Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ellie (The Last of Us)/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2016 [1].

Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie is the deuteragonist and secondary playable character in Naughty Dog's 2013 video game The Last of Us. The character of Ellie underwent numerous iterations throughout development, and was very highly praised after the game's launch, particularly due to the rarity of such strong female characters in video games. After several changes and a great amount of feedback—including the first FA nomination—I feel satisfied that the article meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain ☔ 05:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As per my review on the first nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a very comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. It is great to see such a well-written article on a fictional character. The only note that I have to add is the image in the infobox requires an alt. Otherwise, good job! Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great looking article, don't see any reason why it shouldn't become FA. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Seem like an example to follow for every character GA. I can't find any flaw except for the final sentence from the appearances section which could be merged with the previous one unless it has a big impact in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose I think the prose needs work here. The lead is pretty clean, but I ran into problems in the first couple of paragraphs. Here are some points just from that paragraph; glancing further down I see a couple of similar issues.

• "suitably fit" is redundant (and is clunky phrasing in any case).
• "Johnson contributed greatly to the development of the character, convincing Druckmann to re-write Ellie in a stronger manner, and able to fight off hostile enemies": "able" has no subject; "in a stronger manner" and "greatly" are vague, and "in a stronger manner" is syntactically attached to the re-write, not the character. Something like "Johnson made important contributions to the development of Ellie's character; she convinced Druckmann to give Ellie a more independent personality, and to make Ellie more successful in combat" would be more straightforward.
• "Johnson faced challenges in performing "disturbing" scenes that made her feel uncomfortable": again, this is vague and redundant phrasing. What does "challenges" tell us that "made her feel uncomfortable" doesn't?
• "Johnson felt that video games rarely feature strong female characters such as Ellie, and expressed her excitement to portray the role for this reason": contorted phrasing, and "portray a role" is imprecise; one plays a role, but portrays a character. More natural would be to give the reaction and then the reason: "Johnson was excited to play the role, which she felt was a rare example of a strong female video game character".

Skimming further down, just to confirm the list above is representative:

• "The addition of Ellie as artificial intelligence was a major contributor to the game engine": saying "the addition" was a "contributor" to the game engine is surely wrong; did you mean "contribution"? And contribution is vague; do you really mean something like "was a significant improvement to"?
• "Ellie also feels worthless, to a suicidal extent in which": needs rephrasing.
• "Marlene is later wounded, and early in The Last of Us, tasks smugglers Joel and Tess to escort Ellie; Tess dies early on during the journey": "tasks" is jargony and "early on during" is redundant.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your comments and suggestions! I went through and addressed all of your comments specifically (all of which I agree with), though I'm struggling to identify any more issues requiring attention. Additional examples or suggestions would be very useful, should you find the time. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 06:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The writing is a bit weak; see forex "In the comic book series American Dreams, it is told that...". Suggest a copy edit.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In all my years on Wikipedia, I do not recall having seen an image that scrolled down in an FA... I could imagine such as case if the img was obviously larger than the frame, but this is a single head shot (and so it is not at all obvious that the reader should scroll down). I am hesitant about this img style.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: Thanks for your comments. The image was previously larger, which made it more obvious to scroll down, but this was changed for some reason, with little explanation. If you feel it's necessary, the image border can be enlarged to make it more obvious (à la Guardians of the Galaxy), or even edited to be horizontal instead (similar to 1979 Revolution: Black Friday or Fez). Let me know. – Rhain ☔ 09:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an image guy. I just know I completely did not see this, and I imagine others will miss it too. If anything, you should be eager to display your visual information in a perspicuous manner... Yes I think it needs altering, but I leave it to you to alter it in the clearest possible manner (probably from among those possibilities you just cited) [ps you still need a top-down copy edit]..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi: I agree—I enlarged the border height to make it more obvious (any larger will likely be disruptive). Any suggestions on the copy edit? Should I try to perform this myself, or make a request for someone else to take a look? – Rhain ☔ 10:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I think putting in a request to GOCE might not be considered kosher during a FAC, so I wouldn't advise that. You could do it yourself or ask a trusted ce editor to slip in and do it. I can't promise I can do it, tho I may have time tomorrow night.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain, I'm in the middle of a move right now but ping me early this weekend if you still need a ce and I'll give it a look-see. (By the way, I didn't know the image scrolled down either until Lingzhi mentioned it. I'm partial to the horizontal proposal.) czar 15:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Tks Czar and Lingzhi for the offers but for an article to be open more than six weeks and still need top-down copyediting is a concern, and I'd prefer to archive this and allow further work to take place away from the pressure of FAC. Rhain, as well as seeking a copyedit, I think it would be good if you could engage Nick-D, if he has time, to look over the article -- after the ce but before you renominate at FAC -- as I know he raised some points at the previous nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four supports and not a single oppose until less than a week before its closure—how convenient. Thanks for the suggestions, Ian. – Rhain ☔ 13:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.