Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/2009

I think we should start discussing this as a project, we do have a lot of album articles that could/should be reworked into discogs. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arm Slave - Fixed and tried to improve it with references. Whew! I'm ever lucky that I found one reception to the Arm Slaves. I'll try and get the non-Western type Arm Slaves photo in since I got photos from MITHRIL. As usual, any help to at least get this to C Class will be appreciated. Ominae (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that will help the article with attempts to get merged/deleted. It's not enough for C-class as there are issues with being too in-universe still, formatting issuees, too many sub-sections, lack of creation/development info, lack of a proper lead, etc. If you want specific help post on the talk page first and if you can't get help there, you can request input from the main WT:ANIME board.Jinnai 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Baccano! episodes]]
Bokurano (multiple articles)
  • Densha Otoko - B-class checklist please. Extremepro (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did yesterday and forgot to mark it.Jinnai 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Grouped related media together. Wrote notable cast into prose. Moved production section above media section. The manga list would be hard to create as there are three 3-volume series and a one-shot. How to make a table or tables reflecting the 4 manga series? The story is based on a series of 2-channel posts. I'm not sure if I could ref the post(s) to the story. Extremepro (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't know what I was thinking yesterday about the manga list. It should have been just a suggestion. As for 2chan, there is an archive of some 2chan threads out there. I'd check that. Otherwise you may have to find some other sources to confirm it since the authenticity is questioned enough that the book company has had to give their word, so to speak. Some independant reliable sources probably would be needed. A police report may have been filed, FE, and references to that may exist.Jinnai 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Embalmer - Requesting B-class checklist. Thanks, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • C-class. A word of warning. While the character section may pass b-class, you may need some secondary sources.Jinnai 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I'm used to getting sources for character sections, and I have all the books on-hand, so it shouldn't be a problem. For grammar, I was planning on requesting a copyedit after this, so I'll get to that. With coverage/accuracy, what would need to be sourced? Or is it only the character section that has problems? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Manga volumes since there is more than one should give a synopsis of each.Jinnai 03:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I was wonderng about that. For Free Collars Kingdom, I was advised not to add any because there were only three volumes and the stories weren't connected. For The Embalmer, I have the same problem; except for volume 3, all of them are made up of indiviudal, unrelated stories, some of which can be quite short. I'm worried about it looking choppy. I'll try it out, though, and see if it works. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you can explain each synposis in the plot so it's clear which volume it's in, it shouldn't be nessasary. Otherwise, if they are rather simple, the plot doesn't have to by as long as typical manga chapter synopsis. You'll just have to explain why it's shorter if someone asks (or perhaps put that in the talk page).Jinnai 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free Collars Kingdom - It's currently rated as Start-Class, but I've done some work with it; I'm also a bit interested in finding out what I should fix, minus the very small concept/creation section. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you could incorporate the facts in the production section into the reception section, as most of them seem rather random and out of context. You're also citing the same sources for both sections. Or you could remove it all together. The characters section seems too much for a three volume manga. A longer plot section might serve the article better. - At the end of the day, the article is about a manga of low notability. Better have a short article of high quality, than trying to create a longer article filled up with trivia a la "Throughout the series, panels show different cat breeds and information is provided on that breed". -- Goodraise (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The production section does need work, and it probably would do best merged into a different section. As of now, I only own one volume and I do hope to find some production notes in the next few. If I can, it may be easier to encorporate the style of humor used into the section, and I'll cite the books. As for the characters, I'll go through it and rid it of some useless information. The main problem comes from the fact that there are many characters that appear in the books, and not as minor side characters--they star (along with Cyan) in sidestories that last a chapter or two. However, I do see that some information can be added to the main plot section. Thanks for your help! I'll keep working on it, as well as referencing the plot. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You really don't need to reference the plot section. Not even our featured articles do that. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I know:) It's more of a quirk than anything else, and probably came from my involvement in Final Fantasy character lists, when information was referenced to solidify the proof of a character's emotions, encounters, tasks, beliefs, etc. With this series, it's small enough that it's easy to work with when it comes to referencing plot/characters. Thanks again, though, and I'll see what information I can find about its production! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issues were lack of image in the lead, and the sections' length.Tintor2 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-assessed. There appears to be some possible synthesis in the article.Jinnai 04:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hakusensha - Did the history and everything. Comments are welcome. Amaya Sakura (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. - Expanding the lead might be a good next step. Goodraise 07:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about now? I've slightly expanded the lead section but is unsure whether it's useable or not.
