Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Starting review. bridies (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is partial, and all I've had time for so far:

1. Prose

• I'll copy edit the article later.
• Prose is mostly good for style, just some questions over the treatment of the fictional elements. Sometimes it's not clear whether the articles talking about the history of the character or her fictional life story (the "aged 29" in the infobox for example). I'd also question the inclusion of some of the fictional elements, measurements specifically. Chest size even more specifically: "having the chest size of 90 cm/E". I think we can just not that she's extravagantly buxom without necessitating that the reader get a tape measure out. The source doesn't explicitly say that either.
• I'd also question whether the prose is concise with regards to some elements (see below).

2. Verifiability No obvious problems at this point, though some other sourcing concerns below. 3. Coverage and Neutrality

• Concerns with regards to the treatment of her breasts: The reception has paragraphs of quotes about how great her chest is. Valid info no doubt, but I'm wondering whether we can't convey to the reader that they are the object of much admiration in a more concise way, without having to list so many similar quotes.
• Secondly, some of the sources/quotes are taken out of context. For example: "GamesRadar called "her love pillows" to be the reason of "a fanboy fave". Yet the full passage is: Long time Soul Calibur battler Taki is a fanboy fave - and here we see why. Taki's ninja suit has seemingly been designed for one thing. And that's making her love pillows resemble torpedoes. Face this lady on an icy day and you could have your eyes out! Namco really understands its fanbase.
• Another example: the quote from Kotaku states: ""her tighter than skin tight ninja outfit leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, making her high kicks the stuff of Hustler magazine spreads"". But the full passage: The fourth edition of Ivy's breasts may be bordering on obscene, only further accentuated by her new, increasingly whorish outfit. Taki's no better in Soulcalibur IV, her tighter than skin tight ninja outfit leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, making her high kicks the stuff of Hustler magazine spreads. Thankfully—or regrettably, depending on your point of view—the character designers at Namco Bandai exercised a tad more restraint when outfitting Cassandra for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 fighter.
• Another source used to source a positive reception said: Sure, Taki's boobs flopped about ridiculously with the slightest breeze it seemed, but that's not necessarily a complaint.
• So what I'm saying is: yes, she is popular because of her breasts, and they've certainly been acclaimed. But there's also a cynicism in at least some of these sources, a sense that she's a guilty pleasure or a denigration of the "fanboys", horny teenagers or otherwise the "fanbase". And that second Wire source largely conveys disgust. And whichever way, they tend to ridicule her huge breasts, whether they enjoy them or not. I haven't read all the sources yet, so the exact balance is up for debate, but the article needs to trim the raving glorification of her chest, and make clear that they're also the object of ridicule, as well as that the character is seen as exploitative pandering to a particularly inclined fandom (in addition to conveying her genuine popularity and acclaim, sure) and not a little negative commentary. bridies (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Tape measure" thing is actually taken seriously by Namco in their "breast regulations", and yes, the source "explicitly says" it: [1]. And the stuff is all there, in "mixed but largely positive reception". There is only 1 plainly negative response[2] and the rest is mixed at worst (the series' Ivy Valentine is getting much, much more negative flack, I'm not sure if it's in her article). OK, the "obscene" thing too. But I don't Wikipedia readers don't need to be specifically told to explain what somebody "really" meant and especially about jokes. --Niemti (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't explicitly say it; it doesn't say anything. The reader cannot make that inference from that source. I assume you're taking the breast size from a particular picture, which is original research. And not everything is a question of black-and-white "positive" and "negative". It's about covering what the secondary commentary actually says, which the reception section doesn't do, not by a long shot; instead it's cherry-picking quotes to make it look like every commentator was uncritically drooling over her breasts. Not exactly sure what you meant by that last comment, but I'm guessing you're saying that a reader shouldn't need a the subtext of a comment explained to them. Sure, but the issue is that you haven't included the comment for the reader to see in the first place: for example of "Long time Soul Calibur battler Taki is a fanboy fave - and here we see why. Taki's ninja suit has seemingly been designed for one thing. And that's making her love pillows resemble torpedoes. Face this lady on an icy day and you could have your eyes out! Namco really understands its fanbase", only "GamesRadar called "her love pillows" to be the reason of "a fanboy fave" made it in. The grammar's broken there, so perhaps not the best example; but essentially, if you think the overall tone of the sources is clear from these quotes, it's not. bridies (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

