Talk:Doll (manga)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Issues must be solved for a past, suggestions are suggestions.

Issues

• "1998 or 2000" You know, I can't pass for the article until this is resolved. You should confirm this through the magazine issue and publish date. Try checking the Japanese library database (I do not think Koushi has Feel Young ). It's going to be a difficult search. If you know the first issue number, it would make searching for it easier.
  • I do not believe Tanami is reliable, seeing as it is a mainly an online community for artists. After much consideration, I've decided the magazine issues the series ran in must be included as they are a main aspect of the topic (3a) so it should be noted the series ran between issues June 1998 till April 2002 (unconfirmed dates). If you can confirm the issues and source them with primary sources, I will assume good faith and treat this issue as resolved.
• "Motohiko realized his mistake and left the corporation to care for his wife, after creating eight other prototypes" I think you should reword it so it's more clear that he created eight dolls before retiring. It might be better to write it in Present tense, so he creates the dolls then retires. Also, why is it a mistake? You could always rewrite it to say he retired to take care of his wife. (Do not take my suggestions on how to fix it as binding, there are other ways)
• ", angry at his father." well that seemed to come out of nowhere. I can see that what was motivates him to study but it needs to be rewritten to be more clear
• Tokyo German link is dead
• 01, 02, etc. Get rid of the first zeros.
• "During the development of the "Sterol-2" Doll, Kaoru's mental condition begins to deteriorate; after attempting to retain a copy of her mind and memories in a prototype of a Doll, Motohiko realizes his mistake of trying to replace his wife and leaves the corporation to care for her, after creating eight other prototypes." This sentence is still awkward.
• "With Itsuki's tag for destruction, Ichiro is killed at the moment his father finally recognizes him." You can expand on the recognition part for clarity or remove the it completely.
• Regardless if the author has endorsed Amazon, Shodensha provides the full date to the volume releases and is considered reliable. list, vol 1, vol 2, vol 3.

Suggestions

• "the unnamed sexaroid, after Veronica is destroyed by a sadistic owner." The second part doesn't seem to add onto the plot but it's up for opinion.
• I think you should avoid having the character's thoughts and motivations in the plot. Such as "hopes that his father will recognize him", Not an issue though.
• Here. search list, Volume 1. These are better alternatives to amazon. Amazon can also have wrong dates at times too, which I've only seen for manga releases.
• I suggest removing the external link that needs to depend on wayback machine.
• "Learning of this, the sexaroid leaves to rescue him, against the wishes of another reprogrammer, Psycho Candy, who is in love with Ichiro." Psycho does not seem significant enough to need a mention.
• "as Motohiko and his wife are content with knowing that they left Dolls in the world" Is this necessary?

If you're wondering why I seem to appear for your GA's, they are just easier to review then character or manga & adaption articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Just curious about the Plot section, which is completely unsourced. Perhaps not likely to be challenged, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at the lack of verifiability? I also think some terms therein could use to be linked, such as psychological trauma. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's cause the plot is expected to come from the primary source itself, like (EX Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince). If we're really picky about it, we can say the general reference is good enough or demand the editor to source it chapter by chapter (Ex Rozen Maiden). About linking to that term, it seemed simple enough to not need an inter-wiki link. That's up for pinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. Is this typical of all plot summaries or just within the scope of certain WikiProjects? I skimmed through WP:PLOTSUM and it does justify the use of the primary as the sole source, so it's okay if it's not inline? Perhaps that should be clarified. Thanks for helping me better understand this practice. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a passer-by here. I saw that the original run date is not confirmed. Well, I found a source: tinami.com. The description of Doll (bottom right) says the manga began serializing in June 1998 on Feel Young. Hope that helps! ごだい (会話) 16:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Yes, that really does help. :) Thank you. This definitely seems to point to 1998 as the start.

Hi again DragonZero,

• will Mihara's interview by itself suffice, or would you like me to cite this as well?

As for the suggestions:

• Hmm. I will definitely think about whether or not that needs to be in the plot summary.
• I put in the character motivations, because without it, the plot becomes rather bizarre, especially since this series deals with human characters, who are capable of reasoning and feeling, and androids, which are decidedly not. As for that sentence you cited, that was explicitly what the character was wondering. I was very careful not to draw any conclusions.
• I don't really like citing Amazon, either. I prefer citing the manga artist or publisher's website, but in this case, Mihara linked to Amazon on her website.
• Done.

