# Talk:Amazon (Dragon's Crown)

I don't think there is any SIGCOV in this article to speak of, with the exception of Blast Magazine, which is about Kamitani's art style in general. Sorceress (Dragon's Crown) was merged for pretty much identical reasons. A few offhand comments on a character's appearance do not consist of significant coverage.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Two of the articles discussing the figure bring up the translation of the in game model to a 3D one, with comments about the design and whether it could be translated well with the same emphasis.
Kotaku's Luke Plunket comments on the website's censorship of the Amazon on it and expresses confusion, and feels that the design isn't sexualized and explains why.
Jeff Grub focuses entirely on both her design and that of the Sorceress and examines them in the context of both the game and gaming as a whole at that time.
Blast Magazine is also discussing her design specifically and examining it in the context of female portrayal, which despite what you claim isn't about "Kamitani's art style".
That's not to mention the other article such as Push Square and Rus McLaughlin's VentureBeat articles which also are entirely about these characters and their designs.:
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ While I understand you have a different view on what does and doesn't constitute SIGCOV than I, there's no way this doesn't meet SIGCOV, and in the same vein no way the Sorceress doesn't. Come bloody well on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I personally feel extremely confused by the sentiment that the Blast Magazine is talking only about Kamitani's art style. The article talks in detail about how the Amazon represents a strong female character in a way that a lot of other strong female characters do not, comparing her to Buffy. Can you elaborate what you mean here? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake tagging you in this too if that's alright since you were involved with that merge discussion to see what you think of this article. Also wanting you to take a look at these sources for the Sorceress I ran across while researching this one, and if you feel the same way as during that merge proposal.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The Blast Magazine article is clearly about the game's art style in general as drawn by Kamitani. It first mentions the Sorceress, then presents both the elf and Amazon as counterexamples of characters who aren't as hypersexualized. It then goes into the male characters as other examples that the game is sexualizing men in a similar way. The point is that it's not solely about the Amazon and spends equal amounts of time discussing the appearances of the other characters.
That isn't to mention the question of whether Blast Magazine is a WP:RS to begin with. It's not really a physical magazine, but an online blog. It says "Blast is online only. Don’t ask for the print edition." The reliability of it is an open question that hasn't been discussed indepth.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
To add to that, VentureBeat equally discusses Sorceress and Amazon. What this suggests to me is that a Characters of Dragon's Crown article may be merited, but they aren't standalone notable. (However, given that literally all of their coverage is solely about their art style, I'm dubious about even that).  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It has an editorial team, it cited in papers and books according to scholar, and hell even turned up a published hit on archive. The article in question also devotes non-trivial discussion to the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Additionally the Amazon and Sorceress are the two character discussed solely in any manner of significant coverage, so a list would make absolutely no sense as one cannot carry the rest of the article. I already figured you were going to suggest that (or a joint article between the characters), but the examinations of them across the sources are different and warrant separate articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I personally don't see much merit in this article. I remember those sources, and while some do focus briefly on the Amazon, most are talking in general terms about the art style of the game, which seemed suitably covered in the main article. Also the image of the pitch version doesn't have any associated commentary beyond her presence, and the Famitsu link doesn't say anything about "multiple iterations" or long development, the writer just comments on the fact that the pitch documents exist and that this version was planned for the Wii. That borderline-original research potentially throws the rest of the article's content into question; how much is interpolation/addition, and how much is citable commentary and fact? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake The multiple iterations are referencing the game, and the fact I left a Siliconera link out. The Dreamcast version of the game, which was significantly different, is discussed in that one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The notion that the fact that the article is about the game's art style is not relevant to whether the discussion of the Amazon's character is about that seems strange to me. What I am seeing is that the article is about something, but goes on to provide significant commentary. For example, the article states that she has made a lasting impression, and that her design is standout and unique. While this does deal with the overall design discussion, the source isn't stating that about the game's art style overall, it's talking about the design choices with Amazon in particular. For example, the discussion about how she manages to combine masculinity and femininity is not something that is inherent to the game's overall art style. Further, according to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I would say that the discussion in Blast Magazine constitutes significant coverage about the Amazon in particular. The reason why she is receiving significant coverage is immaterial to that she is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amazon (Dragon's Crown)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Everything looks well. The parts that kinda seem unnecessary are:

The infobox does not need references as long as the body has such information.
"Several figures of the Amazon have also been released, such as a 1/7th scale figure by Excellent Model,[19] another figure by XPLUS,[20] and another by Goodsmile as part of their Parfom line.[21]" Unlike the other merchandising, there is nothing unusual here. It's common that every video game character has merchandising so I suggest merging the notable merchandising with the reception or other section.
Most sources heavily focus on the character and appear to be reliable. I heard issues about Kotaku recently but the content is not informal.
That's all. Ping me when you think everything is okay.Tintor2 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've had people bring up issues with creators/designers voice actors needing to be referenced, especially as articles age and people try to add "helpful" bits (one particular example in regards to this, there's someone *assumed* to be the character's english voice actor, but neither she nor other reference has confirmed that. However multiple sites claim it)
I kept the promotion section separate because of the second paragraph: the reactions to that one figure tie directly into how her design was received (the Siliconera and SoraNews24 refs specifically), and would be out of place if combined into one paragraph. I hope these reasonings suffice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Passing review.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)