Talk:.hack//Sign/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Minor variations from WP:MOS-AM, but within acceptable bounds so not a major issue. Might be a stumbling block for any future FA run, though. For GA purposes, main issue is lack of citation consistency and missing basic data in some citations, such as date, publisher, etc where available, and several web sources using web archive links without the original link in the citation, several of which do not appear to even need an archive link?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Has some sentences marked as needing citation or questioning citation's reliability. Much of these likely come from the ANN clean out last month, but they do need to be addressed. Some other sources appear to fail WP:RS, such as Anime Boredum, Animetique (also appears to fail WP:COPYRIGHT and flagged as a security risk in FF), AnimeJump, etc.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lacking at least basic information, beyond an infobox link (which needs updating), of Liminality and the video game franchise to lead off to those articles with ties to .Sign. Also no mention of the two-volume prequel novel series, AI Buster.

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):

   Per previous talk page discussion, consensus agreed there were excessive non-free images, an issue that remains unaddressed. Added non-free image of characters further violates WP:NONFREE. Must be addressed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Delisted on May 29, 2009 as noted in initial message

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2. I see the problem with Animetique, but Anime Boredum and AnimeJump don't necessarily fail WP:RS. It's just that I haven't had the time to collect credentials for them (and at this point I know if I don't do it myself nobody else will). I'll bring the topic to WP:RS once I have all the info I need.

• 3. The article would loose focus if it's too broad. Even what you call a prequel (AI Buster) doesn't even feature the anime series' main character. In other words, it's a prequel in the context of .hack as a whole, but not Sign in particular. The same with the games and other media, related to the series only because they share the same back-story. Overall, the Sign article already does mention some of these others works, but only in the context of the anime series (how they affected the production and such). Anything else belongs to the hack article I think.

• 6. I was waiting for more people to join in the discussion but it never happened. But let's put that aside for know. What I wonder now is, does really a non-free image of characters violates WP:NONFREE? I'm not seeing that myself. It says they're forbidden on list, but that's it (or am I reading something wrong here?). Kazu-kun (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• While it may not be fully a prequel to Sign in terms of character, at least some mention seems appropriate to the franchise and other related works beyond the infobox. AI Buster in particular, I know I've regularly seen marketed/noted as a "sequel" yet if I were to come to this article seeking information, there is none to be had. I don't think it will lose focus to have at least a small section summarizing its relationship to the other media and noting which parts are the prequel and which is the sequel in the series.

• 6 Actually, one group shot of the characters would be fine in the list (basically similar to the way one non-free image in an infobox is okay), but it is not appropriate in the main series article as it is not necessary to understanding the topic, nor to identify the topic. Previous discussions regarding character shots in the main article have repeatedly stated that it isn't needed in a main article. Basically one doesn't need to know what a character looks like to understand the work for the most part. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments: The variations on MOS-AM are very minor. If the other issues are addressed, it should not be used to remove the GA status.

As for the images, the character image is probably the least important of the images. The other 4 images are either the cover in the infobox, or images used to expressly depict the series. Probably the one dealing with Tsukasa's state of mind could go. The image showing the depiction of the real-world (from the standpoint of the anime) and another from the game are needed so that there is context about how the real-world is depicted to be so radically different. At most though, the article would be find with 4 images and at least with 3.じんない 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the variations would not be a cause for removing GA status, it was only noted in case anyone intends to work at FA. For the images, 4 is just way too many, particularly without better justification. See the previous discussion on them in the talk page as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

4 is within the 3-5 boundary as set by the FAC. However, the number of photos here is not really what matters for a GAR. That they are all tagged correctly and that they all are relevant is. The group image clearly fails.じんない 03:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked about Anime Jump a long time ago on RS/N and got a "it's satisfactory" response. I've added it to the reliable online sources page, as at the time I asked, there was no such page. --Malkinann (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Only one person answered, though, so that isn't really a good discussion for calling it RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about theOtaku's reliability. I can't access reviews.theotaku.com, but it seems to have user submitted reviews. Emphasis on seems. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"we've evolved into a predominantly fan-run destination with sections on fan art, online quizzes, desktop wallpapers, reviews, articles, and more."[1] Goodraise 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

The following sources appear to be self-published sources by writers who are not "established expert[s]". Even if some of these sources qualify as reliable for their own opinions, I do not see how these opinions are in any way significant.

• Ellis, Frank. ".hack//Sign: Anime Legends Complete Collection Review". Epinions.com. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
• Toole, Mike. ".hack//Sign Review". Anime Jump. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
• ".hack//Sign (Version 5.0) - Uncovered Review". Needcoffee.com. Retrieved 2007-02-22.
• McPherson, Mark. "hack//Sign Review". Anime Boredom. Retrieved 2007-01-24.
• Lineberger, Rob. ".hack//Sign (Version 2.0) - Outcast Review". DVD Verdict. Retrieved 2007-01-24.
• ".hack//Sign Review". Anime Academy. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
• Elgin, Kathy. ".hack//Sign (Version 1.0) - Login Review". DVDVisionJapan. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
• Synger, Lauren. ".hack//Sign Voice Box Review". DVDVisionJapan. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
• Ross, Carlos. ".hack//Sign Review". THEM Anime Reviews. Retrieved 2007-08-14.
• ".hack//Sign". TV.com. Retrieved 2007-02-28.
• ".hack//Sign Original Sound & Song track 1 Review". Anime Dream. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
• ".hack//Sign Original Sound & Song track 2 Review". Anime Dream. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
• ".hack//Sign Review". Animetique. Retrieved 2007-01-21.
• Synger, Lauren. ".hack//Sign (Version 2.0) - Outcast Review". DVDVisionJapan. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
• Hall, Justin (2004). "Signs of .hack". Chanpon. Retrieved 2007-04-10.
• "Interview with Daisuke Uchiyama". RPGFan. 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-17.
• ".hack//Sign episode 24, Net Slum, summary". Animetique. Retrieved 2007-01-24.
• ".hack//Sign episode 21, Despair, summary". Animetique. Retrieved 2007-02-25.</ref>
• ".hack//Sign Review". theOtaku.com. Retrieved 2007-07-10. Internet Archive copy.

Goodraise 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

THEM Anime has already been discussed in another on-going GA and in the Anime/manga project. It is an RS and its reviews are relevant. I believe Anime Jump was also just cleared. All the rest, I completely agree with. Thanks for breaking down the full list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so that we don't misunderstand each other, I am still unsatisfied with the arguments for both of these sources. Not that it matters much for this article anyways. There's just too many other issues with it. Goodraise 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering when I tried to go to animetique firefox and google warned me of malware, I'd say the site is pretty low budget. Also they appear to have no expertise whatsoever. It's just a personal review site that's been around for 13 years. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As per above, this article has now been delisted as a Good Article. While some discussion started, no actual changes have been made to the article itself. 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)