Talk:The Big O/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) 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Article needs a fresh copy edit. There are quite a few short, choppy sentences and paragraphs, redundancy in sentences, wordiness, clarity issues, casual phrasing ("brainchild?"), weaselly words ("some reviewers" - who?), bad casing (VIZ -> Viz), media titles should be italics, etc. The layout also needs some work. The character section does not follow a proper list format, and misuses bolding per the WP:MOS. The production section has an inappropriate bold section break where its really not needed. Why are adaptations in the production section rather than the media section? Media is also using inappropriate bold text for pseudo headers. The embedded audio file midsentence is a bit disruptive to reading, would recommend putting that separately to the side.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The media section is unreferenced, as is the one sentence at the end of the adaptation section. Several unreferenced statements found in Production, music, and reception section. The latter is a bit confusing as it seems clear there is a source, so perhaps someone just neglected to add the cite? The plot section seems like a mix of interpretation and actual summary, but is not sourced. Interpretative statements require sources. What makes sources #14 (A Fan's View), 15[1], 18 (anime.org.au), 26 (World's Finest), 22 (DVD Vision Japan), 19 (Anime Jump), 31 & 49 (Japan Hero), 34 (Anime Meta-Review), 40 (The Anime Review), and 44 (Anime Academy) reliable sources? Most appear to just be fan sites, which fails WP:RS. The AoD links need updating to their Mania equivalents.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Does the plot cover the series ending, however? Or is it fairly open ended? Why so little information on any of the adaptations. There are two manga series, and a single novel, but with little information on any. It also incorrectly states the "issues were collected" when it was chapters collected.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm actually a bit back and forth on this, as the reception section seems to bit too positive rather than neutrally presenting the available sources with the tone and language being used. For now, I'm considering it a pass based on prose issues rather than a major NPOV issue.

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):

   Two non-free images, with one in the infobox and one below. Both have appropriate FURs, though it would be useful to have a source on the second image to verify the caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article has some pretty big issues in the sourcing area that will need to be corrected for it to retain its GA status. This GAR is on hold for seven days to allow time for these issues to be addressed. I will keep this page on my watch list for the duration of the GAR, so if you have questions/comments, please post them below (not above). Good luck!-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other notes that do not affect the GAR: article does not follow WP:MOS-AM well and should be cleaned up to do so. The references need to be updated to use the same date format as the article per the updates to those citation templates.

• I added a bit to the plot. That should clarrify as best as possible the ending which has been highly debated as to what really happened and who was "real". As for the capitalizations, I disagee. There are enough RSes that use such capitalizations like VIZ that its acceptable in the prose. I will state also that the adapatations were not nearly so popular or well known by a signifigantly wide margin.陣内_Jinnai 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting ending. I've only seen like one episode of it while flipping channels one night. :) While RS' use VIZ - it goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions and the Viz article itself uses Viz. Its a minor change, and not really something I would think would warrant a disagreement. Many other instances have been fixed in other articles, same as with FUNimation, just this one likely got missed. Keep meaning to run AWB over the rest to get through them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions only apply to the page names (and to a lesser extent to section names). "Naming conventions are Wikipedia's policy on how to name pages." This is because of standardized indexing. This does not apply to prose.陣内_Jinnai 04:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

actually it does, per MOS:TM "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". VIZ is pronounced VIZ not V-I-Z, so the guideline under it doesn't apply, and this isn't an issue of Camel Casing (nor does it make the trademark more readable as its still just Viz). Also per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), "Avoid writing in all capitals: For trademarks" and "For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" and "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still disagreeing with this but will change VIZ-Viz as it's not a comment by a reviewer. In such cases using unusual capitalization and typographical symbols is allowed. There is currently a dispute going on about the relative authoritative tone about when to use such things when independent reliable sources say so on the TM page, so it's hardly as cut-and-dry as you claim.陣内_Jinnai 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - A Fan's View has been previously discussed by the anime-manga project and found to be reliable. Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, the source needs cleaned up, then to follow the same format as the rest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the author's name to the cite, but that just seems to be how {{cite web}} handles it when you're using an archive of a page. --Malkinann (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Per above and lack of continued activity, this article has been delisted as a good article as it no longer meets the good article criteria. Once the issues above have been fully corrected, feel free to resubmit the article for GA status. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)