Talk:Suzuka (manga)/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) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead is too short and is not summarizing the entire article, failing WP:LEAD. Not fixed Infoboxes should not need in-line citations; those items should already be sourced in the lead. Fixed Fails WP:MOS-AM with inappropriate focus on anime over manga in character list (voices should be end, not lead). Fixed Reception shouldn't be broken up unless its very long (which this is not). Fixed Some references malformed and broken. AnimeOnDVD is one word. :)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Numerous unsources statements throughout the article, including most of the character and media sections. Final paragraph of plot is unsourced analysis/interpretation and a comparison of the anime/manga = WP:OR. Non-RS sources being used, including ANN Encyclopedia, Comics Snub (also dead link), tokidokijournal (dead link),

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Plot is overly brief and appears to primarily cover just the beginning of the series. Does not give major events nor ending of the series. Some info is in the character section, which could be smerged into the plot as has been done with some other FA/GA articles, since there is a standalone character list. The end statement of the manga section belongs in the reception section. The reception sections do not properly note who made what comments, and mixes/matches reviews too much. See other GA/FA for proper reception section formatting. Missing any sales info beyond the one statement in the manga section that isn't included. Missing reviews from major printed media (is the series not covered in any of the Anime/manga books?) No magazine reviews? Is there any production information available?

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):

   Unnecessary non-free image in the character section. Fixed

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This GA is on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues noted above to be addressed. Feel free to ask for clarifications/discuss this review below (please do not add comments within the review itself as it makes it very confusing). I will have this GAR and the article on my watchlist for the duration of the GAR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done some minor work to fix some of the problems listed. Ultimately though I am not all familiar with the series so it will take some extra help, especially for the plot.陣内_Jinnai 23:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the dead links and fixed the malformed one. Also i believe #6 should be satisfied entirely now.陣内_Jinnai 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jinnai I'm willing to take care of non-English publishers. --KrebMarkt 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to poke...anyone still working on this one? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat. As I said, without knowing the series too well, especially the manga series, I can't say how it ends, therefore at least in that area I can;t help. I have tried to do what I can.陣内_Jinnai 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't seem like like the main contributor is going to work on it at all, and it really needs someone familiar with it to fix some of the big issues remaining. Trying to decide if a week extension will help or if I should go ahead and fail. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well message KrebMarkt and see if he can do more to help. If he can't at most I can do is find a few more sources to cite what's there. If we do start a colaboration, I am considering bringing this up. 1b should be satified though, but that's still not enough to pass it.陣内_Jinnai 00:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is we need someone who has read the series which is not my case. Even if we fix the rest without that help the GA status won't be retained. It can be also a good testbed for the renewed article collaboration. --KrebMarkt 04:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the issues above, and the lack of availability of anyone whose read/seen to fix the major issues, I have delisted the article. Agree it would be a good candidate for the collaboration efforts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)