????? The whole article is about this "particular picture" being published! It even reads: "Frankly, in cases like this a picture is worth a thousand words, so we'll let the art do the talking." I don't understands at all what you say with "the subtext of a comment". The "seemingly been designed for one thing" thing? That goes to "mostly skintight attires" from the previous sentence. --Niemti (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then, nowhere in that article do I see "90 cm/E" mentioned, only "famously buxom", and the article should reflect this. By subtext I mean implicit meaning. bridies (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles is ABOUT the picture, and it specifically shows the picture to "let the art do the talking" instead of writing "a thousand words". --Niemti (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

But you're still presumably taking that "90cm" from the picture only, and there is no annotation which indicates that Taki is the particular one with 90cm. Ultimately, as I said, one cannot make that inference without being - shall we say - intimately familiar with the subject matter, which makes it original research. And really that's aside from the main issue of taking excessive fictional details from a primary source only. bridies (talk)

You're killing me. It's WRITTEN RIGHT ON HER. Also here's identification specially for blind people: http://www.thelonegamer.net/fan-service/soul-calibur-takes-their-breast-sizes-seriously/ --Niemti (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Or just people who can't identify a particular naked video game character on sight... I still don't see any secondary commentary on the 90cm. As this is a relatively minor issue, I think it best to wait until the more sizeable (no pun intended) issues are taken care of, and then getting a 2nd opinion. bridies (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

They're not naked :D What other issues? --Niemti (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'll drop this per Aircorn. bridies (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• All right, the quotes I pointed up are a bit better now. But they need to be better organised: the reception section hasn't been well-thought out, and doesn't read coherently. For example, those quotes above should be grouped with the Beefjack source and UGO sources in paragraph 2. Group the uncritical acclaim together, more mixed, tongue-in-cheek commentary together, and then any more negative commentary together. On that note, there's a similar problem with that Beefjack source. Just saying she was listed as "awkward" doesn't really convey all that the source says. It calls her "tacky" which seems like it belongs with the Kotaku description as "obscene" and "whorish"; and again this mention is buried amongst mentions of sexiest character lists.
• Taki's character design has resulted in mixed but largely positive reception shouldn't be there in the first place, unless there's a secondary source which says that specifically. Per WP:SYNTH, we don't take a bunch of sources and then make editorial statements about them collectively.
• Couple of dead links to GamePro. Since these don't seem to be hugely important points, I think they should be removed.
• Complex magazine is italicised in the prose but not the refs bridies (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought I actually wrote it "well-thought out" and "does read coherently". Maybe you should see the mess of reception sections in the so-called "Good Articles" (for example: see Samus before and after my rewrite In July, but it was a GA all along - read them both). This is based on the 3 links after the period mark first and then the rest of the section. An opinion by BeefJack does not fit into the paragraph that is about popularity. Complex is a magazine (and the Wikipedia article is about the magazine), but the articles themselves are from their website (which is calling itself Complex.com). Whorish was about Ivy. --Niemti (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's just a GA. You're treating it like it was FA. See some other GA articles, like the reception at Pyramid Head, what a mess it is (and hardly ever updated for several years - the tag's mine, but everyone ignored it). Or the mess at Iori Yagami (a fighting game character, who even has his gameplay, portrayal and merchandise content tugged inside his reception section). Or how short Li Long has it, even when mixed with "promotion", which really was about merchandise (and it's another Soulcalibur character, like Taki). But that's the GA standards. Not very high. --Niemti (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I just rewrote the whole section, I hope it's now more "well-thought out, and does read coherently". --Niemti (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm not treating it like an FA. The "GA standards" are here, and my complaints were that it was not "well-written" (or "concise"), "broad", or "neutral"; pretty clearly explained in themselves and with reference to the criteria. I think I'm a pretty lenient reviewer tbh (see below). I've been busy the last few days, will hopefully check it over again tomorrow. bridies (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has already offered a 2nd opinion, but will offer my services if you have a specific question. If it just concerns the 90cm information then I feel that having it mentioned in the picture is enough to satisfy the verifiability criteria, as long as you are happy with the source reliability. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit comments Second pass, excluding the reception section:

