Starting review. bridies (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Seems reasonably well-written; will copy edit later.
The reference style is all over the place. Some imperfection is acceptable, but I feel this is a screwed-up layout per WP:GACR.
2.
Mobygames is not reliable per WP:VG/RS. Those credits seem to be user-contributed.
I'm not sure any of the sources explicitly support A cheesy "Jill sandwich" scene in the first RE game sparked a popular Internet meme of the same name (Urban Dictionary does, but far from the best source; Tom's Hardware link is dead). Not that big an issue but you might want to look for just one good source that says that specifically. As an aside, I always thought it was a badly pronounced "Giblets", not "Jill". I'm most disappointed to learn otherwise.
Segment Next doesn't meet WP:RS requirements: calls itself a blog, per [1] the owner and editor is the same guy, and Google ads signify a lack of professionalism, as does the admission that it is "run by the devotion and hard work" of the "staff" (read, it's run for free as a hobby).
3.
Reception section is weighted towards covering her sex appeal. There are some hints at the non-sexual appreciation of the character (for example: "her normal name, normal build and normal demeanor, trapped in the most abnormal of situations."), but not enough actual commentary. So, for example: The Escapist called her "a classic example" of a heroine, but the article doesn't really say why; GamesRadar also included her among the 11 heroines that "embody the best of videogame girls"... again, why?; ...Except she accomplished her attractiveness and appeal in a very different way to typical female protagonists at the time, in what way is it different? Etc.
4
Pretty much neutral, but see above.
5
The photo lacks author info. Without attribution, I'm not sure we should be using it. bridies (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate when they use these stupid automatic templates for references too, I always try to spend these few seconds to write one properly. There are tons of possible refs for "Jill sandwich". And by "tons", I mean about 188,000. Besides its use in Dead Rising, the meme also entered Capcom merch:[2] --Niemti (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, just what the hell is "a Blossom vibe"? --Niemti (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where's that from? bridies (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to Google it, but I think it's a reference to this: Blossom (TV series). The main character seems to be a teenage girl with an affinity for silly hats. bridies (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Failed The reception is still strongly weighted towards sex appeal and lacks any substantial discussion, other than cursory quotes, of other aspects; the section appears to be organised entirely from the perspective of evaluating her sex appeal and thus lacks breadth and neutrality. The photo still lacks authorship information: this issue hasn't been addressed nor even acknowledged. bridies (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reception is based only on what exists (like there was nothing to answer the "why" in your question above), and not something what you want to magically appear, and just yesterday you had no problems with lack of negative reception for Tifa in her shitty article from few months ago. You're well aware I don't know how ideal image boxes should look like, so I'm not doing it, but your "I'm not sure" became suddenly "I'm sure". --Niemti (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "the section appears to be organised entirely from the perspective of evaluating her sex appeal" LOL NO. It covers everything that is available, in detail and and without bias. It represents the actual real world reception of the character, not your make-believe wishful thinking that will not become reality no matter how much you demand. --Niemti (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Again, a big part of the issue is just taking snippets out of context, and giving no representation of that context in the prose, or simply misrepresenting the sources' sentiments. Take for example Bonnie Ruberg of The Escapist called her "a classic example" of horror game female characters who fill the role of the heroine, as "she's tightly clothed, but not outrageously so, and she can shoot herself a mean zombie,. The source mentions her as part of a much broader discussion of representation of women in games ("The Question of Representation"), and the survival horror genre in particular. It has paragraphs describing weak female characters in survival horror, and then uses Jill Valentine as a counterpoint, as one "classic example" of many survival horror heroines. The article content should have reflected this wider importance to the genre and "The Question of Representation" within it (something like: Bonnie Ruberg of The Escapist called her "a classic example" of a tradition of realistic heroines within the survival horror genre, and contrasted her favourably with "helpless damsel" stereotypes also found in the genre.). Instead, the article just comments on her skintight attire, again, and leaves it at that. And even that has been done improperly: she is not, as the article explicitly states, considered (by the source) a "classic example" because ("as") her outfight has the optimum tightness, but because she is normal (and her attire is an incidental part of that). Interestingly enough, one of the GamesRadar sources uses the word "normal" repeatedly; thus this seems to me to be a pretty explicit pattern in the secondary opinion which is not articulated in the article. On that note, the problem is also about presentation: the article endlessly makes the point that she's "hot" and a "babe"; "It covers everything that is available" is not a virtue, as we do not quote everything possible on the same theme. Just read WP:SUBJECTIVE. And as I've said, anything not on that theme is nevertheless buried amongst quotes about how she's a hot babe with skintight clothes, and is not fairly represented. As another example, you're assertion that there was nothing to answer the "why" in your question above is completely spurious, and I note you've in fact managed to find the explanation: Jill was portrayed realistically and appropriately for what she is; a skilled and level-headed S.T.A.R. operative on par with her male companions, dressed like an actual police officer. Before, the article only saw fit to mention that she is "a hot zombie-killing machine" and "every male fanboy's dream". Pretty risible tbh. bridies (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I also used "why?" in reference to the other article discussed above. Do you have any shouting to do regarding the points I made above? And since you've pointed out this GamesRadar list: it's a good example of a pointless mention of a list, with no commentary whatsoever. bridies (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you used "why?" only once. Now you're either being ignorant (in this case, click alt+F and check) or blatantly lying for no reason / for sport. OK, I'm unwathcing this. --Niemti (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's of no real significance one way or the other. bridies (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the lead image be of Jill's original design. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]