Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Excel Saga/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | Excel Saga
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:55, 26 July 2008 [1].

Excel Saga edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WP:Anime, WP:COMEDY, User:Monocrat, User:Grm wnr

On March 28th, I posted this note to the talk page noting that the article no longer met the FA criteria: "This article really needs a work over to bring it inline with the MOS and with WP:LEAD. It was promoted to FA almost 2 years ago, but if it were back up for FA, it would fail miserably. Anyone willing to tackle the needed MOS and lead fixes?" The note went unanswered until May 15th, when the original primary contributer who put it in the current format only argued that his format was better. No substantive work was done to bring it inline, nor any discussion on other issues. As I feel more than enough time has been given to do anything at all, I'm now bringing here for formal review. I feel the article fails the following criteria:

  • 1a: It is not well written, with tone and prose issues throughout
  • 1b: It is missing some of the very basic information required for anime/manga articles, like the manga serialization and publication information, and anime airing and release information (some of this appears to have been shoved off to List of Excel Saga media, which is an inappropriate per project consensus
  • 1c: It has some unsourced statements, including interpretative statements; some of the "refs" are not references at all, including 1, 2, 4, 10-15, 24, 27, 28, 30, 43; many of those are personal notes that are also unreferenced. Ref 21 is an IMDB trivia page. Ref 41 is a dead link to a retail site. Several other references are non-reliable, including Anime Boredum and Digitally Obsessed.
  • 2a: fails WP:LEAD and doesn't follow the general construction of anime/manga series leads
  • 2b: badly fails this; does not follow WP:MOS-AM at all; structure is jumbled and confusing, jumping from place to place, with the plot badly mixed with interpretative statements. I attempted to fix the MoS issues but couldn't because of the odd sections and mixed up content within each.
  • 2c: Not all refs properly formatted, and ref 31 combines 8 refs in one
  • 3: at times it fails this, current discussion on going over excessive non-free images; also disagreement on whether infobox image is appropriate, or if it should be using the first volume instead of the selected volume preferred by the uploading editor "for aesthetic reasons"
  • 4: Seems to have excessive plot summary

