Talk:School Rumble/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by MuZemike in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
See prose issues below. There are also some layout issues in which I'll explain in more detail when I get to it.- Went through most everything, and they look good. The paragraph issue is more of a splitting-hairs issue and can be resolved post-GA. MuZemike 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The Plot section is completely unreferenced. Please provide citations to whatever sources were used, even if they're taken from the game itself (you can use {{cite video game}} or {{cite book}} if it's a book. Otherwise, the sources look like they're reliable. The citations themselves could be improved a bit (will make note on the bottom), but passable for GA.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Well-covered.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Could be a bit more stable, but there are no edit-wars or significant content disputes.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Images look good. They all have proper citations, alt text and good fair-use rationales. I re-uploaded smaller filesize versions of the images to better comply with WP:NFCC.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Consider the GAN on hold for right now pending the improvements. However, I am still in the process of reviewing the article (I just got started on it), and I'll add more issues as I continue on with the review. MuZemike 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Done up to the "Media" section. MuZemike 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I just completed my sweep of the prose and hence my GA review. Obviously, the GAN is (officially when I sign this, but it doesn't really matter at this point) placed on hold pending the necessary improvements on the article per the below "prose issues" section. (The "things to remember" section is just for future reference.) I did a bit of prose cleanup, so double-check my corrections to make sure I didn't inadvertently change the meaning or intent of the content itself. MuZemike 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Done up to the "Media" section. MuZemike 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Consider the GAN on hold for right now pending the improvements. However, I am still in the process of reviewing the article (I just got started on it), and I'll add more issues as I continue on with the review. MuZemike 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Discussion
edit- Prose issues
- The main female protagonist is Tenma Tsukamoto, a second year high school girl with no special qualities who has a crush on the eccentric enigmatic nice guy, Oji Karasuma while Karasuma seems content with a plate of curry. → It's too drawn out and wordy. It also uses weasel words such as "enigmatic" and "eccentric" and "nice guy", which normally don't belong. Rewrite the sentence and without the weasel words.
- Those words are supported by a reviewer. I was told to remove them since plot isn't suppose to have citations in it. I can re-add those if you feel it necessary. However, in general, plot sections are specifically exempt as the original source, ie School Runble, is generally considered to be enough. See WP:WAF.陣内Jinnai 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:WAF (which falls under criterion 1b of the Good Article criteria), the plot summary is supposed to be backed by both primary and secondary sources, but I'd be willing to accept just primary sources (i.e. the game itself) as consensus and common practice suggest. I would re-suggest that the plot should have citations in it per that crucial guideline. We just need something there to prevent the material from being challenged, subsequently altered/removed, ad nauseam. MuZemike 07:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Readded the refs I removed. Also added one for the final paragraph. Problem with the rest is that Template:cite book and Template:cite video aren't designed for citing manga works as a whole. What I'm describing here is a breif synopsis of a work spanning 22 volumes and 52 episodes and 4 OVAs (and an episode synopsis for 24 for more episodes). Those were never designed for citing an entire series.陣内Jinnai 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- If anything else, you could just use the {{citation}} template and manually add a full stop at the end as a workaround for that. MuZemike 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I added it as a general reference. Seems cite book removed the requirement on title so I could use series.陣内Jinnai 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible that you could fill out that last paragraph in that Plot section just a bit more? It seems like when I read the end of that section, there's a gap or two in information there that could be explained or clarified a bit more (such as very briefly explaining how Kurasama lost his memory or anything else that happened around class 2-C's graduation that might be pertinent).MuZemike 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Adding how he lost his memory is not too difficult, but as there were multiple incidents, most revolving around a chapter basis, it would be kind of difficult to summarize how they came to pass without giving excessive plot detail.