The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Freikorp, I'm sorry but this is not a very good article. My main concern is that it needs a serious rewrite, from top to bottom. A lot of the article is inaccurate and out of date because it was developed and written long before the game was actually released. For example, most of the references in the gameplay section are sources to the initial announcements of the game and don't detail the game mechanics in a suitable manner. The best way to cite the gameplay section is to use third-party official strategy guides and/or post-release reviews. Likewise, tenses are plain wrong: "The feature will allow players to enter or leave any time during the game. Players will not always stick together, and can be separated at points during the gameplay." Another one: "The game is a direct sequel to the Resident Evil series".
Some other things:
First of all this is an AAA game. There is enormous amount of info available out there which is lacking in the article. For example, you can expand the development section with this. The Reception section can also be easily expanded.
I added a couple new sentences to the reception section, though I assume you want it expanded further. Do you think it needs more sources, or can I just expand the comments from the existing reviews already in the section? Freikorp (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be 4 paragraphs of 5 or 6 lines each. I would also suggest to include the Game Revolution review. With all these sources, I think you can easily expand it. Also, try to explain why some features were criticized/praised. For example: "James Mielke of 1UP.com repeatedly compared Resident Evil 5 to Gears of War 2 while criticizing the game's new controls." You should explain why the rewiever criticized the controls. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you cannot expand the development section a bit further? Keep in mind that the second reference I told you to use is a 5-page interview. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is badly organized: why is the marketing section placed after the downloadable content section and after the release of the game. Things should be ordered chronologically and by the following order: development, music, marketing, release (you can include the special editions here), and reception). Also, why is there a short, separate section for the PlayStation Move support?
It still needs more work. Why is there a small "windows version additions" subsection in the development section? Most of its content is useless. Example: "The Windows version of Resident Evil 5 features online co-operative play like the console versions..." can be omitted without damaging the article. Info about the PC release should also be moved to a release section, and critical reception info, if there is any, should be moved to the reception section. Additionally, I would remove the following sentence: "This has been preceded by a benchmark tool release for both system performance evaluation as well as to test the new 3D technology which is implemented in all the cutscenes within the game." This benchmark tool is non-notable and irrelevant because there are many benchmark tools for many PC games and Resident Evil 5 is no exception. Some other things:
Rename the "Gold Edition and downloadable content" section to "Additional content". Section titles should be very generic and clear so that the general reader can easily identify article content from the table of contents (the general reader does not know what "Gold Edition" means). Also, the content of that section needs to be completely rewritten because it looks like a history: "In [insert date here], it was announced [Insert announcement here]. In [insert date here], it was announced [Insert announcement here]...". That's because the article was developed and written long before the game was actually released. Things should be put into context. Also, the first time the words "Gold Edition" appear in the article is at the end of the second paragraph of that section and they assume that the general reader knows what it is. Ironically, later, in the third paragraph, the article explains for the first time what the Gold Edition is. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The setting subsection is useless: The first line: "The game continues chronologically after Resident Evil 4,[9] taking place in 2009, eleven years after the events of the original Resident Evil" is irrelevant because Resident Evil 5 is a stand-alone game with no relevant and meaningful connections to other games in the series. The rest of the setting subsection can be merged into the plot section. The simpler, the better. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Marketing section should be renamed to "Marketing and release" and should include when the game was first release for the X360, PS3 and PC. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph starting with "On January 21, 2009 D+PAD Magazine reported that Resident Evil 5 would be released with Limited Edition Xbox 360 box art..." in the development section should be merged into the new marketing and release section. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The PlayStation Home subsection can be merged into the 3rd paragraph of the Marketing and release section, right after the sentence "Resident Evil 5 was released on Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 in March 2009." --Niwi3 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the development section can be merged. Also, there is no need to create a subsection for the music because it is too short and non-notable. Use the music paragraph as the 4th paragraph of the development section. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Additional content section still needs work because it has a lot of superfluous info: The fact that the Alternative Edition was released in Spring 2010 is mentioned twice in the second paragraph. No need to repeat. Also, try to avoid the word "announced" as it is used too many times in that section. Usually, the general reader does not care when something that is not very notable, like a special edition, was announced. The general reader only wants to know its new features and when it was released. The section can easily be reduced to three paragraphs: one for the Versus mode and Alternative Edition, another for the Gold Edition and its included extras, and the last one for separately-released DLCs and other minor details. On the other hand, the sentence "Players may also play Team Survivors or Team Slayers in which there are four players, two on each side" needs to be clarified. