Talk:Albert Wesker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: Hey, it seems like you forgot about GlatorNator's GAN here. Thought I'd ping you just in case. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked Glator to make sure that the article does everything that I suggested with Ada Wong (if it isn't already fulfilling those suggestions) and to ping me when he's verified this to be the case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Cukie Done implementing mostly from Portrayal. I think it is ready for the review. Thanks. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Cukie Gherkin Expanded. Done. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Cukie Gherkin psst. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Infobox

1. Isao and Jun having designed Wesker is both unsourced and not included outside of the infobox.
2. Fumihiko Tachiki having voiced Wesker is unsourced and only in the infobox.
3. Junichi, Ilram, and Yoshio having done motion capture for Wesker is unsourced and only in the infobox.

Lead

1. Condensed it some.

Concept and design

1. A fair bit of this seems to be an overemphasis on explaining the plot summary and details surrounding Wesker. It feels kind of messy and undirected, and

Portrayal

1. I reckon that it'd be best to keep every portrayal together; for instance, it goes Douglas, then Jessop, and D. C. again.
2. A good piece of advice is to try to avoid using the same name at the beginning of multiple sentences in a row. So, instead of starting two sentences with Douglas, have the second sentence start with he, just to avoid repetition.
3. I think it may be worthwhile to pare down any roles where an actor's portrayal of Wesker isn't specifically discussed in an RS. To me, if an RS doesn't specifically note that Douglas voices Wesker in Tenpen, you may as well drop it. It also contributes to the list feeling like it's just listing things off.
4. Eurogamer source doesn't specify that Craig provided motion capture footage.
5. On that note, I think that you could just as well do the same with motion capture, paring it down and, say, only mention that they provided motion capture, but not mention the games they did motion capture for. It's not really a detail that matters that much.
6. A lot of the same criticisms can be applied to the film portrayal paragraph.

Appearances

1. As I note below in the References section, PSU is not listed as a reliable source, making much of the content unreferenced in effect. Additionally, I spotted some information that is not cited properly. For example, text cited to IGN makes allusions to many details of RE5, but the link itself doesn't mention him dying in a volcano, or Uroboros, or Chris and Sheva. I'm concerned that a lot of the article is improperly sourced.

Reception

At a glance, you seem to have taken a lot of the criticism from the Ada Wong GAN to heart. There's still some issues, like unreliable sources and grammar (the latter which I can help with).

References

1. Try to find a different source than Behind the Voice Actors.
2. PlayStation Universe is not identified as a reliable source.

Images

1. Nothing to note.

Ultimately, I feel like this article would be a lot of work to get up to snuff, and I don't know that I have the time or energy to really assist and properly review it. I'm going to quickfail this, as it's going to be a lot of work. I'll do a copyedit for you when I can, but the other issues I think will need more time. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Leave the article as is. I think you were right that the article still contains a lot of issues like grammar. I have no problem for it quickfailing. StarScream1007, pinging co nom so he will be aware. Thank you for the time Cukie. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)