Talk:Hibiki's Magic/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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   For the most part, this passes the MoS, however the lead makes note of "is also known for" on both the author and illustrator which seems unnecessary. They are not related series, so would recommend removing those additional bits. Could use a fresh copyedit as there are some parts where its overly wordy. Random examples would include "The manga originally started serialization in the August 2004 issue of Kadokawa Shoten's shōnen manga magazine Shōnen Ace sold on June 26, 2004" - considering the magazine's name, noting that it a shonen manga magazine is a bit redundant, and "originally started serialization" is very word. One suggested redo: "The series premiered in the August 2004 issue of Shōnen Ace, released on June 26, 2004." (though i don't think the issue's release date is necessary). Fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The plot seems to have some OR and interpretation without sources, such as "This is apparent in nearly all of the magic-wielding characters, although the actual sacrifice itself is not always mentioned." (emphasis mine). The character section is spottily sourced, but also includes interpretative statements that need sourcing or removing. Two of the Mania reviews are to user submitted reviews rather than editor reviews (Janet Houck and Nadia Oxford). Only the editor reviews are RS, so these need removing. All other sources look good. Fixed

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For such a short series, the character section seems overly long and there is too much plot, as a whole, versus the rest of the article. The lead and manga sections note that the series appears to be on some kind of hiatus or delayed release, but doesn't explain. Was no reason ever given in a reliable source for what's going on? Is it still on-going or done? I presume it has no conclusion? Any other production notes available? Fixed

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):

   Character image is not appropriate per WP:NONFREE as it does not add significantly to the understanding of the topic. - no problem after rechecking policy

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Per above, this article is on hold for seven days to allow time to address the issues noted. On the whole, this article is in good shape for such a small series, and I believe most of the questions/issues above will prove to be quick fixes. If there are questions or comments, please post them below (not above). I'll have this page on my watchlist for the duration of the GAR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues all fixed and GAR closed as keep. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other notes that do not affect the GAR: prefer use of tankōbon volumes over "bound volume" as bound volume has other connotations in English and it seems like a poor translation of the original word. Since this series has no adaptations, the manga section could be merged into the production section, or renamed to just release. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

No explanation was ever given as to why Maeda/Izumi have not put out more chapters, just that it's been very slow in its serialization. It's still presumably ongoing, as there's been no notice that it's ended, and the story is still unfinished. No other production notes were given to my knowledge.

I wholly disagree on the character image, since if that were true, then you'd have to remove all the group character images from every anime/manga article in Wikipedia. I mean, why should List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters have a group character image at the top? The image used in that article is doing the same job as in this one, in that it is giving a visual representation of the main cast of characters. You cannot possibly say that that image is used in any way different than the one in this article; the only difference is that this character section is still in the main article.--十八 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters is a character list, so the image is more supportive and defensible as a fair use of a non-free image, same as with other character images. In a main article, however, it is generally seen as excessive and unnecessary, and the series is too short to support any eventual spin out to a list (or that would have been my usual suggestion for dealing with it). I will look into the issue more, however. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I still see no difference, as they're used in the exact same way. And while I'm here, there's nothing that says the notes and refs have to be separated. Indeed, I've often seen them in FA/FL articles in a combined section, and have been through enough GANs and FLCs to know that it's an acceptable way of formatting. I've attempted to deal with everything else.--十八 03:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If they are together, the notes should be done as a reference using an inline citation, I believe. I did the separate section for the easiest division of the two since they were different formats. I've struck the note on image after checking into it more.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the the formatting of notes vs. refs. For instance, the issue did not come up with List of video games developed by Key which passed FL a couple months ago. While I have seen a prodigious amount of anime/manga lists separating them, I always thought this was rather unnecessary. I also believe that if there's only one to a few notes, they should not be split, but if you say had 5 or more, I'd agree that a separate section would be warranted.--十八 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on a separate section. If its reformatted to use the ref tags so it falls in with the rest of the references, then its fine to have them in one section too. As I said, I just went for the easier fix to try to address a minor issue.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's easier to read them if they're at the top of the section and are in a larger type face than the references. I also believe the the ref tags should not be used in that fashion, or else note templates wouldn't exist. Further, using a level-2 header for a 2-line note, I've found, is not advisable. But as it's a minor issue, I'll just meekly go along with it.--十八 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, anything else I need to do?--十八 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All done. If you plan to do an FA run at some point, I'd recommend getting a 3rd party copy edit followed by the requisite PR. Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)