Talk:Idol × Warrior Miracle Tunes!/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I might do the full review later on, but at its current state, I am not willing to approve this as a GA. The "Characters" section lacks references outside the main cast, the lede is inadequately short and fails to deal with the development of the series, and the mentions of other aspects are too brief to be an adequate summary. There also does not appear to be any mention about reviews, news articles, and the like, meaning that it being considered a "critical success" at least in the article is on shaky ground. I will give the nominator until the end of the month to sort out the issues, otherwise I will have to quick-fail this GAN. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Reception section was updated to address sources that have considered the show successful. Also, I used more neutral words. lullabying (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Character section was updated with references to the cast. lullabying (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Production section was updated with comments about filming and the casting process. lullabying (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I apologize for the delay in replying. The article looks far better now and I am willing to do the full review over the next few days; however before doing so, I would suggest moving the references in the lede to the article body (or removing them if they're duplicates). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed all sources from the lead except for one, which lists the official title in English for the series. lullabying (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Second opinion requested I very much apologize for this late reply. However, due to various reasons (mainly a lack of time, being caught up with other editing stuff, and personal activities), I have decided to cease my involvement in this GAN and will be leaving this for another editor to review. I sincerely apologize for this and I hope that my comments at least were helpful in improving the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• It's been some months since my last comment here, and it appears that no one else has decided to take over. My schedule is going to be freer this month so I've decided to pick this back up. I will try to finish the review by next week, depending on workloads elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've been very busy recently so I haven't had much time to return to this. However, looking through the article again, I think it looks a lot better than this was at the start of the nomination. Most of the sources are in Japanese so it might take me some time to go through all the available sources. Right now, I think my concern is that the lede section, while mostly adequate, lacks a mention of the discussion of how the themes of the show were produced. It mentions the auditions, but not the actual stylistic developments. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: @Lullabying: If it is quite alright with the both of you, I can take over the review of this article and see it to its conclusion. Please ping me with your response(s). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vami IV: That'd be great. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See my above comment. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I am assuming good faith for the Japanese and offline sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This will be good to go once the lede issues are addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for taking the time to analyze the article properly. I tried including some information in the lead; let me know if there's anything I still need to address. lullabying (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: just a passerby wondering if perhaps you missed the GA nominator's ping? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't, I've just been caught up in too many things to respond quickly. Not on a computer right now so might not be able to pass this until tomorrow at the earliest. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lullyabing: I'm very sorry for the late reply. To be honest, I got caught up in a lot of both on-Wiki and off-Wiki things and kind of forgot about this review. I think the article looks better now, but there still doesn't seem to be any mention of the development of the series' themes (as in themes and not music) in the lede. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Your name was misspelled in the ping so you did not recieve it. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been burned out due to being caught up in several on-and-off Wiki things. I can still finish the review, but since this has been going on for so long now, I'd like to ask for assistance from another editor to take a look at this too. @The Rambling Man: Would it be okay for you to take a look at the article as well? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  After the way you treated me at the recent ARCA Narutolovehinata5, you now want a favour?! Wow. lullabying I'm happy to take a look but please be aware that I don't speak or read Japanese so will be assuming good faith with pretty much every single source... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it not possible to bury the hatchet? We may have had our disagreements in the past but it doesn't mean that we can't work together when needed. In any case, this is not the time or place to air out previous grievances, we still have the same goal: to help improve the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure it's possible, but it would have been better to have done that before asking for a favour, right? Anyway, I'll help out the nominator when I get a chance. Your continued opposition in attempting to prevent me from helping out elsewhere will remain long in the memory. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Vami's review

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 and Lullabying: I will conduct my review down here <3 –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help here. To be honest, I'm really disappointed with TRM's comments above, I would have thought that he'd put Wikipedian interest above personal pasts, and I specifically contacted him upon the advice of other editors who said that he's known for making thorough GAN reviews, but I guess there's nothing we can do about that now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry for the delay. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis

Citation 4 is the lone citation used here, but apparently doesn't cover all the content there? It's also used three times successively in the first paragraph, making the first two instances redundant without other citations. If Citation 4 covers all the content contained here, it should be attached to the end of the block of text it upholds. If it doesn't, a source that does should be added as a citation.

•  Fixed Citation explains the entire plot, as well as info that Takashi Miike directed the series; EXPG Studios handled the choreography; and there was a toy deal with Takara Tomy. I changed the citation on the plot summary by having one citation listed at the end of the synopsis. lullabying (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph still has no citation. –Vami
    •  Fixed lullabying (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Characters

There is text here without any supporting citations.

@Lullabying:

Production

• The show was advertised with the catchphrase, "Live start! We're Tuning your bad hearts!" Is this supposed to be "life" or "life"?
  • It's supposed to be "live", as in "live show/performance." The word "live" is a wasei-eigo term for any live concert. lullabying (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• general director to the series for the series?
  •  Fixed lullabying (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• which took place beginning June 2016 This would read better as "which began June 2016"
  •  Fixed lullabying (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reception

• What form of media are Confidence and Oricon?
  • Confidence is a magazine, and Oricon is a huge entertainment outlet in Japan. Official music rankings are listed through there. lullabying (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I just want to add that Oricon is basically the Billboard of Japan, where they release music rankings, statistics, CD/DVD/Blu-ray/Book listings, and news articles. lullabying (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.