陣内Jinnai 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible that you could fill out that last paragraph in that Plot section just a bit more? It seems like when I read the end of that section, there's a gap or two in information there that could be explained or clarified a bit more (such as very briefly explaining how Kurasama lost his memory or anything else that happened around class 2-C's graduation that might be pertinent).MuZemike 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I added it as a general reference. Seems cite book removed the requirement on title so I could use series.陣内Jinnai 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- If anything else, you could just use the {{citation}} template and manually add a full stop at the end as a workaround for that. MuZemike 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Readded the refs I removed. Also added one for the final paragraph. Problem with the rest is that Template:cite book and Template:cite video aren't designed for citing manga works as a whole. What I'm describing here is a breif synopsis of a work spanning 22 volumes and 52 episodes and 4 OVAs (and an episode synopsis for 24 for more episodes). Those were never designed for citing an entire series.陣内Jinnai 21:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:WAF (which falls under criterion 1b of the Good Article criteria), the plot summary is supposed to be backed by both primary and secondary sources, but I'd be willing to accept just primary sources (i.e. the game itself) as consensus and common practice suggest. I would re-suggest that the plot should have citations in it per that crucial guideline. We just need something there to prevent the material from being challenged, subsequently altered/removed, ad nauseam. MuZemike 07:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the "Development and production" section: Before reading the manga, Ami Koshimizu, the seiyū for Tenma, initially attempted to interview for the role of Yakumo. → I'm expecting more about the said interview for the role of Yakumo after the first sentence, and I get lost when the second sentence goes right into the other seiyū for the other characters. Can you clarify further or rewrite that better? Also (but not a big deal), are there other seiyū that could also be mentioned?
- There really is nothing more. She said he tried out for the role of Yakumo before reading the manga. Didn't say why she was cased as Tenma. The rest of the information was about herself - which goes in her article - about Tenma - which goes in the character list/article - or fan service stuff like pretending to play another character. The other interviews were similar, except they didn't mention if they tried out for anyone else.陣内Jinnai 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:PAIC, citations need to be placed after the first available end punctuation and not in the middle of the sentence. I took care about of them in the first half of the article, and I'll leave it to you to get the second half of the article.
- In the "Anime" subsection, The first season was followed by two original video animation (OVA) episodes, School Rumble - Extra Class (スクールランブルOVA一学期補習, School Rumble OVA Ichigakki Hoshū?), which were released on December 22, 2005. → are both OVAs titled School Rumble - Extra Class? If so, you might want to clarify that.
- Think I fixed that.陣内Jinnai 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also in the "Anime" subsection, you have inconsistent titling in the other OVAs. You first use hyphens (which I changed to endashes to be consistent with the MoS), and then you use colons. Please pick one or the other and stick to it, unless the official titling itself is not consistent.
- Gone with colons as that's how I usually format them.陣内Jinnai 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the "Anime" subsection: will not to be animated and exist only as episode synopsis ... → I know that's a grammatical typo, and I don't know what to change it to. Can you make that change so it makes sense?
- I think I fixed that statement.陣内Jinnai 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the "Manga" subsection under "Reception and Sales":
- In the second volume, Chavez praised the introduction of new themes has at bringing the series to a new artistic level, noting there is a lot of derivative work. → The first part also doesn't read exactly right. Please rephrase that. Also (I've already made these corrections), discussing past reviews should be in past tense and not in present tense as you had it.
- Done.
- Carl Kimlinger of Anime News Network reviewing the volumes five different volumes has an overall positive review. → This needs to be rewritten; it doesn't quite make sense.
- Done.
- That second paragraph is way too long. Long paragraphs drone on and lose readers. I recommend splitting into 3 smaller paragraphs as you have close to 20 sentences in that paragraph.
- Not sure where it can be done. There is no good splitting section.
- In the second volume, Chavez praised the introduction of new themes has at bringing the series to a new artistic level, noting there is a lot of derivative work. → The first part also doesn't read exactly right. Please rephrase that. Also (I've already made these corrections), discussing past reviews should be in past tense and not in present tense as you had it.
- In the last section of the body of the article, the "anime" subsection:
- Jin Kobayashi was impressed with the way anime adaptation thinking, saying in an interview that it was probably easy to adapt to an anime. → "Probably" is very WP:WEASELish in there, but I don't know if it was taken in context of the interview. I'm assuming it not because it's not quoted. Can you double-check that or alternatively remove that word (as I'm not certain here).
