in the article do a good job of illustrating the topic. Pass.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Chardish (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only in-game images of Kerrigan are tiny, either of her game sprite or her unit portrait. Although there is the cinematic that shows Kerrigan. Sabre, would we be able to snag that? The Clawed One (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That image is too faded and shows insufficient detail for any respectable use. I'm afraid we're stuck with the art. However, when I can get my hands on a shot of her SC2 model, I'll extract that in a similar style as the one I did for Raynor, remove the SC2 concept art and move the original piece of concept art by Metzen that's currently in the infobox down into its place. -- Sabre (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How about these pictures of Zerg Kerrigan?

http://kotaku.com/5616445/the-queen-of-blades-made-flesh <- original link i saw

http://artsytime.com/kerrigan-sculpture-from-starcraft/ <- source i found later

I dunno what the license is, the author is listed though, could someone evaluate if the pictures would suit the article, and see if the author authorizes the use please? --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We did have a photo of this statue that was freely licenced from Flickr, but it was deleted as the subject of the photo remains copyrighted by Blizzard or something along those lines. Unless we can get a photo where both the photo author and the owner of the subject matter release it under a free licence, we can't use any images. And Blizzard's unlikely to give away copyright on that statue. -- Sabre (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Gamespots All Time Greatest Villain 2010?

Considering Kerrigan won, does it make the cut to be put in the article under reception? Here is a link to the Gamespot page: http://www.gamespot.com/showcases/atggv?sid=6279114&overridePid=939643 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.107.51 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, its already in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Article needs Update

I was going to make this change myself shortly, but since I have not been one of the primary contributors to this article, I'll give others a chance to do it first. Wikipedia articles must be up to date, and this one is not. Kerrigan is no longer a Zerg, or the Queen of Blades, as Blizzard Entertainment clearly states at the end of Starcraft 2. Her fate is unknown, but she most certainly has been "restored to her original human form" (direct quote from SC2) and cannot be classified as an Infested Terran or as ruler of the Zerg Swarm, because that is an inaccurate description of her current status. Also, I would recommend replacing her Zerg image at the top with one of her as a Terran, as shown in Starcraft 2's final cinematic. I know this is a "good article," and I agree with that assessment on the whole, but this inaccuracy must be corrected ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.79.59 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's taking a very in-universe look at the situation. Fiction articles should strive to maintain the focus on the real-world not the intricacies of the fiction. At the moment, Kerrigan's most associated form has been and will always be that of the Zerg, and most commentary is on the infested character design. They are therefore the most appropriate to be in the infobox, at least until Heart of the Swarm is released and (if) the character is properly taken in another direction. -- Sabre (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Somo Hung not a "love interest"

Someone needs a dictionary. unrequited love does not = "love interest". Somo Hung was infatuated with Kerrigan might be a better line, but this wiki isn't about Somo Hung so I would fail to se the relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed in good faith based on your comments (and the lack of objections to them). Freikorp (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ref links

Some ref links are dead/moved. Archived versions for almost all of them can be cound in russian article (see also talk page). --Sigwald (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A few more sources that you might use for Reception

• http://www.fhm.com.ph/entertainment/games/article/1688/
• http://www.gamespot.com/greatest-video-game-villain/standings/index.html
• http://www.gamezone.com/products/mortal-kombat/originals/top_five_mortal_kombat_crossover_characters_we_want_to_see
• http://gry.wp.pl/galeria/10-najseksowniejszych-negatywnych-bohaterek,179679/6.html (Polish, Wirtualna Polska)
• http://www.ugo.com/games/queen-of-blades
• http://www.ugo.com/girls/99-hottest-fictional-women-of-2012-sarah-kerrigan

Accessible only via Internet Archive:

• http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/166668/the-47-most-diabolical-video-game-villains-of-all-time-page-5-of-7/
• http://www.gamespot.com/features/tenspot_females/page2.html
• http://www.gamespot.com/features/tenspot_readers_females/page10.html

--Niemti (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I want to give the article an overhaul at some point in the near future, and this will come in handy. -- Sabre (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, also:

