View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kim Kitsuragi/archive1

Kim Kitsuragi

[edit]

Kim Kitsuragi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 22 January 2025, 09:22 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kitsuragi is the most well-developed character in Disco Elysium, a critically acclaimed game that is often included among List of video games considered the best. The player is left to imprint their own ideas onto the player-character, while Kim Kitsuragi acts as their tutorial, mentor, conscience, and comedic foil. Critics have noted how Kim Kitsuragi is one of the best video game companions, not just for being an interesting character, but for being an interesting game character. Critics have gushed about these many small yet memorable moments of reactivity, making the player feel that their actions and choices matter. By that interactive standard, I think Kim Kitsuragi might be one of the best examples of a video game character, period.

This article reached WP:GA a few weeks ago. Crisco 1492 reviewed it with comments at Talk:Kim Kitsuragi/GA1, suggesting that this would have an easy time at FAC. I have taken a few additional steps to make sure this is ready for FA. I feel that the prose is of high quality. I also believe the sources are also of high quality, though I'd draw attention to Valnet sources. While I agree that they offer minimal value for the sake of notability, this article is clearly notable, and briefly mentioning them does help illustrate why this character is so celebrated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Images:

Rereading the article...

Overall, excellent piece. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the fixes. It's possible they might get another revision, depending on what other editors say. A note: I couldn't figure out how to fix the nitpick around File:Robert Kurvitz in 2020.jpg, and often have challenges dealing with images. I'm normally pretty good with everything else, but is this something you can help with? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Ah, how can I not jump in to review the best character of all time, the unrepentant spoilsport Kim Kitsuragi? Comments within the week, ping if I let it slide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PMC: Checking back in. This nomination is still just under a week old, so take your time. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Appearances

I have some concerns with organization of this section, which feels disjointed. Although there's a limited number and no single-game character that's directly comparable, looking at other video game FAs like Chris Redfield or Lightning (Final Fantasy) gives an indication of how the best articles in this area are structured. "Appearances" concerns their role in the plot of their respective media, with other details like personality and design placed in the Concept section.

Meanwhile, in this article, Appearances is all over the place. Para 1 opens with plot, then gets into Kim's character, then real-world details of the game's development and merch. Then para 2 repeats the murder and expands some more on the plot, then para 3 gives us his personality details. I think you need to reorganize so Appearances only concerns his role in the plot, which could be expanded somewhat to compensate.

