GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Ok on that front. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- References are a problem. There are some unreferenced claims; some sentences are missing citations making me dubious whether the cited offline source is really used for them, and finally, there are missing reference information (ex. page ranges; in same cases - authors, article titles...). All refs should be converted to Wikipedia:Citation templates for consistent formatting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some come from ebooks which have no pages. Like the one I just cited Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World. How should I best resolve this issue. The reference converting is ideal, I'll see about getting to that later. I've never converted them before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have the physical copy or an ebook? In my experience only bad Google Book scans don't have pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am using the Google Books ebook. You can verify the content yourself in said material, but no page numbers are given. While not ideal, I do not see how this will be a barrier because the material is verifiable in the sources. Same as the Wrong about Japan link. The "May 2006 issue of EX Taishuu magazine" cite can be dropped because it is already cited once. I have other material I can replace it with. Same with refs 5-6. Those are "trivial" sources as far as I am concerned and are easily replaceable. So for the immediate time, the only matter should extend to Wrong about Japan and Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World for pages because I am going to replace the others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked about good practices for this at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_a_book_without_page_numbers.3F. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I am using the Google Books ebook. You can verify the content yourself in said material, but no page numbers are given. While not ideal, I do not see how this will be a barrier because the material is verifiable in the sources. Same as the Wrong about Japan link. The "May 2006 issue of EX Taishuu magazine" cite can be dropped because it is already cited once. I have other material I can replace it with. Same with refs 5-6. Those are "trivial" sources as far as I am concerned and are easily replaceable. So for the immediate time, the only matter should extend to Wrong about Japan and Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World for pages because I am going to replace the others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have the physical copy or an ebook? In my experience only bad Google Book scans don't have pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some come from ebooks which have no pages. Like the one I just cited Fandom Unbound: Otaku Culture in a Connected World. How should I best resolve this issue. The reference converting is ideal, I'll see about getting to that later. I've never converted them before. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- References are a problem. There are some unreferenced claims; some sentences are missing citations making me dubious whether the cited offline source is really used for them, and finally, there are missing reference information (ex. page ranges; in same cases - authors, article titles...). All refs should be converted to Wikipedia:Citation templates for consistent formatting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- I doubt whether the article is broad in coverage. 1028 words for a major popculture topic - this is still barely a C-class in that regard. It fails to mention a number of books that deal with this topic, for one almost random example: Patrick W. Galbraith (25 June 2009). The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider's Guide to the Subculture of Cool Japan. Kodansha International. ISBN 978-4-7700-3101-3. Retrieved 12 August 2013.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorta confused here, because this is page is intended to be definition, usage and history of the term, not an analysis of Otaku subculture and groups. In a review of the material before I nommed, I was confronted with that problem and the details of the subculture versus the definition of the word is massive and the groups included are huge. The disconnect between Japanese usage and English usage is also important and I was told that the detailed subculture should not be discussed on this page. It would actually be rather confusing and unfeasible for a single page to cover "otaku" properly because you have train otaku, history otaku, vending machine otaku, idol otaku, fishing otaku, and others that are distinct subgroups that have nothing in common with each other - much less anime and manga. In English, the term describes anime and manga fans, but even that is not a major term and it is not a subculture. One page cannot hold the information, and it would need to be more indepth than Trekkie if such a page was going to be nommed. I will address the types of otaku to make this more clear though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure who is the intention-making party in "this is a page intended"; I certainly disagree with such an intention and consider the page grossly incomplete as long as the coverage of "an analysis of Otaku subculture and groups" is not added. If you disagree with me, we will have to ask for another reviewer's opinion here (if you'd like a second opinion, please request it at WT:GAN). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh don't get me wrong here, I recognize the omission, but did not want to quibble over the 12 recognized groups and the government's recognition or impart an unbalanced view of Anime and Manga otaku. I will address the issues you've raised immediately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not sure who is the intention-making party in "this is a page intended"; I certainly disagree with such an intention and consider the page grossly incomplete as long as the coverage of "an analysis of Otaku subculture and groups" is not added. If you disagree with me, we will have to ask for another reviewer's opinion here (if you'd like a second opinion, please request it at WT:GAN). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorta confused here, because this is page is intended to be definition, usage and history of the term, not an analysis of Otaku subculture and groups. In a review of the material before I nommed, I was confronted with that problem and the details of the subculture versus the definition of the word is massive and the groups included are huge. The disconnect between Japanese usage and English usage is also important and I was told that the detailed subculture should not be discussed on this page. It would actually be rather confusing and unfeasible for a single page to cover "otaku" properly because you have train otaku, history otaku, vending machine otaku, idol otaku, fishing otaku, and others that are distinct subgroups that have nothing in common with each other - much less anime and manga. In English, the term describes anime and manga fans, but even that is not a major term and it is not a subculture. One page cannot hold the information, and it would need to be more indepth than Trekkie if such a page was going to be nommed. I will address the types of otaku to make this more clear though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt whether the article is broad in coverage. 1028 words for a major popculture topic - this is still barely a C-class in that regard. It fails to mention a number of books that deal with this topic, for one almost random example: Patrick W. Galbraith (25 June 2009). The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider's Guide to the Subculture of Cool Japan. Kodansha International. ISBN 978-4-7700-3101-3. Retrieved 12 August 2013.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Ok.