Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Good article candidates/2008

Ayu Tsukimiya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was listed

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayu Tsukimiya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here's some suggestions for improvement:

• All the paragraphs in the lead begin with "Ayu". Can it be mixed up a bit?Y
• Image:Ayu Tsukimiya Key.jpg is not low resolution, but is marked as such.Y (resized to 230px width)
• "In the anime adaptation of Air, another of Key's visual novels, Ayu makes a cameo appearance in episode two along with Nayuki Minase and Makoto Sawatari as regular girls who talk to Yukito Kunisaki about where Kano Kirishima is." - sentences are not supposed to end with prepositions, so this needs to be reworded somehowY
• Can more be said about the character's reception by fans and critics? It is needed as part of the breadth requirement for GAs.

The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki311 02:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The first three are done. As for the fourth point, I have attempted to look for reliable reviews of the character, but have found very little. Oh, wait a second, I just remembered that I may be able to get something from a Newtype USA issue I have which had a piece on Kanon. But other than that, I'm pretty much at a loss.--十八 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you find anything in the magazine. There aren't critics for this type of thing? Nikki311 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Critics? For video game (nay, visual novel) characters? Not that I know of.--十八 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Newtype USA reference has been added, even though it's not much.--十八 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not much is always better than nothing at all. I'll pass the article. Nikki311 01:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odex's actions against file-sharing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was listed

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Odex's actions against file-sharing/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Y

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. N - A lot of claims and claimed in there, which are words to avoid.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Y

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Y

   (c) it contains no original research. Y

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Y

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Y

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. N - The claims and claimed sections seem to introduce a POV slanting towards the victims of Odex, which is against the NPOV policy.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Y
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Y

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Y

The article's GAN status will remain on-hold for the next 7 days, please contact me on my talk page when the issues have been rectified. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for reading so closely and providing this review. I removed instances of 'claim' [1], save one which is intended as a legal term "copyright claims". If there are any other points, please let me know. --maclean 23:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Promoted to GA status. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belldandy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was listed

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belldandy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• Per WP:LEAD, an article this size should have at least three full paragraphs in the lead. I'd suggest adding information such as her original conception, abilities, and her different depictions.

• Done. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Belldandy and Holy Bell.png and Image:Original Goddess.jpg both need to be low resolution (less than 100,000 pixels).

• Done. Both images were reduced by 50%. - Bilby (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• "August, 1988" --> "August 1998" - don't put a comma between months and years

• Got it. I checked, and couldn't see any other dates in the text, so hopefully I found them all. - Bilby (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to add the name "Holy Bell's appearances" as a title for the table (instead of a header) and float it to the right under the heading "Holy Bell". This will cause the text to text-wrap around it and reduce all the ugly white-space.

• Done. I think it is a good idea - I might work on where to position the table within the text, but having it on the right certainly improves the layout. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Episode titles should be in quotation marks.

• I think I got all of those - let me know if I stuffed up anywhere, and I'll take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Now I feel stupid - I completely missed the episodes in the table. :) Particularly dumb considering the time I spent playing with the table and hunting down a method for making it sit to the right. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also some comma issues, but I don't mind fixing those myself. I'll allow seven days for improvements. Nikki311 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll get on to those immediately. :) - Bilby (talk)
• I've made a pass to fix the commas - I'm aware of that being a problem in my writing, but I've never been able to get out of the habit. :) Any help with this would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully I've managed to tackle all of the above, but if there are any more changes you find that it needs, or if I stuffed up somewhere, just let me know and I'll be really happy to take care of it. And thanks heaps for reviewing the article! - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Great work. I did a bit of copyediting and have passed the article. Nikki311 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaara

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was listed

---

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX marks the first appearance of Gaara in his Part II appearance in a video game, with the second one being Naruto Shippūden: Narutimate Accel." Lose an appearance.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I'm assuming there's no less commercial place to demonstrate the availability of merchandise than Amazon.

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:

   One weak piece of prose shouldn't hold this back; I'm sure it will be fixed directly. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Fixed the line of prose. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I meant the fact that the word appearance was used twice in rapid succession--once for the character's costuming, and once for the occurrence. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tokyo Mew Mew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was listed

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Thank you for nominating this article for good article review. I have assessed it against the six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:

1. Writing

(a) Prose

This is generally very good; though I spotted a few things.