• http://www.complex.com/video-games/2012/03/10-of-the-most-evil-women-in-video-games/sarah-kerrigan
• http://www.complex.com/video-games/2011/06/25-most-diabolical-she-villains/sarah-kerrigan
• http://www.complex.com/video-games/2010/10/14-hot-video-game-voiceovers/tricia-helfer
• http://www.cheatcc.com/extra/top10badasswomenofvideogames.html
• http://www.cheatcc.com/extra/top10mostterrifyingvideogamecharacters3.html
• http://www.cheatcc.com/extra/tenkickassgamingcouplesforvday2.html (with Raynor)
• http://www.ugo.com/games/the-creepiest-video-game-psychics?page=3
• http://uk.ign.com/videogame-villains/17.html

--Niemti (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Expand tag

The reason to have an expand tag is because information is missing, not just that more exists. Otherwise there could be expand tags on every major article. What information is missing from the reception? AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See the section just above for just few examples (there are also many more, put your google-fu to use if you want).

You might also be confusing the expand tag with this:

Which is quite a difference. --Niemti (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was more thinking of specific facts. For example in the Joseph Byrne (Holby City) article I left the expand tag as it clearly had no information about the characters reception (just the actors)[1], while I removed it from Yusef Khan as it did.[2]. I am not seeing any obvious gaps in this article. Just because there is more information out there does not mean we should add it all, especially if it repeats a lot of what we have. An expand tag on a Good article suggests it fails the broadness criteria, so it is either incorrectly added or this is no longer a Good article. If there is some specific information that is needed then I will be willing to add it, but not just for the sake of lengthening the section. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It "fails the broadness criteria" by using only an extremely limited part of the enormous coverage, and not even the important examples (like prominiently using some defunct "online publication WomenGamers.Com", instead of major websites that are reliable sources), and is outdated too. --Niemti (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of the tag or the broadness criteria. The tag is for sections that are obviously missing information and the broadness criteria just needs all the major points to be addressed. Again tell me what information is missing and I will add it, otherwise this is just a tag for the sake of a tag. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I added what I could from the sources above. The problem is that they don't really talk about reception, but merely describe what happens to/with her. That is probably why the WomenGamers one is used so prominently. There was not really much to add, except that she ranked well on some evil or beautiful polls. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This defunct "online publication WomenGamers.Com" is not a reliable source (where some "Michael B. English" was apparently a "woman gamer", and seems to be now a wanted criminal), and yet takes almost third of this supposedly GA reception (also used elsewhere). You know what's important? Stuff like [3]. To see how a GA standards looks like now, take a look at my fresh GA articles like Yuna (Final Fantasy) or Ayane (Dead or Alive). --Niemti (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Or you can compare Keriigan to Morrigan, which is still a B and needs work, but at least it is not based on writings of a male "woman gamer" from a defunct "online publication" of no notability and very questionable reliability (Mr. English the woman later also apparently became a hilariously bad political/military commentator and now might be or might be not a wanted felon), plus a few other random sources. --Niemti (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are basing that on more than a quick google search for a name. The reliability of a source depends on what it is referencing. Even blogs can be reliable sources if you attribute them properly. I don't see anything wrong with how this information is presented in the article. The main issue is the sources you linked above do not add anything to the reception except her position in a ranking system. What can be added to the reception from this. That she was ranked 17 best villian by IGN. There is no discussion whatsoever about her reception. I would put it in, but there is no year specified and it contradicts [ http://au.ign.com/articles/2006/03/08/top-10-tuesday-most-memorable-villains this]. I am well aware of GA standards, I spend most of my time here now fixing articles that no longer meet them. That includes removing tags from ones that don't need them, which is the case for this article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogs can be only reliable sources if their authors are something more than completely random and unnotable dudes who thin they're "women gamers". Her recpetion is being ranked 17th on the list of top game villains of most time by a reliable and well known publication on a major list. That's the reception. Very, very positive. How does it "contradicts" a (minor) list from 2006, 4 years and thousands of villains earlier, and when IGN had some different staff, too? --Niemti (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole section was also absolutely horribly written. I did a quick ce (take a look), but it still needs to be properly written. Also the "no year specified" was 2010 (May 14). There are also literally scores of other sources readily available, too, and so much more reliable, and so I removed Mr. Michael the woman gamer from the article. --Niemti (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Women Gamer is a reliable source for what women gamer publishes. You put an expand tag on a section then remove information from it. I don't know what your game is, but I have tried my best to fix the article. I have fought you as much over this as I am willing and don't see any other choice now but to start a WP:GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Women Gamer is a reliable source for what women gamer publishes." - what? Seriosuly, what? --Niemti (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean that if they publish something then we can say "Women Gamer has said ....." and use them as a source. They are reliable for saying what they publish as long as we attribute it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WomenGamers (it's plural) don't publish because they don't exist anymore (except having "the Facebook and Twitter pages active", wow, I have too). While several gay gamer websites continue to exist, but I wouldn't use neither too. And it's not like there's a shortage of reliable sources for this article - there's aplenty all over (these above only a few examples), even if you only count the English language sources that are online right now. In another article, I just removed 3 sources (Unreality, Beefjack, Manolith) that were used by me there after a question was raised about their notability,[4] and didn't look back, because it's not like if there's a shortage there, too. That's the way to go. Btw, this other article, which is now a GA candidate, uses about 60 or so refs for reception - not just 10. --Niemti (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because they stopped publishing does not mean all there previous publications suddenly become null and void. There is a difference between reliable and useful. If you had an official website it will be reliable enough for us to repeat what you say, the question then becomes why should we care what you say. The same applies to WomenGamers. Anyway I have started the GAR process. If the tag gets removed, either because some consensus is reached that it was not needed or the section gets expanded sufficiently, then I will close it as keep and we can all leave happily. If it is still present after about a week then I will delist it. I really have no stake in this article, I am just trying to cleanup current GAs with cleanup tags. AIRcorn (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hola dude, I want the article to be fixed and updated and not de-GAd. It was never my intention. --Niemti (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox illustration

