Talk:Shaman King/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Darkwind (talk · contribs) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

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

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

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;

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

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

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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; and

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

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The correct plural of "shaman" is "shamans". See usage notes at wikt:shaman. Accordingly, no "sic" is needed in the quotation in the Production section, as "shamans" is correct. Third paragraph of Production isn't a single topic. The sentences about his drawing materials need to go elsewhere. The Reception section needs a general copy edit. I noted missing words and incorrect punctuation.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Lead: The lead is, in general, too long and too detailed. See comments below. The lead implies that the critical reception of the series was largely or entirely positive, which is contradicted by the reception section. The year given for the sales figure in the lead is different from the year given in the reception section, but the number is the same. One of them is wrong. Layout: There are dead links in the external link section. You might consider removing them. Words to watch: There are a couple of "as of" statements in the article, neither of which uses {{as of}}. Fiction: The plot summary should be given some context. See comments below.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The following do not appear to be reliable sources: #1 Mania.com, use A. As a review site, it is not a reliable source for the author's history. MSN TV, as previously noted - although if an alternative source can't be found, I'm willing to let this stand (they are not always wrong). #35 Anime Nation is a blog, and thus not generally considered WP:RS. Otherwise, all primary sources are used appropriately to cite direct statistics and other non-contentious information.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The NFURs on the infobox image look a little skimpy, but they're valid by the book.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

I haven't finished my initial review yet, since it's harder than I expected to do it on my iPad. I'll complete my initial notes within the next day or two at most. —Darkwind (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add that MSN TV is an unreliable source. A past discussion (here) has revealed MSN TV can hold contradicting dates. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources yet, but thanks for the heads-up. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What I did about your Mos comments is enough? About the MSN, well, it starts to difficult to me since I looked every place and I couldn't find other sources but I'll try. Any suggestion about where I can find I RS for it, DragonZero? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the MoS criterion, you've addressed almost everything -- but the lead still only mentions positive comments, while it's clear from the reception section that some of the reviews were more negative. I'll review the remaining criteria now. —Darkwind (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost done - just a bit of work on the sourcing. —Darkwind (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Mania.com and AnimeNation are both listed as online reliable sources for anime and manga. Actually, the information given by AnimeNation is not so important, so I can remove it if you want, but it is somewhat useful. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding AnimeNation, their podcast is listed as reliable, not their news blog. Regarding mania.com, a source can be considered reliable but that doesn't mean it is reliable for all uses. For example, a primary source can be reliable for straightforward statistics, but is generally not a reliable citation for in-depth analysis. In this case, I'm having trouble seeing where, as a review site, they are authoritative on the author's previous minor roles - where do they get this information and has it been verified? There's no way to tell. —Darkwind (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed AnimeNation source and I've noted his Shonen Jump interview confirms he worked with Watsuki on Rurouni Kenshin, then I removed Mania.com source from there. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Any other issues, Darkwind? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you made any progress finding a replacement for MSN? The record should show that we tried. —Darkwind (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No progress... I tried to look for information in the broadcaster's official site (Fox Box, now defunct), in the licensee site (4Kids Entertainment, also defunct), in Anime News Network and other reliable sources in the project online library but I couldn't find anything. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, I have already found the information that it was first broadcast on September 6... Now, I could find a site that confirms it was broadcast in September. However, I ultimately could not find the last airing. However, I'm doubt about... it's becoming very confusing as the Wikipedia since from its genesis reporst August 30, as well as ANN. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and passed the review; the spirit of the criteria has been satisfied, and airdates are often hard to pin down. —Darkwind (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding this edit I made: broadly speaking, it read better as quoted, and that's not really excessive quotation from a copyright perspective. More importantly, rewording the comment about shamans and pacifism made it imply that the source/interview says all shamanistic religions are also pacificist, which is a violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. —Darkwind (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MoS comments

Lead section

For example, the second paragraph of the lead could be cut down as such:

The Shaman King manga was originally serialized in Shueisha's Weekly Shōnen Jump between 1998 and 2004. It was adapted into an animated television series produced by Xebec and co-produced by TV Tokyo, which aired on Japan's TV Tokyo network from 2001 to 2002. The manga has also been reprinted in a kanzenban edition called Shaman King Kanzen-Ban (or "Perfect Edition"). The series has spawned video games, a trading card game, and many types of Shaman King-related merchandise.

Just make sure that any specifics removed from the lead are given elsewhere in the article (e.g. the exact air dates of the anime should be in the subsection discussing the anime, not the lead, and the same with the exact length of the manga). —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fiction

The plot summary can be given some context by introducing it with a sentence containing real-world perspective. For example, you could do something like "The plot of Shaman King focuses on the interaction between Manta Oyamada and Yoh Asakura." Or, as the plot summary progresses through the timeline of the series, you could begin each paragraph of the plot summary with "In volumes 10 through 15, <stuff happens>." See the last paragraph of the "plot summaries" section of MOS:FICTION for details. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)