• Lead: Why is "reclaim it" in quotes? Is this a direct quotation, or intended to indicate that the aliens have a prior claim on the planet? If the former, though it's a bit short for a quote, it should have an explicit citation. If the latter (which I suspect is more likely), only "reclaim" needs to be in quotes.
• Lead: The sentence "4Kids Entertainment was unable to license the remaining 26 episodes, needed to complete broadcasting the entire series, nor released the series to home video." could do with rewording for grammar and clarity.
• There are a number of Japanese terms (shōjo, manga, tankōbon etc) that, although they are linked, might benefit from a brief explanation. Also, is manga singular or plural (or both)? Dealt with in reply below.
• Plot: Can the phrase "...with her crush" be expressed less idiomatically? Put 'crush' in single quotes as a colloquialism that may be unfamiliar to all English speakers.
• What does the phrase "...powerful heroic animal" mean? How can an animal be "heroic"?
• Manga: "The first volume of the man series..." I assume this is a typo - should "man" be "main" or "manga"? (I would have corrected it myself if I was sure!)
• Manga: Some of the tenses in this section confused me a little - where the text states "the series is licensed for release in X", it seems to imply it has not yet been released there. Is this the intent?

(b) Manual of style

• Words like shōjo, manga, tankōbon etc (as "foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English" per the WP:MOS) should probably be italicised. Addressed
• Reception: This section cites Patrick King twice, once with AnimeFringe and then with Animefringe. The rendering should be consistent.
• To be honest, I'm not convinced the external links section adds anything to the article. External links should be restricted to "a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (from WP:LINKS). The ToykyoPOP ones seem to be trying to sell the manga, some aren't in English (hence not accessible), and everything on the other sites seems to be well covered already, either by this article or those wikilinked from it. Struck, per discussion below.

2. Sourcing

(a) References

• I'm a bit concerned that some of the sources used may not meet WP:RS. There seem to be quite a few that resemble blogs, forums etc, with no way to establish if they are fact-checked and peer-reviewed (and in some cases, eg uk-tv-guide.com, no author or publisher information is available on the site). Having said that, I appreciate that this type of subject might be difficult to source elsewhere.
• Reference 59 ("Forum Buzz: Tokyo Mew Mew licensed by 4Kids") doesn't seem to go where it should. I didn't follow up all the refs, but if there's one misdirected link, there may be more.

(b) In-line citations

• Reception: "The anime adaptation has been described as a "fun and entertaining" show for kids." Who by? This quote needs explicitly citing (but also see my comment regarding this under 4 below).
• Reception: "Reviewers regularly compare it to Sailor Moon..." I don't think the single citation given is enough to back up this assertion.

(c) Original research

• Reception: Why was releasing the 4Kids dub, rather than the original Japanese version, an "unusual move"? If it's described this way in the sources, it needs citing - otherwise it comes over as editor commentary.

3. Broadness

(a) Topic coverage

• Production: Is it possible to give dates to pin down some of the events mentioned? For example, when Mia Ikumi began work on the manga, and the release of the first volume and associated Golden Week holiday festival. Even if it's just the years, it would be helpful.
• Anime: Do we know why 4Kids was unable to acquire the remainder the series?
• Video games: This section would benefit from more detail, since it has no parent article. For example, are there any reviews that could be quoted? How were they received by gamers? Were they released outside Japan?
• CDs: The same questions as the above comment re Video games - a bit more detail would help to put some flesh on the bones ;)

(b) Focus

No concerns here.

4. Neutrality

• Reception: "The anime adaptation has been described as a "fun and entertaining" show for kids." In full, the reviewer says "Terrific for young kids and magic girl/shoujo fangirls. Anybody else might want to pass this one by." Quoting the entire summary might be more balanced.

5. Stablility

No concerns here.

6. Images

(a) Copyright status

(b) Relevance and captioning

Licensing and captions look good. No concerns here.

As a result of the above review, I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period will be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Section 1 reply: Fixed 1a, items 1 & 2. Shōjo, manga, tankōbon are always just written as is in all anime/manga titles, without additional further explanation. Manga is singular and plural. For 1a4, I'm not sure of another way to word it. Crush is the term they use in the volume summaries as well. Any ideas? Fixed heroric animal (missed that one getting in there :P) Fixed the first manga item. For the second, "it is licensed" because the license is current. I reworded some the Carlsen better clarify both licensing and releasing (a company may license and not release, or only partially release). For the other two, its unclear if they have been released as no sources have been found showing a release date for any volumes, only the licensing.