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made some copy myself since the section still had obvious flaws you overlooked. Please take your time to fix things; it is the only way to improve this article. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'll try and pay more attention from now on. I really appreciate the effort you're putting into this review, so thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The downloadable demo of Resident Evil 5 exceeded 4 million downloads worldwide during its release..." should be merged into the Marketing and release section, right after the sentence "A playable demo of the game was released in Japan on December 5, 2008 for the Xbox 360". Keep in mind that the reception section should only have post-release info. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence: "In the Netherlands the limited edition of the Xbox 360 Elite that was packaged with Resident Evil 5 was black instead of red" needs a reference. If you cannot find one, remove it (too much intricate details for the general reader). --Niwi3 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in the development section, "Capcom officially announced Resident Evil 5 on July 20, 2005", should be moved to the start of the Marketing and release section. Also, in the Marketing and release section, the sentence "Microsoft released a limited edition red Xbox 360 Elite console that was sold along with the game. This bundle included a Resident Evil Premium Theme for the Xbox 360 Dashboard and a voucher for Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix over Xbox Live" should be the last sentence of the second paragraph. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally a good idea to start each section with the title of the article so that the article stays focused on the topic. For example, you can start the gameplay section like this: "Resident Evil 5 is an action game played from an over the shoulder perspective that supports two players. The first player controls Chris Redfield, and..." Similarly, you can start the development section section like this: "Resident Evil 5 was developed by Capcom and produced by Jun Takeuchi, who previously worked on Onimusha and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. Keiji Inafune, who served as promotional producer..." --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the two you suggested, and also for the 'Marketing and release' section. The 'Additional content' and 'sales' section's feature the title in the first sentence, and I couldn't think of a way to reword them so the title appears first that wouldn't read a little awkward. Freikorp (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the reception section, the six references after the sentence "Resident Evil 5 has received generally positive reviews" are unnecessary because we already have the table of reviews for that. In fact, the more references you add to a statement in the prose, the less reliable it becomes. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Allegations of racism" subsection should be a subsection under the Marketing and release section because these allegations were made prior to the release of the game. Also, is the trailer screenshot really necessary? I don't think it adds anything meaningful that could not be written in the prose. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah fair enough, i've removed the screenshot. Are you sure it's ok to have the entire subsection in the marketing and release, considering that while the allegations began from the release of the demo, some of the comments/sources used later in the section cited are clearly from after the full game was released? Freikorp (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. I'm not entirely convinced with how the article currently looks with the Allegations to racism section under the Marketing and release section. I think it would be better to place it after the Reception section, in its own section. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some paragraphs in the lead can be merged. Typically, a lead should consist of two or three paragraphs. Also, I think that the sentence "The game is the seventh installment in the Resident Evil series" is confusing for the general reader, and can be considered original research because I doubt there is a reliable, third-party, published source that supports it. I would simply say that the game is the fifth main installment in the Resident Evil series. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The gameplay section is too short and assumes that the general reader is familiarized with the Resident Evil series, which is wrong. Example: "They bear many resemblances to the Ganados of Resident Evil 4, because they speak, run, dodge and wield weapons." Also, the game should be categorized as an action game, not as a third-person shooter or survival horror. See this.
Fair enough calling it action instead of survival horror (I actually found a reference that specifically states RE5 departed from survival horror for increased action) but the game is clearly also a third-person shooter, so why can't we have both? Freikorp (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the industry standard and avoid hybrid genres like "survival horror third person shooter" because they can be considered original research. Also, the game does not purely center on shooting. It also focuses on evasion, timing, and exploration, among other things. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could be better use of non-free images. The gameplay image does not reflect how the gameplay actually looks like and has a generic caption: "Chris and Sheva battling a group of enemies". I would suggest to use an image that does not have a lot of action so that it is clearer for the general reader.