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1a. I'll copy-edit as time permits. Two years have passed, so I should be less close to the text.
  • 1b. Fair point about the serialization data. I'm just not sure where to find it, which of course is not your problem. :)
  • 1c. Specific thoughts to follow at a later time. It would be immediately helpful in focusing efforts, though, if citation-needed tags were applied as desired. Also, the worst offending notes will be removed, although I think the Anime Boredom and Digitally Obsessed survive WP:V#Self, though I suppose that's for this room to decide. Is the "best there is" still relevant precedent?
  • 2a. I'll look into this once the body is taken care of.
  • 2b. The only real difference between this and the structure suggested by WP:MOS-AM is that what would normally be two separate sections are merged under one H2 tag. I'm inclined to agree that it needs condensing; perhaps even transferring to the section's introduction a few details from each of the first three subsections and deleting what remains of them.
  • 2c. Will look into this generally. On the specific point of note 31, I'm not sure how to "improve" it. Wouldn't eight separate footnote-call-outs in one sentence would be a bit excessive, especially when the underlying point is not under dispute? Still, advice is solicited and welcome.
  • 4. If anything, there's too much character material. See response to 2b.
--Monocrat (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In another recent conversation, I think a PR in prep for FLC, it was agreed that Anime Bordom did not meet RS. And I don't think "the best there is" would work for what those items reference. Excel Saga should have plenty of coverage in reliable sources that should negate need to use those less reliable ones. For the serialization data, however, Anime News Network is a WP:RS, so it can be used if nothing else is available. Actually, now that I think about it, I did say I was going to clean up the media list and properly split it into an episode and chapter list. The leads for those include the serialization data, so if you want to concentrate on fixing the other issues, I'll work on those two which will provide the info that can be dropped into the appropriate manga and anime media sections (when they exist) :)
Also, the article does not follow WP:MOS-AM in other ways than just the two sections merged into one. It has no media section at all. The Plot section isn't a plot section at all, with the odd sectioning, and characters should be separate. Its lacking a production section, with the information instead spattered throughout the article. Its something I originally intended to try and fix, but I just couldn't sort out the contents in the individual sections well enough to do it.
For ref 31, I'd make the sentence more specific (I believe "several" is a general no no in prose), and then ref each instance individually. This is what was done in some others that have topped the charts. Google Books bring up a few possible hits, and it does appear in the Anime Encyclopedia (possibly other anime/manga books as well). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Several" is gone from that sentence, but I'm unconvinced about separate notes. Could we table that for now? You're right about the media section. Sorry for not noting that; I was focusing on your specific mention of the character/plot situation. We will have to iron out our differences about the plot section over the coming days, though my goal is to render it moot. While I'd appreciate a link to that discussion about Anime Boredom, I'd rather let this room make the final call on which of the sources are acceptable. And "should have plenty of coverage in reliable sources" and "has plenty of coverage in reliable sources" are two separate things. :-) I would gladly be proved wrong, though! --Monocrat (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go, took me a bit to remember where it was LOL Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Naruto characters/archive1. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've looked into Anime Boredom, and they seem to have scored about thirty interviews with industry types (exclusively anglophone industry-types, as far as I can tell, though); they've been operating for about four years, and three of the main reviewers Joseph (Joe) Woods, David Rasmussen, John Huxley have put out quite reviews that seems roughly comparable to ANN's. (Rasmussen alone has about 27 interviews to his name.) I can't tell how selective they are in letting people write reviews, although they seem to let people have pen-names, which costs them a bit in my book. Not sure how much this buys in terms of WP:RS, but there it is.--Monocrat (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's more than enough; the site meets the guidelines requirements. In the link provided by AnmaFinotera there was no actual argument against the site: AnmaFinotera didn't know it, and Sephiroth BCR just said "cut the site". In any case, the site doesn't need to be "notable"; it needs to reliable. This is important because having some notability, that is to be cite or quoted in other sites or sources, doesn't mean the site is reliable. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The main criteria, which current FACs judge sources on, is the editorial process of the site/media concerned. Hence certain factors would help in establishing reliability of a site, such as:
  • professional (i.e. paid) staff
  • page stating the process of screening and checking articles
  • bigwig corporate support (large media firms tend to have editorial processes in place for their acquisitions)
  • the authors are acknowledged (by reliable sources) as industry experts, or have shown their expertise
Anime Boredom qualifies in none of these areas. That said, here is a list of sites that should qualify as RS for their information on Excel Saga.
You might wish to contact Ealdgyth to find out if a certain site might be judged reliable. She is usually the one the FACs turn to on evaluating reliable sources. Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DVDTalk and the Read About Comics are new to me. Thanks for them and for the clarification, Jappalang!--Monocrat (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Anime Boredom does state in their help page they do the required process of screening and checking articles before publishing them. So the site does meet the fact-checking asked by the policy. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer is no, it does not. The text in the page you mentioned is under "Why haven't you posted my review/article?" and states that they are proofed for grammar and tone, not factuality. ("However, not all reviews and articles will be accepted if they don't meet with certain criteria. Please make sure your work is over 400 words (preferably much more) with minimal spelling and grammatical errors. Reviews and articles that belittle other authors work will be ignored...save your criticism for the forum!")[6] In general in accordance with WP:RS and WP:V, community (fan) sites are frowned upon due to the premise that their information presented is unreliable in the sense that anyone regardless of their expertise can submit their opinion and have it published. To be plainly honest here, common users submitting reviews have no standing equal to writers acknowledged to be experts in the anime industry. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But acknowledgement as an expert is the requirement for self-published sources, which is not the case here. In this case it's not about the writer, but whether the review has been checked on or not. If there's an editorial process, then the site is not a fan site, and meets the criteria for this particular kind of source. Kazu-kun (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Who writes the article matters as well ("This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors"). Furthermore, having a lite editorial process does not mean a site is not a fan site; checking for grammar and tone does not make the submitter a reliable author (nor the site reliable). Jappalang (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you know that "nope" has a noticeable condescending tone. Anyway, a reliable author is not the same as an expert. We're talking about people who have interviewed representatives from anime/manga companies such as Seven Seas Entertainment, Tokyopop, ADV, etc; these companies don't give interviews to fan sites, which is proof of two things: they're recognized by the anime/manga industry as part of the industry itself (and therefore they're competence on the subject), and they're trusted (that they would not alter the content of a interview, for example). Besides the reviews are indeed checked upon by an editorial department. Overall, I still think the site meets the criteria.
Also, I was thinking we should continue this discussion elsewhere. It's starting to get a bit disruptive here. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told by certain people that a single "no" is curt (rude), but nothing about the informal "nope", so your point is? Reporting interviews does not give sites reliability. Anyone can accost someone involved in the industry at a convention and request for an interview. Chances are they will get it for PR reasons and goodwill. Several interviews reported on sites are in fact based on group interviews where the interviewee sits down with several gathered people and is fired with questions from anyone. Certain sites "leeched" questions asked by others and posted them as their own. Who guarantees that the posted interview was not altered or made up in any way? As for editorial processes, simple grammar and tone checks do not fulfill the "stringent" aspect requested for reliable sources. Furthermore as already stated, the fundamental concern is the author's reliability. Hence, user submissions, with an unknown submitter's background, are out. If you can find recent FACs or wide discussions on RS that approve of such submissions, please let us know. For now, Anime Boredom is unlikely to get approved as a source in an FAC. Jappalang (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following should be excellent additions to the article.
As printed sources, they counter systematic bias towards online sources and are more likely to fare better at being reliable sources in FACs. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Jappalang! The Telotte text should be particularly useful.--Monocrat (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c) and just about everything else.

Lots of early comments. Not sure what the status is now. Marskell (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It pretty much has remained untouched since the 11th, except for a category change and adding one channel aired. None of the comments above were implemented, nor any other major work done to address any of the issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Excel_Saga/archive1&oldid=1078810559"