1b - fixed most of the italicized. It is something only recently caught in anime and manga articles, so we are still catching up. However, manga and anime are both considered common place enough not to be italicized (and they are used with the English meanings here, not the Japanese). Fixed the AnimeFringe inconsistenct. For the external links, these are standard links per our MoS - all official Japanese and English websites, and ANN links (the anime/manga equivalent of IMDB). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Section 2 reply: Please point out specific sources that do not appear to meet WP:RS. I can't spot any that are not? (uk-tv-guide.com is the UK equivalent of TV Guide so it doesn't have author info for its television listings). For the forum buzz, yeah, AoD got bought by Mania.com and so a lot of their links are borked. I linked to an archive version to fix that. I removed the "fun and entertaining" as I can't find it now. I fixed the Sailor Moon note and hopefully have fixed the issue with the "unusual move". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Section 3 reply: Unfortunately no as the source does not give any specific dates. There were hints that Studio Pierrot refused to license the rest to them because of the way they edited the first half, but no reliable sources are available to confirm/deny this. For both the Video Games and the CDs, unfortunately the answer is no on both. None were ever licensed, so whats there now is all we could find in any reliable sources about either, after days of scouring Japanese websites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Section 4: addressed in section 2:) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've been through and struck those points I feel have been satisfactorily addressed (either in the article or by your explanations). To expand on the remaining few:

• External links. I accept that sites like ANN are about as good as anything else online for this sort of material, and there's an argument for retaining the Japanese sites too, but I think even with a broad interpretation of WP:LINKS, the chuangyi.com one is iffy. Unlike Tokyopop, which only links to amazon, this site sells the manga directly - it's only two clicks from the linked page to the shopping basket - and the content is duplicated in elsewhere. From WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should not link to a site "...that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", and the longer the section gets, the stricter the application of the criteria should be. This may be an issue that WP:ANIME needs to look at as a WikiProject if the in-house MoS encourages such links. However, for the purpose of the GA assessment, if chuangyi.com can be removed I'll drop my objection ;)
• Sourcing. The sources I had in mind were the aforementioned uk-tv-guide.com (which contains no information about who owns the site, provides the information etc), and some of the reviews. It's not clear whether the reviews are written by 'professional' in-house reviewers or are similar in nature to blog or forum postings - ie, just someone's unschooled opinion. I'm happy to take your word on that though ;)
• Some dates in the Production section would be nice - just something like "Mia Ikumi spent a year designing the Tokyo Mew Mew manga before the release of the first volume in YYYY". A date reference for the Golden Week holiday would also be helpful.

All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chuang Yi site does sell the manga directly, but it is also the publisher of the English release in Singapore. As such, it is an official site, and the best source for the manga being published and completed by them. The EL can be removed, but then we'd have to look at removing most of the Japanese official sties as well, as almost all of them also sell directly. ;) The reviews are all considered RS from previous discussion in various FAs, PRs, and in the project. AoD and ANN are two of the top English anime and manga sites, with both having industry support (AoD is actually owned by Mania.com now). Animefringe was a well established online anime magazine, with paid staff. Though it no longer releases new issues, they have kept up their backissues for folks to still read. I can see the UK one being iffy because of the lack of info, and I'll see if I can find some other similar site to use. UK needs better TV guide sites...I had trouble finding that kind of thing for Meerkat Manor too *grin* Dates added...don't know why didn't think to do that first :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Going well so far - in the light of what you've said, I'll drop my external links objections for this assessment (it's not my intention to change accepted usage unilaterally, but it may be worth discussing further at WP:ANIME!). One small thing I noticed when re-reading just now: the article is inconsistent in using both spaced endashes and emdashes (which are currently spaced too, but should be unspaced). Normally I'd do these minor tweaks myself, but since both the spaced endash and unspaced emdash are permitted by the MoS, it's your call ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool :) I think I got the dashes all fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me too. I think that'll do - the uktvguide source is perhaps one to improve on in the future, but I believe we've got enough for GA now. Nice job ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

Congratulations on your excellent work on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Tokyo Mew Mew as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page.

For improvement in the future, the uk-tv-guide.com source could be replaced with a better source per the comments above, and information on the reception of the video game spin-offs would be useful (if anything ever comes to light!)

Well done ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.