Talk:Holmes' Revelation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maky (talk · contribs) 09:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I will be starting this review in article within the next week... hopefully less. For now, I'm claiming it. – Maky ^« talk » 09:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Conan, Ran Mori, and Kogoro Mori are given a free trip to London after finding a cat that belongs to Diana Kingstone, a rich British woman. Since Conan Edogawa is not a real person, Ai Haibara gives Conan two antidotes for the APTX 4869 poison in order to use his true identity, Shinichi Kudo, to board the plane." — These opening sentences don't flow, and having never read the manga or watched the anime, I'm lost already. Either more of an introduction is needed or (preferably) minor details need to be trimmed and the plot summarized more succinctly—see my next point...

I reworded it, if it doesn't work I give up.

Definitely better. – Maky ^« talk » 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest reading WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. As I get further and further into the plot summary, I feel like I'm literally reading every twist and turn in the story. For example, all the riddles and clues could be summarized into a two or three sentences, listing all the Sherlock Holmes stories and London locations to which they allude. You don't have to explain each riddle and how the resulting clue fits it, but it might be good to explain how it all comes together. The last sentence in the third paragraph is great for this. In short, I think the plot summary should be maybe one or two paragraphs, maybe ten to twelve sentences, tops. And don't worry about the size of the article if it gets trimmed down a lot. Article size should have no effect on a GAN's chances at passing.

Being a mystery series, I find it is necessary and not excessive. If this is the reason it fails GA, I'm okay with it.

WP:PLOTSUM (from which WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE comes) is not even a guideline, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries is. It states: "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." At present, nearly 1/3 of the article (including the lead) is a detailed plot summary. Also WP:PLOT is a policy, which mentions a "concise summary". I'm not trying to be a dick—it's just that detailed inclusions of subplot elements can make the plot summary hard to follow for people not familiar with the series, even if it makes perfectly good sense to people who are familiar with it. (And I'm assuming the latter is definitely true.) In my opinion, the benefit of trimming or removing subplot summaries is that it makes the story more accessible to a general audience. If I were familiar with the series, I would gladly help write a more concise alternative and post it for discussion on the talk page, but unfortunately, I am not. I'm also not even sure if you're summarizing the manga or the anime. If you know others from the WikiProject that could comment on this, I would value their feedback. But if we really can't resolve this further, I'll pass the article because it does not clearly violate policy or guideline. If this article were to go to FAC, however, I would oppose strictly on these grounds. – Maky ^« talk » 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref #6 in the lead is not needed since the material is covered and cited in the article. As long as the lead summarizes the article's contents, citations are only needed there for highly controversial material.

I think its an improvement and edited it under the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

WP:LEAD states: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I would argue that this article is not a complex, current, or controversial subject (thus requiring no citations in the lead), but since this is handled by consensus, and you and I are the only ones discussing it, then only an indefinite conclusion can be reached. – Maky ^« talk » 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ref #7 in the lead covers information that I didn't see in the article, namely: "The episodes were rated the top six watched anime during its run." It should be mentioned in the appropriate section and cited there. The statement in the lead can then stay, and the citation at that location can be removed. (See WP:LEAD)

Right.

• The kanji notes are a little cumbersome and make the text hard to read. I'm not sure how other anime/manga articles handle this, but could the cast be put in a table with the kanji notes? (I'm not mandating that this be changed. I just want to know if there is a precedence for this.)

One of my previous FLC said something about the references only include the Kanji while the romanization and translations were Original research. I included the Kanji to show the romanization and translations derived off of it.

If that's the precedent set at FLC, then so be it. Personally, I don't see the Kanji/Romaji translation as OR. When words/titles/characters from another language are needed in an article, I AGF when someone provides a translation of any sort, particularly in this case, where the Romaji is still Japanese (and helps English readers continue sentence flow by allowing them to sound it out). IPA and other pronunciation templates are often used on FAs without citations. – Maky ^« talk » 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article looks good. I'm going to AGF that you have covered all the major topics available in English (as well as some or all in Japanese. Once we work though and discuss the points above, I will gladly give my support. – Maky ^« talk » 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Hotarubi no Mori e, I had planned to review it if it came earlier in the summer. I'm too busy as of now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

School is more important. Thanks for at least considering it. – Maky ^« talk » 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Pending resolution of the issues noted with the plot summary

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Oppose: For the reasons pointed out above as well as the possibility of this being Fancruft as noted on the WikiProject discussion, I am failing this GAN. If it is decided that the article is not fancruft and the plot summary is simplified, or another reviewer feels the plot summary meets MOS, then it may pass another GAN review. – Maky ^« talk » 11:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)