@Niwi3: I don't own this game so I can't take my own screenshot. How about the middle picture here [1] or this one [2]? Obviously I will significantly reduce the size of the chosen image. Or perhaps this one which shows how the split screen does not take up the full screen, as now mentioned in the article? [3]Freikorp (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not an easy article, but I cannot pass the article in its current shape; there are enough significant issues in the article in that merely placing on hold is not going to do any good. As I said before, I would suggest to start with a complete rewrite and source the gameplay section with post-release references. Also, keep things simple and avoid creating unnecessary sections or subsections. After that, you can expand the development and reception sections easily. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. I will probably close this nomination tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niwi3. I went away for the weekend and have just seen your comments now. Thanks for the honest feedback. I didn't write the article, I just cleaned it up and nominated it. Apparently I didn't clean it up enough. I won't hold it against you if you do, but i'd appreciate it if you didn't close the nomination for at least the full seven days following your review so I can have a chance to fix it up and hear some feedback on how i'm going. Regardless on whether or not you close the nomination i'll start addressing your concerns tomorrow. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries. I won't close the nomination so soon and will give you some time to address the major issues. If you manage to fix them all, I will give the article another chance and do a second review. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems that the obvious issues have been fixed. I will start the actual GA review sometime today or tomorrow. Sorry for any inconvenience but right now I'm really busy IRL. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Issues in the lead:
The lead does not need too many release dates (we already have the infobox for that). I would suggest to simplify the sentence about its release like this: "It was released for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles in March 2009, and for Microsoft Windows in September 2009." Keep in mind that the lead should be as much accessible as possible for the general reader. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Resident Evil 5 was released on all its platforms in 2009" is redundant because the fact that the game was released in 2009 is already mentioned in the first paragraph. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The sequel to the game, Resident Evil 6, was released in 2012" --> "A sequel to the game, Resident Evil 6, was released in 2012" --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is essentially a summary of the body of the article, so everything that is in the lead must be in the body. The fact that the game outsold its predecessor and became the best-selling game of the franchise is not mentioned in the body. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The game was announced in 2005, the same year that its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released, with several staff members from that game and the original Resident Evil being involved." is a bit confusing and should be reworded. Also, I see no mention in the body that several staff members from Resident Evil 4 worked on Resident Evil 5. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "Resident Evil 5 is an action game played from an over the shoulder perspective that supports two players.", action game and over the shoulder should be wikilinked. Also, move the reference to the end of the sentence. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar should be wikilinked. Also, Sheva Alomar should not be wikilinked in the plot section because she would be already wikilinked in the gameplay section, which comes before the plot section. Typically, you only have to wikilink relevant words when they appear for the first time in the body and in the lead. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "Similarities to Resident Evil 4 include the infected "zombie-like" enemies, the inability to run and shoot at the same time...", the fact that Resident Evil 5 includes infected zombie-like enemies is redundant because pretty much all Resident Evil games feature these types of enemies. Also, I would simplify the sentence: "Like in its predecessor Resident Evil 4, players cannot run and shoot at the same time, but have the ability to upgrade weapons using money and treasures found in game, and heal themselves with herbs." --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The gameplay section is not very well organized because you start talking about the game's co-operative feature in the first paragraph, then talk about some game mechanics, and then start again talking about the co-operative feature later. Here's a suggestion: move the part "The first player controls Chris Redfield, and a second player can control Sheva Alomar. If playing alone, Sheva is controlled by the game's artificial intelligence. After the game has been completed once, the option is given to control Sheva as the primary character" to the start of the first paragraph and start the new combined paragraph like this: "Resident Evil 5 supports two-player co-operative gameplay. The first player controls Chris...". Once you have done that, remove the part "that supports two players" from the first paragraph and the sentence "The most notable new feature, however, is the co-operative gameplay; Resident Evil 5 is the first major game in the series where co-operative gameplay plays a significant role" from the second paragraph. