Talk:Boogiepop/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):

   This article completely fails to follow the standards set forth by WP:MOS-AM. It is badly organized, missing its infoboxes (which were there when this passed years ago), the media has been inappropriately split to a single separate list, the lead is too short with two many new facts, and the reception section does not need to be split when the first section only has one paragraph. ELs are badly formatted and should have Japanese links first, then English officials, with ANN last. Reviews used within the article should not be relisted in the EL section. After all changes made, as noted here and below, a fresh copy edit will be required.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Inappropriate use of seemingly self-published sources (#8, which is also dead, and 22), non-RS sources (ANN encyclopedia section), and there is a complete lack of Japanese sources! This is a Japanese light novel series, yet there isn't even a single Japanese source for its basic information. Conversely, there appears to be an overly heavy use of Seven Seas sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lacks plot summary, production information, and appropriate media information; reception appears out of date; little info on Boogiepop Phantom, presumably from all the splitting, etc. Reception section lacking offline sources, despite availability of reviews and information from magazines, books, etc.

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):

   In violation of WP:NONFREE with the excessive, individual character images and the image of the two main characters; Logo which only restates name is also an unnecessary non-free image which can be conveyed with text. The character images need removing and the logo replaced with a cover of one of the novels (generally the first one).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I was tempted to boldly delisted this article, as it is so badly fails all of the good article criteria that I doubt it can be salvaged within the one week hold time. At this point, the article would only be considered a "Start" class article by the evaluation criteria. Rebuilding it to a true GA will be a monumental effort. Good luck to anyone undertakes it!

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has been delisted from GA. There has been no response nor effort to correct the issues noted above, and the hold time has lapsed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)