Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bleach (manga)/2

Bleach (manga) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delisted. 10 days and no commentary from authors. Please renominate at GAN when you think it's ready (or ask anyone who commented here, including me). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ia a restart of the first GAR for this article, which stalled. Please could editors base their comments only on the current form of the article with respect to the current good article criteria. I hope we will then be able to reach consensus on whether to list or not. Geometry guy 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the references seem to be wrong or misleading. For instance, ISBN 4088735552 give me a book called A Star and a Stray Dog, while ISBN 4088733665 gives me one entitle Death Trilogy Overture. These may also, of course, be volumes of Bleach, but something here doesn't jive properly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the short paragraphs in the lead, Production and Reception sections break up the text too much. Some of the prose isn't great, e.g. in the Reception section "but later added saying that some scenes 'were not balanced out'" and "mediocre anime series at best...' adding on the animation was 'standard". It seems to have more "in universe" information than real world, e.g. the amount of detail in Character types, compared to Production and Reception. There is little that I can see about influences and inspiration, metaphors used, impact, comparisons to characteristics typical of manga in that genre, etc. Does this information exist? Somno (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the things you are commenting on (the production section consisting of a single interview and that does not discuss production, the internet review of the anime version) were only added to the article in the last couple of weeks and could probably do with some cleaning up. I doubt that many academic interpretations of the series exist at this point, since it's ongoing. 221.90.134.44 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (witholding !vote for now): Both jb's and Somno's concerns are very valid, and it was the amount of in-universe information that first jumped out at me when I read the article. I'd certainly like to see more about the actual process of creation rather than, say, detailed character bios. It can sometimes be helpful to regard an article from the perspective of a reader who knows nothing about the subject (ie me!) coming across it, and asking "what would they want to know?" (and conversely, what wouldn't they be interested in). The external links need trimming (per WP:LINKS), and templates would be helpful to consistently format the references (although not a current GA requirement). The web citations should, however, have access dates. I think the prose is fine for GA, and most statements and sections are sourced where they need to be (with the exception of CDs). I'm not convinced about the www.popcultureshock.com reader review though (essentially a blog), or the need for two copyrighted images in a single section. EyeSerene^talk 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]