- He used the word "maybe".
- "Now that I think of it, I'm beginning to think more and more that maybe my original 'School Rumble' manga was fairly easy to be adapted into anime," Kobayashi said. "The people who brought the manga to life, into animated form, did it really well, and I was really impressed. I was just surprised at the work."
- Carlos Santos of Anime News Network reviewing volume six of season one has a mixed review. → Rewrite this sentence, maintaining that past tense as he already reviewed it.
- Done.
- He praises the comedy elements when the things bizzare, ... → Also rewrite this part of the sentence – doesn't make sense.
- Done. I noted that when re-reading your changes.
- Bamboo Dong of Anime News Network has said that while the series starts out slow and repetitive to the point that for the first DVD he can only watch a single episode at one time, but by the second DVD the series is beginning to grow on him and by the middle of the first season, the series is far more engaging as new relationships and complexity are introduced. → Very wordy and drawn-out. I suggest splitting into two sentence as well as making it more concise prose-wise.
- Done?
- He noted that the series was enjoyable but, with the exception of one's favorite gags, not rewatchable and whether the series is doing its job if your not laughing. → Rewrite this sentence so it makes more sense, also removing that second-person "you".
- Partly done. He did speak in the 2nd person about that comment in a way that made it seem he was not talking about himself. Replacing your with one doesn't seem right in this context either.
- Danielle Van Gorder is a she, no? Let me know if I'm wrong, because you did refer to the person as a he.
- Yea. Mania has her profile as female.
- Just as in the above section, that second paragraph is also way too long. Try splitting into two smaller paragraphs first and see how it looks. Hopefully that makes paragraph length consistent throughout that section.
- Again not sure where to split this one except the last tiny bit talking about the case. While there are a few who only review the whole season and those who don't it's not very clear.
- Jin Kobayashi was impressed with the way anime adaptation thinking, saying in an interview that it was probably easy to adapt to an anime. → "Probably" is very WP:WEASELish in there, but I don't know if it was taken in context of the interview. I'm assuming it not because it's not quoted. Can you double-check that or alternatively remove that word (as I'm not certain here).
- Last thing: "FUNimation" or "Funimation"? Stick to one or the other throughout the entire article for consistency.
- Done.
- For the long paragraphs I realize they aren't really good to have, however neither are short paragraphs and with the one split mentioned above there is no good place to split them. Arbitrarily splitting paragraphs is looked up just as bad.陣内Jinnai 22:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look there about the paragraphs. I also replaced "your" with "the viewer" here. Is that better there? MuZemike 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...and I now split those paragraphs in those two sections, in which I tried to find the most logical places to split them. What do you think? MuZemike 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)***
- For the manga one I made a minor change since it looked like you were splitting them by reviewer. For the anime, I'm not sure what prompted that split where it was.
- Also, why did you change the dates in the citations? I was told to always use that specific format for citations. Has something changed I don't know about?陣内Jinnai 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I tried to do was break up by reviewer or at least by what was being reviewed. As far as the dates are concerned, I didn't change them. Might have been Dinoguy1000, as shown [1]. MuZemike 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well for the anime, the problem is some of them are reviewing the series as a whole and others aren't, or rather they review it with multiple editors. However, because many of their opinions change as they view later episodes it's still nessasary to not their reactions to earlier ones per WP:NPOV. Since almost no one just reviewed disc one (sometimes common) nor reviewed common aspects other than what's mentioned in the first paragraph it's hard to easily split it up. I'm not sure why you chose that particular point. Maybe you can explain it to me.陣内Jinnai 20:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I tried to do was break up by reviewer or at least by what was being reviewed. As far as the dates are concerned, I didn't change them. Might have been Dinoguy1000, as shown [1]. MuZemike 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...and I now split those paragraphs in those two sections, in which I tried to find the most logical places to split them. What do you think? MuZemike 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)***
- I'll take a look there about the paragraphs. I also replaced "your" with "the viewer" here. Is that better there? MuZemike 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Things to also remember
- We don't use double-dashes
--(like were used in the citations). Instead we either use one emdash or one endash with spaces to the left and right of it.