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the assessment that the article, as it currently stands, is a "fair representation without bias" due to the use of word "excessive" in the opening sentence. As pointed out by ChrisGualtieri in the coverage section above, the article is meant to provide a definition of the term "otaku" without an extensive analysis of its subcultures and groups because the "groups included are huge," that there are "distinct subgroups that have nothing in common with each other," and that it is "unfeasible" to cover them on a single page. Yet at the same time the article name-calls on all of these groups as having "excessive" interests right at the beginning. There certainly are individuals who excessively pursue their interests, but that's a behaviour issue on an individual basis and is not what unifies all of these groups as "otaku." An otaku is someone who has a hobby -- in other words, a hobbyist. To call anyone who has a hobby as someone who has an "excessive" interest is an inappropriate overgeneralisation. As a remedy, I suggest using words like "specific" or "particular" in place of "excessive" in the opening sentence. Oscar 23:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Only one picture is not enough; there should be several pictures illustrating various self-identified otaku groups and their culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a requirement for a GA level. I will try to find some free photos and do what I can though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on the reading of the requirement; at this point the article has no room for more pictures, so the issue is somewhat moot. But if it is expanded as it should than it will need more images. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Moot for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Depends on the reading of the requirement; at this point the article has no room for more pictures, so the issue is somewhat moot. But if it is expanded as it should than it will need more images. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a requirement for a GA level. I will try to find some free photos and do what I can though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Only one picture is not enough; there should be several pictures illustrating various self-identified otaku groups and their culture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I am putting this on hold on the off chance this can be turned around in a week or so, but just the problem of coverage, requiring reading through at least one book and probably a number of articles suggests that taking this to GA level is a work for a number of weeks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Okay, I've done some major reworking and added the psychological development and history of the subculture, the evolution and its recent positive leanings - all without getting into the specifics of a single otaku group. Gundam was key for solidifying the collective interests and ultimately led to the expansion and identification and self-affirmation of the subculture. I hope this is what you were wanting to see added. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to be expanding in the good direction. We have space for 2+ images, I think - to the left in the middle, and one near the bottom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Quick comment: I see some underlinking issues with new content (ex. dating sim or vocaloid should be linked). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Content comment: mention of Otaku no Video brings to mind more modern Comic Party and Genshiken. If just OnV is mentioned, the article seems not up to date, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Another content comment: this article has 14 see also links. It is a good rule of thumb that an article should not have any see also if possible, as each suggests something to be discussed inline. Now, it is not always possible to achieve this, but personally I say that more than 2 see also in a good article is a cause for concern about the topic not being comprehensively covered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I believe I have addressed those above issues. Added more links, went and used the Comic Party and Genshiken mentions and added NHK, Watamote and Otaku Unite. Purged the redundant ones out of the "see also" section. How's it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I asked some others to comment on comprehensiveness, but so far there are no other comments, and it looks like we are at least touching on most points I can think of. At this point we just need to finish the ref cleanup: introduce cite templates, add the missing pages where required, etc. Note this also means adding missing authors to some article pieces, at least one entry (r15) doesn't have access date or publisher. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not believe the refs need to all be of one type or completely filled in for GA criteria, but I will get to them tomorrow. It is an acceptable amount of hair splitting - since it helps me get used to the higher standards of FA works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- All converted to ref templates. With Google preview I can't get the chapter from Wrong about Japan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not believe the refs need to all be of one type or completely filled in for GA criteria, but I will get to them tomorrow. It is an acceptable amount of hair splitting - since it helps me get used to the higher standards of FA works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@User:ChrisGualtieri: Almost there, but please add missing cite info where available:
- ref 1: publication date
Done
- ref 2: author, publication date, page numbers, language field, does the title really begin with ">"?
- Done
- ref 4: I'll let this pass w/out page numbers, but please add quote(s) supporting usage. And ISBN.
- Done Made a note to extract the quote. I also found another Arai reference pointing to Patrick W. Galbraith's Otaku Spaces, I've read some of Galbraith's work before and found it very authoritative, so I will also note his specific claim. I've linked that introduction two his photographer's blog and a more mainstream media outlet that contains the relevant excerpt for verification. I will make no attempt to place the citation without verifying the page numbers personally. I think its been satisfied for now.
- ref 5: do we really need a ~30 page range? Explain or narrow
- Done The specific quote itself is on page 167. And I found a public link for it through the official website.[1]
- ref 6: publication date
- Done
- ref 7: publication date
- Done
- ref 8: publication date, URL is broken, restore/remove
- Done Not broken, displays fine for me.
- ref 11: romanization needed, is there no author?
- Done It translates as "Open Letter" and this is from the NGO-AMI group. It can be literally translated as "NGO-AMI Everyone" - Everyone (at) NGO-AMI - where 同 denotes "All of us". So I just attributed NGO-AMI.
- ref 12: author, URL is broken, restore/remove
- Done
- ref 13: is in Japanese, so please add Japanese title, publisher an author (plus romanization), pub. date
- Done I translated the title to better English, its probably not the correct title as a result. Rest done.
- ref 14: romanize, add author, pub. date
- Not sure what you mean here, as its not Japanese to start with.
That's for the first half of ref. I hope you get the idea of what's missing; please do the same for the other half (otherwise I'll have to post another list like that).
- Done
Also, [2] is a dead elink, please remove/derot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done Easy fix.
How's it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- All right, all issues addressed, seems to me to be GA level. Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the GA pass! I don't particularly like the referencing system as you did, but it is consistent and its allowed - it probably makes it easier to upkeep though. So I'll let be. I'll begin preparing it for FA levels! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)