As always, thank you for taking the time to review. It is always appreciated. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. :)

• I respectfully disagree with you about the serialization issue, however. With all due respect, you are the first reviewer I have had who insisted on month+year. I understand that you have given this some thought, but I would like to point out that not every manga GA has month+year of serialization (e.g. Free Collars Kingdom & FLCL), and therefore I'm a little confused as to why you have made this a requirement, when the years have been established. I would also like to point out that this is not an FAC, where I would expect month+year for the pure sake of being pedantic, but a GAN, where, as the footnote to 3a states, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." [my emphasis]

It would be easier if each reply went under my initial points (Talk:Ventus (Kingdom Hearts)/GA1). Free Collars can be argued with rising standards and FLCL can be argued that the reviewer missed the fact that the volume release dates are used where the serialization dates are supposed to be. Having a month with the year is a basic aspect and is not comprehensive in my opinion. However, I am willing to drop this issue if a second opinion agrees with you. The opinion can come from : an active member of the wikiproject through their talk page, the wikiproject's talk page as a whole, or a formal request from GAN. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess we have a bit of a difference in opinion, then. :) The examples above are not the only GAs without month+year. I've gone ahead and have asked the project for their input, as you have suggested. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this only requires a quick opinion, I'll just ask the GAN talk. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Yes, it is... Better now?
• Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. There's not really much to clarify. His father mistook him for Itsuki the Doll, and realized that he killed his own son when it was too late. It's an important plot point, as it explains Ichiro's fate. Which is rather brutal and saddening.
• Done.

As for the suggestions,

• Done.
• Well, again, although I will definitely consider its place in the summmary, I think it ties up the fate of Motohiko and his wife nicely. The Dolls are what they leave behind, for better or worse. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The manga was serialized in a "Monthly" magazine, therefore it is relevant to add the month. If it were weekly, it would be even more relevant to put the day in aswell. Without it, we wouldn't know when it began and when it ended exactly.Lucia Black (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Outside opinion from GA noticeboard participant: I'd say adding the months would be helpful but don't appear necessary to me to pass GA. The GA criteria explicitly allow "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail", and that seems like a reasonable level to put this at. So I wouldn't hold up the review for it, but that's just me. Thanks to everybody for their work on this one, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  It's general information, so accuracy on that is relevant. I would definitely say it affects GA status. think about it, this ran in a monthly issue (meaning every month, a new chapter was released). For example: What if a series ran in December 1999 to January 2000. Without the months, one would assume the series ran 2 years when it was really 2 months. Its definitely important, we dont want to mislead readers.Lucia Black (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lucia, but that's not the case here. Far from it. This series ran for several years. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing the point. so it still stands.Lucia Black (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I understand your point. I just don't feel that it is relevant in this particular case or 99% of notable manga series. Can you cite me a real-life example? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking for a real-world example, then you did not understand the point.Lucia Black (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it very confusing that you are telling me what I do or do not understand. Please, let's keep this discussion civil. :) In this particular case and 99% of the rest, just listing the years is not misleading. You have a valid concern, but for this case and 99% of the rest, it is not necessary. Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You say that, but you don't really provide reasons for it. let me note that just giving the years isn't enough because it can be off by 2 years max, whether it began at the end of it or not. that's why months are important, no matter how long the series last. just the years give the reader the reason to do the math on their own, rather than giving accuracy. If a series began in May 1999 and ended in May 2000 it would be assumed that it ended roughly 1 year. but just the years 1999-2000 gives the idea of 2 years. so it's a big deal for accuracy. Also note that box is completely intended to show the serialization history of the series. Which you completely ignored the other points i've made. this manga was serialized in a monthly magazine, so therefore its relevant to show which month it began, and which month it ended.

Its common knowledge aswell. i dont know why this is an issue. its pretty important for GA for a manga or any serialization like TV series andcomic series with a specific pattern (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly).Lucia Black (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The years 1999-2000 tell me that this hypothetical manga began serialization in 1999 and ended in 2000. I'm not making any wild assumptions/conclusions as a reader. That's a dangerous road to take. :) As for the rest of your response, I've already written about something similar earlier/above. So, I won't take up more space here. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not replied, so again, best to find the months anyways. its a monthly issue. you only had issues with the example i gave. You are an editor, not the reader, therefore it can be bias to make claims as a reader would not see it, but they would indeed. its best to find the dates and not argue about it. How "unreasonable" do you think it is?Lucia Black (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

When I'm a reader, I do my best not to draw wild assumptions from the text. And that goes for any text. :) Again, I've discussed this concern in an earlier discussion with DragonZero. I think we've beaten this horse quite to death now... Let's agree to disagree? :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing comments

There are even opinions on the subject (2 for 2) but for now, I'm going to rescind my issue, as I had stated any second opinion that agrees with you would be fine, and pass the article. The discussion for GA standards for manga/anime can continue on the project page if it gets enough interest there. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)