        • Oh yes, can you advise me on how to pass the coverage and accuracy as well as the accessibility of the article? I would really want this to be a B-class article. Amaya Sakura (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • B2 is always a bit difficult to judge. If you think that "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.", then go ahead and mark B2 as passed. I can't really tell. Goodraise 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anime and manga is not a very technical topic area, so passing B6 is usually easy. Just write a lead that provides a reader who came to the page using the "random article" button with enough context. Goodraise 19:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mewtwo - Achieved A-class for the video game project, got an editor insisting I run it through this project for A-class in it as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember from previous discussions that WP:ANIME has abandoned the A-class ratings. But also, I don't think two editors is sufficient to promote an article to an A-class as the A-class rating is suppose to be based on a project peer-review similar to FA. —Farix (t | c) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The video game project has always relied on two reviewers, with a peer review by each favorable but not required. If you want to run it through a peer review process be my guest, but that seems rather pointless unless pursuing FAC doesn't it (which I don't intend to at this time).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That may be the way the video game project handles A-class assessments, however, that doesn't apply to all WikiProjects. The video game project A-class assessment is the video games project alone and doesn't affect the assessment of other WikiProjects. Especially for WP:ANIME which doesn't use the A-class assessment. —Farix (t | c) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mithril (Full Metal Panic!) - Done. Need help on the websites for some of the sources I used that go here for instance since I can't see clearly the page numbers where the scanned booklet pages are numbered and I'm forced (almost) to assume some of their page numbers. Ominae (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't see this as being beyond start-class. It's mostly in-universe. The only section that isn't, the translation section, isn't referenced. Right now this also fails notability as well. I would hate to see all that work go to waste because of that. As for the scanned material, if you don't know, it's best not to put a number. It's probably fine for now, however as this article makes it up the class-scale, those page numbers may be important and you may be forced to buy the actual book or remove the source since you can't adequetly cite where it's coming from.Jinnai 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I barely read some of them though (To my knowledge since I had to zoom in the image and check it out to be sure for now). I may go in later and refix them. The translation part may be deleted since I can't find sources for them. Will need to put photos of MITHRIL personnel to later. Not sure which kind. I'll probably need some help on how to make most of the article not look in-universe for the next assessment. Any help from anyone's appreciated. Ominae (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Easiest way is to add reception if its out there, ie non-trivial mentions about the Mithril as an organization (this is not the same as describing it as some people confuse that) from reliable sources (we have a list from the mainpage to start with). If you could document the translation notes, that would also help. Creation and development info (probably found in those books) will help, but won't help it pass notability unfortunatly. Finally comparisons with real-life military units by, again reliable sources, would be helpful. For this you might see if WP:MILHIST might be willing to help you out.Jinnai 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the help. Nah, the booklets I got don't have creation info in real life. It did have internal structure stuff though. I'll go and get pics of the MITHRIL people too if I have time. Ominae (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The other media section is to short for an image, and there are not many of them for Ruroken. I was planning to add the redesign image. I replaced the ebay ref, but it seems [dub review.com dubreview] is temporaily closed, I hide it until the site returns. Tintor2 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Popotan characters - I have addressed the issues I believe. Please note the scheme for listing by importance is done purposefully due to the complex nature of the article dealing with characters from the video and anime that act in entirely different capacities and using protagonist/antagonist, which is normally used, would be impossible as it would violate their role for several characters in one series if they were listed that way.じんない 13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reformatted the list, so B3=Y. I am somewhat concerned about the amount of non-free images, it seems as if there is too many (B5 = N}. The coverage seems fine (B2 = Y). G.A.Stalk 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand, but every image has a reason. The first is to show the cast for the anime, as well as some from the PC. The second are the protagonists and main females from the game, the third gives a visual representation of the hierarchy of the relationship the members have in the anime with the main antagonist more accurately and more concisely than a wordy plot would. The last one is needed because he is the protagonist from the game and otherwise there is no representation from the game present. Because of the complex nature of the use of characters in the storyline for the anime as well as combined with the visual novel i believe it's necessary. Other pages like List of Naruto characters which have complex plots do not have to worry about a game that completely follows a different plotline.じんない 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, i'm not sure, but I think you may have marked it wrong. Also all those you cited are covered under a general reference tag which is acceptable for FL.じんない 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not marked it wrong; I just did not have time to update it, and would like a second opinion.
          I would rather the first image is aligned top right with the others further down in the article.
          "Shizuku "The One" (center) is whom the girls are searching for. Mea "The Guard" (left) and Keith "The Guide" (right) work for her." The description is too in-universe; please explain the context as well.
          Please right align the image of Chris.
          You might be right about the general reference; feel free to remove the tags.