This articles says:

• "Image:Sarah Kerrigan (StarCraft).png|250px|Kerrigan in concept art by Chris Metzen."
• "Kerrigan's infested appearance in artwork by Glen Rane"

Choose one. --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's GA ready now again

--Niemti (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarah Kerrigan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JDC808 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Before I start my reviews, I always go through and copy-edit first.

Lead

• The third "paragraph" is only one sentence. Can you expand this by at least a couple more sentences?

Expanded it a bit. Freikorp (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Appearances

-In video games

• The fourth paragraph, I don't see the necessity of needing to mention she was in trailers and concept art, but it's nothing major. If this was the development or marketing section for StarCaft II, I could see its usage, but like I said, it's nothing major.

Fair enough. Removed that part of the sentence. Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• "In StarCraft II, Kerrigan begins anew her attack on the Terran Dominion colonies." What? Maybe I'm having a brain fart, but that doesn't sound right.

Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• When does she start proclaiming herself as the "Queen of Blades"? That should be mentioned sometime before the Heart of Swarm paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Honestly, I don't know, and I wouldn't expect any source to specifically state when the her first use of the term was. Btw just fyi I didn't write most of the article, I just adopted it and did some major reference and copyediting fixes before nominating it. Freikorp (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It's odd not knowing it because when reading through the "In video games" subsection, there's no mention of it, then when you get to the last paragraph, it says "Once again a human, Kerrigan is brought by Raynor to a secret research facility run by Valerian Mengsk to determine how much of her skill at controlling Zerg remains from her time as the Queen of Blades." I did a little research myself and she began this claim after she gained control over all Zerg. --JDC808 ♫ 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• Something you might want to add: Tricia Helfer won "Best Performance by a Human Female" at the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards for her role as Sarah Kerrigan in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References

• REF #2 and #5 which are instruction manual refs, you can cite those the same way you do the other books.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looking over the sources, you cite the work, but not the publisher (for example, REF #45, Game Informer is the work, GameStop would be its publisher).

Is that a problem for GAN (or at all)? I typically only cite work for online web sources, including in my other successful GA and FA nominations. Nobody had ever brought it up before, that's all. Freikorp (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily for GAN. The REFs as they are currently are actually fine for GAN. I just bring up this point because you will need to do it for FAC and it would easier to do it now than later, plus it would get you used to adding both work and publisher when sourcing things in the future. Online sources also have a publisher. Some publishers are also the work (which means you don't have to put both). I can help out getting these because it's not hard to find them. --JDC808 ♫ 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Got them all.

That's all I have. --JDC808 ♫ 19:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@JDC808: Thanks a lot for your review, please have a look at my responses/edits and let me know if anything else is outstanding. Btw i'll start reviewing your FAC tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and this is a pass. --JDC808 ♫ 18:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Queen Bitch of the Universe" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Queen Bitch of the Universe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Queen Bitch of the Universe until a consensus is reached. QuietCicada - Talk 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)