- That's the actual title. I'd get flagged for not having it that way on a FAC.陣内Jinnai 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. I was not observant that the website used the title punctuation in that way. We cannot make all of them converts now, can we? ;) MuZemike 07:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's the actual title. I'd get flagged for not having it that way on a FAC.陣内Jinnai 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:CAPTION, sentence fragments in captions in images do not have end punctuation; complete sentences do utilize end punctuation.
- Remember that inline citations should always go immediately after end-punctuation and not in the middle of the sentence.
- Really? That's not what I was told when you use multiple sources to make up a statement, especially when using a quote that isn't a full sentance or is used for specific item, such as citing a date, but the rest of the sentance is using the other source.
- Not necessarily after a full stop, just after any break, at least that's what I get when I read the MOS guideline on punctuation. Also, there's common sense. For most citations even outside of WP, you normally don't place them in the middle of a thought, you put it at the end. It's like writing an essay for school – you don't place your shorthand citation during the middle of stating a fact, but at the end. The similar thing applies here. MuZemike 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, it does say "generally" which does imply there are exceptions though, for example extremely long sentences. I know dates are often cited after each date when it involves multiple sources (see List of Popotan episodes, FE.陣内Jinnai 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily after a full stop, just after any break, at least that's what I get when I read the MOS guideline on punctuation. Also, there's common sense. For most citations even outside of WP, you normally don't place them in the middle of a thought, you put it at the end. It's like writing an essay for school – you don't place your shorthand citation during the middle of stating a fact, but at the end. The similar thing applies here. MuZemike 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? That's not what I was told when you use multiple sources to make up a statement, especially when using a quote that isn't a full sentance or is used for specific item, such as citing a date, but the rest of the sentance is using the other source.
- Per WP:MOSNUM, numbers greater than nine should be expressed in numerals with exceptions in order to maintain consistency.
- I went and substituted the sharp (♯) and flat (♭) signs into their respective HTML entities for accessibility concerns. Not all computers may have those characters, so their respective HTML entities should be used.
- Stay consistent with the usage of terms. One that sticks out is the word "side story" which was presented in several different spellings in the article, such as "sidestory" and "side-story". The same with "re-released", in which you also used "rereleased" without the hyphen.
- oops. Yea, that comes from multiple edits at different times. I meant to use "side story" and "re-released".
- It's "English language" without the hyphen when used as a noun and "English-language" with the hyphen when used as an adjective. In a few instances, you were using the latter as a noun.
- Logical quotations: Unless the quote itself is a sentence, the end-quote precedes the end-punctuation.
- I've also removed some instances of "however" and "although" that were used in an editorializing sense as it's one of those words to avoid and say suggest partiality.
- Stick with just one occurrence of "in addition" or "also" in a phrase; usage of both is unnecessary and wordy.
- Watch out for passive voice, such as with
Del Rey's translation is praised by Chavez for keeping everything intact, ... Try to keep statements like that in the active voice → Chavez praised Del Rey's translation ...
- Per WP:ELLIPSIS, you need spaces to the left and right of the ellipsis unless an end punctuation precedes or follows it (something I frequently forget to do myself) :)
- "Claimed" or "stated" or "reported" are much stronger forms of "say" and are normally misused. I've changed back to a more neutral form of the word "say" in those cases.
- Finally, do not use the second-person "you". We always use the third-person, gender-neutral.
Passed
editI'm going to go ahead and pass it after having seen that most of the other prose stuff was resolved. The paragraph things is not that big a deal and can certainly be resolved post-GA. I think this was drug out long enough IMO. Consider another peer review with an emphasis on prose (as I'm not the best in the world for prose; I can only notice so much). With how comprehensive this article already is, this does have FA potential. Overall, nice work on what is a very long article. MuZemike 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)