I'm going to stop here since there's not much point going further if there's going to be a radical rework. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I want to make some edits to improve this article, but I want to make sure we can get on the same page about the Appearances section. I tried to write the Appearances section in a WP:PYRAMID style, beginning with an overview of Kitsuragi's appearances (paragraph 1), a closer look at his role in the main plot (paragraph 2), and finishing with the finest details of his appearances in the game (paragraph 3). Your comment (and helpful rephrasing) that "Kitsuragi only reveals certain aspects of his personality in specific situations" is really instructive, because it explains how this character doesn't have the same linear story arc as most literary characters (or even game characters). This isn't just a random fact about Kitsuragi. It's literally what most of the sources discuss.
Expanding on his role in the plot would be incorrect, and not reflective of the majority of sources that give us paragraph three: Kitsuragi's notable moments of reactivity, as an interactive and non-linear game character. It might help to read the analysis and reception section (even short of a full FA review with comments) to understand how many reviewers fixate on Kitsuragi's appearances during the game's small moments of reactivity, with very little to say about Kitsuragi's overall story arc (or lack thereof). This is why there is an entire paragraph just about that.
As for the "Final Cut", merch, and collage mode, this is meant to describe Kitsuragi's appearances and portrayal outside of the original game release. I realize how merchandizing his bomber jacket might not exactly be an appearance, but merch is discussed under the appearances for other game character FA's including Ada Wong, Claire Redfield, Jill Valentine, Lightning (Final Fantasy), and Raichu. Would a new heading or subheading help?
Another idea would be to re-sequence the existing information. Currently, it's written WP:PYRAMID style, where paragraph 1 offers a comprehensive overview of all of his appearances, with the second and third paragraphs going into progressively more detail about his main appearance in the main game. I could move the merch and collage mode to the end of the section (and maybe even the "Final Cut" too, though it represents an expansion of his appearances in the main game that is hard to separate from the original release). Another idea that I don't like is to ignore the advice at WP:PYRAMID and WP:INUNIVERSE, instead writing this section in terms of the fictional chronology of the game. I would introducing the game's plot (all but the last sentence of paragraph 2), then describe the many smaller appearances in the middle (most of paragraph 3), and then finish with the game's ending (the last sentence in paragraph 2). (And the post-release stuff such as merch can appear right after.)
Your other comments about the lead are well-taken. I want to make sure I understand the best way to address the appearances section before I tackle these all at once. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you were going for, but nonetheless it reads as disorganized, especially when you compare it to FAs for other characters. Like I said, the first paragraph jumps around, and the second paragraph repeats information already mentioned in the first. Yes, merchandise is mentioned in other articles, but in its own paragraph separate from the plot summary (often its own section), and balanced by a larger plot section that actually explains their role in the story of their respective games. And again, personality/characterization is generally placed within the Concept or Character design section, not within Appearances. I've played the game, I'm familiar with Kim's reactivity as a character. But I've also written and reviewed my share of Featured Articles, and with a focus on article structure, and I can generally tell when something isn't working. Following a pyramidal structure is not mandatory (the page even says articles are not usually structured this way), and I don't think it's working for you in this section.
Producing a summary of Kim's role in major plot beats (like the tribunal maybe? "Kim truly trusts you" is practically the emotional high point of the entire game) is not in violation of WP:INUNIVERSE, and I'm not sure why you would think it is. Other VG character FAs spend much longer describing their role in their respective stories, in order to give the reader context to the real-world reception and analyses that follow. It simply doesn't make sense to not have that information here as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried about expanding on a plot point that none of the secondary sources have particularly spent time on, while having me remove moments of the character's appearances that the secondary sources do focus on.
I am also concerned about eliminating the fact that he is represented in merch, expansions, and re-releases. That's why I brought up WP:INUNIVERSE, as it seems like you're asking me to remove real world context to put the main plot of the singular game ahead of what reliable sources have discussed.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your request. I can see the merit in re-sequencing and even expanding the section, but certainly not eliminating the moments of his appearances that are discussed extensively by secondary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my comment. The only thing I've asked to be removed entirely, as opposed to simply moved, is the photo mode detail, which is misleading as currently written. Everything else is largely worth keeping, but needs re-organization and expansion. Per MOS:PLOTCITE, you don't need secondary citations for plot information. Primary references are acceptable for this purpose, as long as you're not performing any interpretation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your concerns and did my best to address them. Take a look at the new version. I am slightly concerned that the big changes caused this section to lose the polish from many other editors' feedback. I'm even tempted to revert to the prior version. But if you think it's on the right track, I would like to keep going. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and citation formats by BP!

[edit]

Spot check

[edit]

Reviewing this version:

  1. 2 Where does it speak of his first appearance? I don't see calm and stoic either here or the other source. Nor the part about the statistics.
  2. 4 OK
  3. 8 OK
  4. 9 OK
  5. 11 OK
  6. 13 OK
  7. 15 OK
  8. 16 OK
  9. 20 OK
  10. 34 I am not sure that citing only the first author is the right way to cite a paper. And where does it draw a connection to the Brecht distancing?
  11. 35 OK
  12. 38 OK
  13. 39 OK
  14. 41 OK
  15. 44 OK
  16. 45 OK
  17. 48 OK
  18. 50 OK
  19. 52 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appearances section is in the process of a serious overall, or potentially being reverted. But I'll speak to the comments for the other sections:
  • Re: "statistics".[2]
    • "Imagining that Lieutenant Kitsuragi has only one natural attribute pointin Motorics helps the ZA/UM team to understand the depth of his character ..." -> I changed it to attributes, just to stay closer to the source.
  • Re: "Brecht".[34]
    • "Further, the game utilizes luck mechanics, causing you to fail tests when trying to empathize or care for other characters in the game and making life harder for your partner, Kim Kitsuragi. It is constantly communicated to you, the player, that Harry Du Bois and his relatively low control over himself and his faculties, make it impossible to always do the right thing."
    • "Harry Du Bois is not a sympathetic character which the player pities or looks up to, instead the player is forced to connect with him on a different level, as described by Brecht (Willet, 1964). This distanced connection, ... allows for critical reflection"
The last one is trying to summarize a long article in a single sentence, but this is the essence of it. If we can at least check those ones off, we can revisit the other uses of source 2 just as soon as I get word about the prose review above. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 54