• Taki, one of the series' main good characters... Good, as in not evil, or good as in interesting, popular, successful etc.?
• In the series' lore, her soul embodies honor. This doesn't make sense. The trailer is not much help either.
• and that the cursed sword's presence was weak enough to allow its destruction. Say what? Presence?
• Taki witnesses how the battle between Siegfried armed with the Soul Calibur and Soul Edge-wielding Nightmare unleashes a powerful cataclysm. What does "cataclysm" mean here?
• Taki would appear unmasked only in some of her alternative costumes, but in II and IV she is unmasked in all of her appearances. Doesn't really make sense.
• ...due to having given the second sword to wield once. Doesn't make sense.
• ...and many unsafe special moves". Unsafe how?
• The reception section now needs to be broken up into subsections. Aside from the length issue, this will give the reader some thematic pointers at least. bridies (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• And Taki's character design has resulted in mixed but largely positive reception based on 3 sources which jsut give opinions, is original synthesis. bridies (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good as in fighting evil, as a globetrotting vigilante exorcist of sorts. Every Soul fighter has something assigned to their soul (also stop seeking "sense" in Japanese fighting games), kind of defining thing, and for Taki it's Honor.[3] Er, like power. Cataclysm = "a cataclysmic eruption of destruction that few survived"[4] just in short. In the first game she uses only one sword. Unsafe as in risky. Reception for characters almost never has subsections. Actually it's followed by not "3" but a several dozen sources (over 50 or so). --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's still original synthesis, no matter how many sources you're synthesising. And the article has to make sense, even if the game doesn't. bridies (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It needs subsections, due to the length and coherence issues already discussed. Reception for characters almost never has subsections isn't much of an argument in itself, but "almost never", like Ayane (Dead or Alive) or Jill Valentine? And if you want an WP:Other stuff exists argument, I think the fact the length of this section is at least as long as any (sub)section in World War II is a better one. bridies (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I myself made these subsections in Jill's and Ayane's, it's most OTHER articles don't have them (in Reception at bios for fictional characters, that's besides the fact that most non-vg characters don't have a Reception section at all). In Taki's, maybe the reactions to her removal from SCIV, but I don't know how to name it. --Niemti (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Recusing from this. IMO this is still some way from the GA standard: the reception section is way too long and still has to an extent the issues described above. The prose in the sections dealing with fiction is not great either; and per Teancum's unflattering second opinion. I have a feeling the nominator will be none too happy if I fail it though, so it can stay at the top of the queue rather than the bottom. bridies (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