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I'm not sure if i'm missing something here. "move the part" ... "to the start of the first paragraph". It's already the start of the first paragraph. Anyway have a look at the minor changes I made to this section and let me know what else needs doing. Freikorp (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"is dispatched to Kijuju, Africa to help Sheva Alomar" --> "is dispatched to Kijuju, Africa to help his new partner Sheva Alomar". We have to put that into context because Sheva is a new character. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "The cave, home of the Ndipaya tribe, is the source of the flower", remove the part "home of the Ndipaya tribe" because it is irrelevant and non-notable. Besides, it is not explained who the Ndipaya tribe is, so the general reader won't care. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The part "Takeuchi took over producer duties from Hiroyuki Kobayashi." is irrelevant because it is already mentioned in the previous sentence that Jun Takeuchi was the producer. Also, the fact that Takeuchi took over producer duties from Hiroyuki Kobayashi is not mentioned in refs 11 and 12. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In July 2008 Director Yasuhiro Anpo stated that the daytime setting was due to the advanced graphics capabilities" - Add a comma between 2008 and Director. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think you did a very good work expanding the development section. The two new paragraphs have no issues at all. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "The April 2008 issue of Famitsu Wave was bundled with a DVD containing a preview of the game" needs a reference. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph, the statement "Microsoft released a limited edition red Xbox 360 Elite console that was sold along with the game. This bundle included a Resident Evil Premium Theme for the Xbox 360 Dashboard and a voucher for Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix over Xbox Live" needs a reference. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simplify and wikilink: "A Windows version was released in September 2009; it takes advantage of Nvidia's new GeForce 3D Vision technology. The PC version came with exclusive..." --> "A Microsoft Windows version was release in September 2009. This version takes advantage of Nvidia's 3D Vision technology and includes extra content like additional costumes and a new mode in the Mercenaries minigame". --Niwi3 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph, Xbox Live Marketplace should not be wikilinked. ALso, replace PlayStation Network with PlayStation Store. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph, "with a patch released September 14, 2010." --> "with a patch released on September 14, 2010"." --Niwi3 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It was frequently praised for its graphics and gameplay, though drew considerable criticism for issues with its controls" --> "It was frequently praised for its graphics and gameplay, but drew considerable criticism for issues with its controls" --Niwi3 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...music and voice acting helped make characters come alive, though stated the inability to move..." --> "...music and voice acting helped make characters come alive. However, they remarked that the inability to move..." --Niwi3 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...Geddes stated in his review that split screen co-op was very..." --> "...Geddes stated in his review that the split-screen co-operative mode was very..." --Niwi3 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...Brian Crecente from Kotaku concluded "From beginning to end, this latest Resident Evil delivers a riveting and intense..." --> "...Brian Crecente from Kotaku concluded: "From beginning to end, this latest Resident Evil delivers a riveting and intense..." --Niwi3 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "He criticized several inconsistencies in the game, such as the enemies artificial intelligence levels, and the ability to interact with objects and use cover.", shouldn't there need to be a comma between the words intelligence and levels? --Niwi3 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the "...excruciating detail I've poured into describing the problems RE5 creates for itself...", replace RE5 with [Resident Evil 5] --Niwi3 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I couldn't find a more reliable source that confirmed RE5 was the first game in the series to use motion capture, but I did find three new reliable sources regarding motion capture, so i've reworded the paragraph (which also required me to reword the lead). Freikorp (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the additional content section, move ref 42 to the end of the sentence "During Sony's press conference at the Tokyo Game Show 2009, Capcom announced that a special edition of the game, known as Biohazard 5: Alternative Edition, would be released in Japan in Spring 2010 exclusively for the PlayStation 3." --Niwi3 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the additional content section, I would remove the sentence "The eight new characters were revealed to be 'Warrior Chris', 'Fairytale Sheva',[45] 'Heavy Metal Chris', 'Business Suit Sheva', Josh Stone,[46] Excella Gionne,[47] Rebecca Chambers and Barry Burton.[48]" along with its references because they have questionable reliability. Also, the general reader doesn't care who these characters are because they are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Too much intricate details. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all the issues have been addressed and I think the article currently meets the GA status. Just one last thing: next time you want to nominate an article, please make sure that it doesn't have obvious flaws like future tenses in the gameplay section or plenty of unnecessary and badly-organized subsections. These kinds of flaws usually lead to a quick-fail. In any case, I think you eventually managed to do a good job with the article, so I'm happy to pass this nomination. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.