Talk:Lisa Trevor

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lisa Trevor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Boneless Pizza! (talk · contribs) 01:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Written review

Image

• Source is a WP:BAREURL, which is prone to link rot. Not a GA criterion, but recommend providing a full reference so that it is easier to maintain the source if the website goes down.

Done but sadly it wouldn't work at ref 8 not sure why. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hi Boneless Pizza!, I was referring specifically to the source link for File:Lisa Trevor.png. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• She is depicted in a monstrous form wearing a sewed mask of different faces. - "She is depicted in a monstrous form" is rather awkward phrasing. Is there a cleaner way of putting this?

Reworded

• She is largely invulnerable to damage, due to having been injected with a virus during experimentation. -> She is largely invulnerable to damage after being used in viral experimentation.

Reworded

• She is mentally unstable due in part to the death of her mother, who was also experimented on. -> Minor nitpick, but I'd reframe this to avoid a second "she is" construct in a row.

Ended up removing that sentence

• Lisa was created by Shinji Mikami, who hoped to make people, who are initially repelled, feel sympathy once they discover her backstory. - Phrasing is a bit awkward. Perhaps "Trevor was created by Shinji Mikami, who hoped that the character would overcome their initial revulsion and develop sympathy for the character after learning her backstory"

Replaced

• Lisa Trevor is a human who was transformed into a monstrous form after being injected with a recently discovered virus called "Progenitor". - Do we have a link for Progenitor virus (I'd assume in a T-virus article?)

Replaced to a strain of virus

• I'd mention year of release upon first mention for the media in #Concept and design

I don't quite understand what is this. I'm not sure if you mean placing a year of release at the film but I did.

• Before the events of the game, while a teenage girl, she and her mother were abducted and experimented on, each injected with a different virus - Above you mention they were both the Progenitor virus; this appears inconsistent. The source uses "strain", which is more accurate.

Replaced

• Her story was identified by Rock Paper Shotgun writer Adam Smith as the highlight of the game's story. - You just got finished mentioning that Lisa is in two games; I'd mention that this is the 2002 remake.

Reworded

• Bloody Disgusting writer Trace Thurman identified her as his favorite thing about the series, stating that she edged out other elements due to how tragic and detailed her backstory was -> Bloody Disgusting writer Trace Thurman identified her as his favorite thing about the series, stating that she edged out other elements due her how tragic and detailed backstory.

Reworded

• GamesRadar+'s Andy Kelly stated that her backstory was "pitiful" and, combined with the battle with Lisa, this aspect made for one of the most disturbing moments in the game - Phrasing is awkward. Not really sure what is meant here.

I ended up removing it and placed the source at the beginning of paragraph.

• She was also praised by several critics as one of the greatest bosses and villains in Resident Evil, - "She" --> Lisa
• Author Federico Alvarez Igarzábal discussed how Lisa served as a subversion of the concept of "Chekhov's BFG"; a "Chekhov's BGF" is a modification of the Chekhov's gun concept and posits that receiving a powerful weapon in a video game portends ominous things to come. Alvarez Igarzábal highlights that, despite players receiving a powerful weapon, the game soon pits them up against Lisa, who would be a waste of ammunition to fire upon given her inability to die. In doing so, Resident Evil tricks players into using valuable ammo against her - I'm not really understanding this. A Chekhov's BFG is a big f'ing gun that has been teased before, whereas a big gun f'ing is... a bit more of a pun than can really be communicated in the space provided here. How about "Author Federico Alvarez Igarzábal described Lisa as a subversion of the "Chekhov's BFG" trope, presenting an enemy against whom a powerful weapon is ineffectual. Rather than defeat Lisa as expected, players attempting to use their newly acquired weapon would merely waste valuable ammunition."

Replaced

• Is the alternate path wherein Barry Burton is defeated by Lisa Trevor, resulting in his magnum being acquired, able to be cited and worth mentioning?

This is non-Canon and I don't think this is worth to include like other articles.

Referencing

• Spotchecks based on this revision
  • 2a: Supports (having played the game a few dozen times, also supported in-game)
  • 7: I'm not seeing any mention of Lisa Trevor outside of the comments.

Removed I missed that part as I thought she appeared at that film but she isn't.

• • 9: Supports
  • 12: Supports

Verdict

• Overall in good shape. Some general readability concerns, question about comprehensiveness, and one spotcheck failed verification. Putting this on hold. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  hi again! I think I've addressed each of your concern. Thank you. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hi BP. I made a few small edits, but overall I think this meets the GA criteria. I will be promoting now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

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.