Talk:C (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 12:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Will be doing this. A full review will follow when I have time, but for now, I can give you three suggestions:

• The terminology section has got to go; this isn't Wikia, it's unsourced, and at best a brief overview should instead be included in the plot section
• The reception section seems to be pretty Western-centric: are any Japanese reviews available?
• The article does not mention the series' sales figures (from what I recall, the sales figures weren't good and the show sold poorly in Japan, so the numbers are available online).

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• It was readded by Nuobgu (indeed, I included the main points in the plot section some time ago). I've already reverted it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• As I said on your review of A, A Prime: "If you pick one of this randomly I'm pretty sure you'll not find Japanese reception". It may be one of the greatest drawbacks of our project, but we don't even included review sites on the project's source library.
• I looked for it while expanding it, but I found nothing (except for the DVD/BD 1 sales already included). I'll do a new research. Do you remember where you saw it?

Waiting for the full review. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: Oricon is where you can check, though the part that has all sales data requires a subscription. You could also ask the webmaster of this website for a direct Oricon link if possible to the sales data for the series. I'm on my phone right now so later I might also check. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

For reference, per volume sales for the series can be found on this link, though ideally it should be the direct Oricon link if possible. I'll see if I can find a Japanese source that mentions the data as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting link. Although obviously not reliable per WP's standards, the sales data for the first volumes matches ANN's data. I tried to navigate through Oricon's archives but it's kind of complicated. I found the archives for the weeks of 2011-08-15 and 2011-08-22 to look for the first DVD volume (2011-08-19), but I didn't find it there (though it's probably because it didn't chart well enough; ANN link matches the 2011-08-22 link, but Oricon list only goes to #20). The BD link doesn't even work. Anyway, in the end, none of the links provide sales figures... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I asked there, "Do you have the individual links for Oricon's weekly rankings?". However, I bet they don't have it. I mean, they don't have our policy for links, etc (not even recent publications include it). And it was seven years ago... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: For reviews, since Japanese ones don't seem to exist, I can give you that and let it pass; there's not much we can do on that end. For the sales figures, I spoke with the webmaster yesterday, and he said that, although the numbers are accurate, he doesn't have access to the source at the moment, and there doesn't seem to be any free public links that can be used as a source (only subscription ones, if at all). Considering the lack of reviews in Japanese, sales figures are your best bet to include at least some Japanese reception: I suggest that you do an WP:IAR here and include the sales figures in the article and use the website as a source. Considering the show didn't sell well enough to have its sales mentioned anywhere else, this is the best we can do. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the best way to handle it. It can be a precedent for using such type of self-published sources in our articles, and an excuse to use blogs and forums as sources. Even if the data is accurate, the truth is not more important than [reliably-sourced] verifiability. Although it's a pitty we cannot have it on the article, it doesn't need to be there because GA criteria doesn't require comprehensiveness. Anyway, we can request a second/third opinion if you prefer to. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is actually very close to passing the nomination: everything else checks out, the Japanese sales figures are the only things missing (yes I read your comment, but we do have WP:IAR so I think we could probably make an exception this once, maybe even with a footnote). With the topic of Japanese sales figures, I'm requesting a  Second opinion requested, though I'll still make the final decision if this nomination passes or not. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Second Opinion - if there's not a reliable source for sales data, sales data shouldn't be included in the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji and Narutolovehinata5: Here is a ranking source which can be used: [1]. Also some note should be made that there has been no sequel to this, following the Hollywood mantra that if you do not have a hit then you do not get a sequel. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: MyAnimeList is not considered a reliable source as it is user editable; as such, we'd rather avoid using it. @Gabriel Yuji: It's okay if you can't give the complete sales data in the article, but at the very least, maybe volume 1 sales or week 1 sales should be included. Considering most reception information in the article is about Western reception, this is needed to give at least some information on Japanese reception (considering a lack of Japanese reviews). You could probably check ANN and see their "BD/DVD rankings" news to check if there's any sales information there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Thanks for the input. @JohnWickTwo: as Narutolovehinata5 said, MAL is not a reliable source as it holds user-generated scores and rankings. Also, to assume it didn't get a sequel because it was not a hit would be original research. @Narutolovehinata5: I already included week 1 sales for DVD/BD in the second paragraph of "Release". I didn't include it on "Reception" because I didn't want to have a single-line paragraph – but I can do so if you think it's better presented (however, I think it's logical to include it there because it's dicussing home media anyway). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Its up to Naruto what is decided as the best path to take here. I think you can mention that there is no sequel for it since there is no sequel, without it being NOR. Just leave out my quip about the Hollywood mantra about hits and sequels. Cheers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gabriel Yuji: I think in this case, you can move the week 1 sales part to the reception section, since sales do count as reception. If it's gonna be a short paragraph, it could always be the first sentence of the first paragraph instead of its own paragraph. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, Narutolovehinata5. (As for John's suggestion: if there's no sequel, so it's not necessary to say it, it's implied.) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this review has taken so long, but as it stands, no outstanding issues with the article remain. This is a well-written article, and I'm happy to announce that this nomination is a pass. Congratulations Gabriel Yuji. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)