Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Twin Spica/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 27 February 2010 [1].

Twin Spica edit

Nominator(s): Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Twin Spica/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on a recently licensed Japanese manga series. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article but may warrant further improvements by a larger group of reviewers to meet the brilliant prose criterion. Thanks in advance for your comments. Arsonal (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB links - no dab links found

ALT text - present and detailed enough

External links - no problems or redirects

--Pres N 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As the GA reviewer for this article I can confirm that it meets all the style and layout requirements of WP:MOS-AM. This is well researched and fully referenced. Images all have the proper rationale attached to them. Article doesn't appear excessively bogged down in minor details, but has an appropriate length to cover the topic properly. Only one thing sticks out here, is the red links in the intro and music sections, as well as one in the references, otherwise this looks like a FA to me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments One left for editors.~~What makes these reliable?~~

~~http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/15951.html~~

RB88 (T) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICv2is a industry news site used as a source by multiple international publications.[2] Comics reporter is a site by Tom Spurgeon, an industry expert and reviewer for Publishers Weekly, another industry publication/news/review site. The editor for THEM was on G4TV as a guest talking about anime.[3] I can't speak for animealmanac, but the other 3 should satisfy any criteria for expert/reliable sources. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ICv2 page is its own, so less inclined to believe those assertions unless shown in the actual third party sources. The articles in Comic Reporter or THEM are not by the respective editors, but from other writers. The actual websites need to be shown to reliable in this case or an editorial process detailed. RB88 (T) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Here are some materials for your consideration on these sources:

ICv2 has indeed been cited by top media sources such as Time, BusinessWeek, The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor, among others. It was formerly known as Internal Correspondence, a magazine published by Capital City Distribution (later acquired by Diamond Comic Distributors).
The writer of the article in The Comics Reporter, David Welsh, has been published by BusinessWeek, among others. You can see a previous assessment of the site's general reliability in WikiProject Anime and manga's list of online sources.

I think what he's getting at here is not that this source should be accepted because it's recieved WP:ANIME's "blessing"; but that there's several discussions in the archives of both WP:ANIME and WP:COMICS about this source that we can refer to here. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. I do realize that this is supposed to be an external assessment though, so we shouldn't rely on any particular wikiproject's conventions, rather the FAC and Wikipedia as a whole. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information cited from Anime Almanac are statements by Ed Chavez, an editor and translator of manga and the current marketing director of publishing company Vertical, which licensed the manga that is the subject of this Wikipedia article. No information was included that are opinions of the website's author.

I'm leaving this out for editors to decide for themselves. RB88 (T) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the WikiProject's list of online sources again for previous comments on THEM Anime Reviews. The website had also passed review in the successful FA candidacy of Tokyo Mew Mew.

We don't tend to proceed by WikiProject source guidelines here. The criteria are much more stringent. I also checked the FAC you mentioned and I don't see the source explicitly being declared reliable by Ealdgyth. Also, people can have differing implicit opinions about it (or even miss it sometimes). A third party reliable source will solve this or a show of its editorial process.

On the editorial process: THEM Anime Reviews editor Carlos Ross (interviewed by G4TV as mentioned above) wrote in 2003 that he "wanted to keep the quality of reviews consistent" and is "still editing some older reviews even to this day". He also written on the nature of reviews made by the contributors to the site and discussed the evolution of the reviewer solicitation process. Contributors also read other reviews, including those by Anime News Network, "because it improves their craft". Reviews are not swayed by mere popularity because "popularity ... has nothing to do with the quality of an anime". Arsonal (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsonal (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2005 THEM Anime was described by the defunct Anime Fringe publication as "A great low-frills and old anime review site. Reviews run from light to dark anime titles, and the site contains a separate adult section. T.H.E.M. Anime is a frequent stop for me to get honest and to-the-point opinions."
More recent Ain't It Cool News anime/manga related column mentions from time to time a T.H.E.M. Anime review among its "worth checking out" [4][5][6][7].

I think the question isn't whatever the THEM Anime is reliable but why should we give weight to their review in the reception section. --KrebMarkt 08:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they had the most to say about this anime? I don't know though. You're right that it seems a little off to have the first paragraph with 3 sources with 2 sentences each, whereas the second has two sources, THEM getting 4 sentences and Sony getting 1. It would be good to get one more source in the second paragraph and/or reduce the time given to THEM. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is little to no reliable source critical reception on the anime adaptation of Twin Spica. This is partly due to the fact that it has not been picked up by any major licensors, much to the dismay of fans. The only English dub was done by Animax Asia and ran only once in 2005. There are several recent reviews made, but they have not been deemed as reliable sources. It is, however, getting increasing coverage after Vertical picked up the manga'a license. I have tried my best searching for Japanese language reviews, but none have been substantial enough to really add anything to the section. Arsonal (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the last minute additions and revisions. The 3 newly found references (one from the Mainichi Shimbun and two from the Yomiuri Shimbun) should not be of any doubt whether they meet the guidelines on reliable sources. They also provide more domestic coverage of the subject. Arsonal (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.