          G.A.Stalk 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I addressed the above converns. I realize I still need to find cites for the visual novel's VAs though, even though some of them are the same. It may be on the back of the box cover... I can verify the Under17 members, but not the others. I don't have access to the manual either. *smacks head* stupid me, i forgot I have the PS2 game's manual, which should suffice.じんない 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't touch this, as G.A.S obviously had a history with this page. But as he's asking for a second opinion... Referencing is adequate for B-class (B1=Y). But don't elude yourself. Featured means top quality. If there is room for improvement, reviewers will ask for it. Citing small voice actor pages is definately better than giving one large page as a general reference. The article seems complete (B2=Y), but you are propably the best person to judge that. The structure is also adequate for B-class (this is always a problem for character lists; B3=Y). Though the "Notable" in "Other Notable Characters" is superflous. If the characters weren't notable, you wouldn't note them, would you? Also, the reception section belongs beneth the merchandise section. And you're overdoing it with the (sub-)sectioning. That one sentence in "Legacy" might be better placed in the lead and the mini-games certainly don't merit a sub-section. (If something free can be considered merchandise is another matter...) Supporting materials are there (B5=Y). Whether they are too many is a matter of WP:WIAFL (6.) (WP:WIAFA (3.) explains it in a bit more detail.), not of B-class. => My assessment: B-class. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Popotan episodes. References and episode summaries were improved since the last review which was said to be close already to a FLC otherwise. 1 episode summary, episode 9, is substantially longer due to the need to constantly distinquish two characters with the same name. If it weren't for this, the episode summary would be within the 100-150 range. じんない 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Reborn! episodes (multiple)
  • School Rumble - I know it fails #1 currently. I want to have a full re-evaluation though of all 6 points as I had a significant restructuring and expansion of the article so I want to know what actually needs work. I also believe it may fail #5 and #4 which is why I ask for this external assessment. I'm trying to see, beyond #1, what I seriously need to work on.じんない 07:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • School Rumble - largely a procedural request; Jinnai (talk · contribs) has put a huge amount of work into this article, and he recently bumped it up to B (some unreffed stuff was the only point it failed, and he addressed that in spectacular fashion); it would still be nice (and a bit gratifying for him, I'm sure) if someone else could confirm the reassessment and maybe offer some pointers on where to go from here. ダイノガイ千?!? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Added a bunch of {{fact}}s. Goodraise 20:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree with the 2 in the prose. The information is already cited with previous references in the article from multiple sources. Specifically the one under the Live performances section seems to violate WP:CITE and WP:FAITH as since they are previously listed as School Rumble's soundtrack artists. The one's for the production studios is a different.Jinnai 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole purpose of inline citations is to make clear from which source a piece of information came. If in your opinion it is enough to cite on first occurence, you might as well stop using them altogether in favor of giving plain references listings. As for CITE and FAITH, I don't see how I violated either. Goodraise 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's unlikely that School Rumble's soundtrack artist would have that last line challenged as if the previous refs referred to them as such they would certainly be playing such music.Jinnai 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the refs for the networks/publishers (and moved them if necessary to their appropriate section) in the prose for those I could find. The rest I removed as I could not verify them and did not know who added them. I added refs for Santos and redid the paragraph on Live Performances, however I do believe for the latter that WP:COMMON SENSE was not applied since in an article about School Rumble that if the soundtrack artists did not perform their music, even if they did perform otherwise it would not be relevant to the topic.
  • Shochiku - Japanese film studio that has released several notable anime films. I originally assessed this as Mid-importance, however, I do think it could be assessed to at least High-importance. However, per past discussion on this talk page, a discussion is required before it can be ranked higher importance rating above Mid. Please leave open for 7 days to allow for comments. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Spriggan media - Revised with the updates and all. Need help to figure out how to get this fixed up and looking nice at least.

Ominae (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still start-class. If you want comments from the community how to clean it up, as the main talk page, but just quickly, lead is too short. It should give a concise, but complete, overview of the article/list.Jinnai 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toei Animation – Brazilian IP editor randomly upped the importance rating to Top without any kind of discussion. While I reverted the edit as this same editor has a history of upping ratings even when the article doesn't warrant the increased rating, I believe the article should be ranked at least as High on the importance scale. --Farix (Talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuki Kaida - Cleaned up, completely rewritten, reformatted, referenced to the best of my ability, and compared to her Japanese article, though I made some edits while logged out. I really don't think it should be classified as a stub anymore, but I'm new to Wiki, so I'd like some more experienced eyes to judge. Chuugoku (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]