Talk:Junya Nakano/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See prose/MoS issues below the main review. Besides the one sentence I listed below, the lead looks good, given the length of the article.

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):

   With only seven whole paragraphs and the fact that most of the sources seem to originate from one site, I do not think that there is broad enough coverage of the person. However, I'm going to get a 2nd opinion on this.

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):

   No images. This article should include one or two images with proper captions and good fair-use rationales if non-free.

   OK. I looked at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11#How important are images?, and the consensus there is that a GA should not fail on not having images; in fact, it was BLP articles like this that was why said consensus was established. I also misinterpreted that criterion. Hence, I'll pass based on the non-availability of free images to be used since we're dealing with a living person. MuZemike 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have placed the article on hold pending improvements made. Otherwise, most of the other writing looks OK. The references given look reliable, even though per my concerns with #3 above that most are coming from one source. MuZemike 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   GAN fails for right now per not meeting criteria 3 or 6. MuZemike 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   Placed back on hold as I did not think it was going to be worked on that quickly. MuZemike 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prose/MoS issues:

• He is perhaps best known for scoring Threads of Fate and co-composing Final Fantasy X. → "perhaps best known" sound very WP:WEASEL-ish and more like you're editorializing. Just reword that part to make it sound more neutral.
• Since scoring Threads of Fate, Nakano has mainly taken secondary roles on major projects. → "mainly" also sounds like you're editoralizing. I think this can also be rewritten in a way that is more neutral.
• I'd get rid of the subsections in the soundtrack listing. If he only did one soundtrack (feel/Go dream: Yuna & Tidus) outside of video games, you could probably include it in the list of titles he composed.

MuZemike 19:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the review. I removed "perhaps" from the lead as it was unnecessary; Nakano hasn't composed that many soundtracks, and Threads of Fate and Final Fantasy X are the most popular titles that he's been involved with, as well as being the games he's most recognised for. In regards to images, I'm not sure what kind of images would be appropriate. I've been unsuccessful in finding a free use image of him, and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not allow fair use images on people. The comprehensiveness issue is understandable, and yes, the article is quite short. However, I've exhausted the sources that I've used, and the only website I've found that has extensive information on the composer is Square Enix Music Online. Seeing as he is quite an obscure composer, I don't think there is much more information about him available. The "Musical style and influences" section can probably be expanded, but I will need some time to do that; I'm a little busy in real-life ATM. The Prince (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'll do is fail this for right now, and when you get around to that expansion and addition of images, you can give me a ping or just renominate for another GAN. MuZemike 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just went through it again, and it looks better and a bit larger than before. Passed. MuZemike 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

The article is exceptionally short, which while not a bad thing makes me iffy if it is covering all bases: it's barely bigger than a list entry in its current form. Is there any way to expand it to have more martial?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)