Extended content

There are still WP:MOS issues. There are several instances where references are not placed after punctuation. The references are a mess. Many are missing necessary info such as accessdates, authors, etc. Date formats are inconsistent, as are publisher names (for instance, one is listed as Official XBOX Magazine). Some seem dubiously reliable at best, such as myfigurecollection.net. Several references are dead and need to be archived. There are no valid external links per WP:EL. Wikis and links to a specific publication's site are forbidden per WP:ELNO. The review section cites publications for quotes. It should cite the author of the article. For instance, it's not: "G4 TV listed her" it's "Daniel Maniago of G4 TV listed her" File:Taki_Soul_Edge_design.jpg's free use rationale is in need of updating. Simply putting "Everything alright." under Minimal Use is not acceptable. The lead is incredibly short and does not summarize the article. See WP:LEAD There is a disambig link for double jump Acronyms, such as DLC, should be spelled out the first time, and if they are used again later must have the acronym in parenthesis after the first appearance. For example: "downloadable content (DLC)" -- after that DLC can be used. Per WP:LAYOUT 1-2 sentence paragraphs should be merged where possible. There are two instances here, one in Gameplay and one in Other appearances. Both can be merged. There are other issues, but this was just after a quick glance. In regards to bridies's assessment of reviews, remember that GA articles are held to a higher standard now than the once were. Even a few years ago it was easy to pass a GAN. If the nominator feels articles like Pyramid Head do not meet criteria any more, they can be send to WP:GAR. --Teancum (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I think the lead is fine, what exactly information do you think it lacks? The authors are in the links (if there are specific authors), and the name of "Daniel Maniago" says nothing at all to 99,99% or potential readers and it's a needless trivia (if someone cares still, it's probably in the ref anyway). I don't even know what to write in the file, it's confusing and unclear as hell. "'Official XBOX Magazine" is the name of the website (yes, in caps) and there's no error there (the error was placing it in italics, though). Not all articles have authors and the access dates are useless. Date format is as used by the publishers. It's not FA, again. --Niemti (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'll address the points individually: Citing the author when it's a direct quote required per WP:MOSQUOTE -- "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section." Since the subject is a character, attribution to individual writers in a quote is required Having "Official XBOX Magazine" in italics is correct since it's considered a publication (magazine). XBOX is not, however as Wikipedia does not stylize -- see WP:MOSTM Standardized citations are required to pass GAN. (see WP:CITE for more info) You can keep saying "it's not FA", but it doesn't change what the standard is. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC) But it's from the website (of the magazine), and not from the paper magazine, and that's how this website calls itself (the very official name used for the article is "Official XBOX Magazine | SoulCalibur V preview"). Where exactly its says something about how "Standardized citations are required to pass GAN"? I just put this phrase in google (without quotation marks), got nothing relevant. "Standardized citations good article wikipedia" brought me to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. --Niemti (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Perfectly formatted citations are not required. I mean, geez. Maybe first actually learn the guidelines, becuase you almost misinformed me. --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Also, this Wikipedia:Citing sources that you just linked me to has neither "GAN" or "good article" anywhere. So come on and let's be serious for a while. --Niemti (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I'll try to fix the deadlinks and cite authors when they're quoted at lenght, tough. Dead links are still dead, or at least the Archive.org won't work for them (redirects to Joystiq for Game Daily and PC World for GamePro). You can tell me what you think the lead lacks so. --Niemti (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week or two, but I wanted to address the WP:LEAD question. The peer review bot is what I go by, as it's an official Wikipedia tool. It also covers some Manual of style issues with numbers and dates. --Teancum (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, and so this bot says the intro is still lacking a summary of what exactly? --Niemti (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of this review. I have no interest in spending my time going back and forth when the changes requested could have been completed with 1-2 hours of work. Clearly you've chosen to stand your ground, and that's your choice, but I don't have the extra time to go back and forth. I guess my review standards for GAN are apparently above the minimum required. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked you what I should add still, several times (including after expanding), but you answer told me. Instead, you showed me something about how "You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article" by the broken bot who can't even notice an infobox. --Niemti (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think he was just pointing out the fact that the bot doesn't seem to think it's compliant with WP:LEAD. Personally I think it meets the minimum for compliance now. bridies (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've felt throughout the review that simply addressing the issues noted by both reviewers would both improve the article and satisfy the reviewers, yet I got the impression from Niemti of a "just the minimum needed" focus. Everyone could have been happy had we worked together to complete the requests and it could have been that much further toward A class (which, I'm assuming given other nominations, is where Niemti wanted to go next with this article). It would have served both sides to continue improvement. That being said I'll strike my request for a lead update as Niemti makes some fair points about the bot not necessarily being correct about size. I've also collapsed the above and updated issues/requests below (clarified this time). Issues are marked with (I), requests with (R). --Teancum (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• (I)WP:MOS issue: there are some instances where references are not placed after punctuation.
• (I)The IGN page on Taki (External link) should be replaced with the link from the official website if possible. I don't know much about this character, but here is her bio page from SC4.
• (I)Ref 112 should be listed as Official Xbox Magazine instead of Official XBOX Magazine per MOS:TM
• (I)Some references need to have their reliability verified such as myfigurecollection.net, ShopWiki, tisinc99.com and others.
• (I)File:Taki_Soul_Edge_design.jpg's free use rationale is in need of updating. Simply putting "Everything alright." under Minimal Use is not acceptable.
• (R)Date formats should be consistent. I would do it, but WP:MOSNUMscript is currently broken.
• (R)Per WP:LAYOUT 1-2 sentence paragraphs should be merged where possible. See the lead paragraph in the Other appearances section. If it's too hard to merge these two paragraphs while maintaining a clean flow, ignore this request.
• (R)Accessdates for all references. As Niemti pointed out above, not required (that's new on me, by the way -- every review I've had done on my work required it, so I always have for others). Still, it will be required for an A class or FA, so if this article is to be further promoted it'll be useful to do them soon.

And I think that'll do it. I have tried to minimize what I saw, but should also point out that I never went over the prose itself, merely the basic things I usually look for first (the easy stuff). --Teancum (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by so-vaguaely referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but I'm pretty sure the meaning of "placed after punctuation" was as in "not before punctuation" (in Polish Wikipedia, it's before punctuation, as in "."). Official XBOX Magazine is not in italics, because it's the name of the website (just like the name of the website of Game Informer is www.GameInformer.com, and so on). Good find on the English website, though, somehow I didn't know about it. --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that websites of magazines serve as an extension. Game Informer would be one entity, whether on paper or on the web. I could be wrong, but that's how Wikiproject: Video games has always treated it. In regards to references after punctuation I found a better reference for you: WP:CITEFOOT -- "citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas. For exceptions, see the Punctuation and footnotes section of the Manual of Style. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker." Hopefully that helps. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Video games does not exist. Official XBOX Magazine is just how the Internet edition of OXM calls itself. After punctuation - that's what I'm talking about (in many countries, and Wikipedias, it's before punctuation). --Niemti (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of fixing the link when we had an edit conflict, sorry. --Teancum (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And regarding actual problem with references: maybe you would know what's wrong at XCOM: Enemy Unknown, because apparently nobody knows where's this bug at. --Niemti (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)