Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lolicon/1
Lolicon edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No action, article remains unlisted: both the individual reassessment and the review comments by SilkTork below indicate failings with respect to criteria 1 and 3, and suggest that time is needed to resolve these issues and renominate a neutral stable version. Placing reviews on hold is a matter for reviewer discretion: if a reviewer does not believe that the article can be brought up to standard in a reasonable timescale, then the review can be closed and the article not listed. In particular, disagreement among editors about a particular issue may distract them from the wider picture: a Good article is required to meet all the criteria. For this same reason, however, reviewers are encouraged to provide as much information in reviews as they can, including indicative examples of problems and proposed solutions where appropriate. It seems to me that Jezhotwells has taken criticism here on board, and that this reassessment has elicited more detailed comments from SilkTork. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 20:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article was delisted due to "serious disagreement" during the individual reassessment. While there were some problems expressed by User:Timothy Perper, they were not major and involved 2 users with a bad history. Timothy has since withdrawn gracefully from the scene. Furthermore, there is disagreement from others at WikiProject Anime that the reviewer improperly delisted it as the article was drastically improved and there is a belief that while it did not meet the GA crtieria when it was listed for reassasement, it now does.陣内Jinnai 02:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article certainly has been improved, thanks to the work of a number of editors, including Jinnai. Many of the issues I raised have been settled, though some remain. Even so, a GA does not have to be perfect, so I will leave it up to others to decide if the marked improvements warrant listing the article as GA. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. As it happens, I have been watching the individual reassessment since it began, and consider the review to have been conducted
in an exemplary fashionin accordance with process, and the delisting in no way "improper", so there is no case to overturn it on procedural grounds. However, interpretation of the GA criteria can be subjective, and the article certainly has improved significantly, so asking for a wider opinion as to whether the article now meets the GA criteria is perfectly reasonable. I hope community GAR will be able to do that; if not, the article can of course be renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify as to why I feel the review was improper - I felt the closing comment, solely focussed on the disagreements that arose during the review, isn't helpful in the further improvement of the article, or in guiding editors in how to regain GA quality/status for this controversial article. I asked the reviewer for clarification as to where the article still failed/fails the GA criteria, but none has been forthcoming. I've had similar issues of depth of review with this reviewer before over their quickfail of Cyborg Kuro-chan. --Malkinann (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I accept your point that more information could have been given after the improvements to the article, and have rephrased my comment. However, at the start of an individual review of an article (for nomination or reassessment) the reviewer raises problems with the article which need to be fixed on a limited timescale. It is common for closing statements to be brief because the reviewer believes that all the issues cannot be fixed within such a limited timescale. I hope you will receive further guidance on improving the article here, and indeed that the reviewer will comment further. Geometry guy 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is though, most, if not all, of those problems listed were addressed and fixed as far as we could tell (no real feedback was given during the GAR). The failing on #5 I don't see. If you look at the articles history the only unstable time recently was when we were trying to update to comply with the GAR in which case major edits should be expected. #5 specifically refers only to changes in the article itself, not the talk page.陣内Jinnai 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to me that the majority of improvements to the article were made after I concluded the reassessment. At that time the section on the new Tokyp law had not been updated, the lead included material which was not in the article proper. When disagreements about this appeared in the review, nine days after the review had started, I concluded that it was best to delist. Further improvements have been made since,[1] and so it should perhaps be re-nominated at WP:GAN. I will exclude myself from any further review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- An extensive amount had already been done without any additional feedback before the article was delisted. Again the reason given was inappropriate; talk page disagreements are not a factor for criteria #5. Only the article itself is suppose to be looked at for criteria #5. Furthermore, the short period of instability which came from the individual GAR has historically been seen as appropriate exception to that rule if its done to bring the article up to standards. Finally, that the article continued to be massive improved in a short period of time after the delisting goes to further show the nominator improperly delisted the article early inspite their being shown an active interest in improving the article. All of this while no additional feedback was given by the reviewr as to the progress. They simply appeared one day listing the problems then appeared a week later and delisted improperly citing #5.陣内Jinnai 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:GAR is for assessing if an article meets the god article criteria, not for critiquing the review. At the time of delisting], the Youth Bill section was incomplete and rather out of date. The lead contained material not in the article proper (about the Tokyo Bill); Nabokov's Lolita and "Laws have been enacted in various countries". Thus, in my opinion, it was properly delisted after 9 days on reassessment and, if it has been improved since, then the proper course would be to renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- An extensive amount had already been done without any additional feedback before the article was delisted. Again the reason given was inappropriate; talk page disagreements are not a factor for criteria #5. Only the article itself is suppose to be looked at for criteria #5. Furthermore, the short period of instability which came from the individual GAR has historically been seen as appropriate exception to that rule if its done to bring the article up to standards. Finally, that the article continued to be massive improved in a short period of time after the delisting goes to further show the nominator improperly delisted the article early inspite their being shown an active interest in improving the article. All of this while no additional feedback was given by the reviewr as to the progress. They simply appeared one day listing the problems then appeared a week later and delisted improperly citing #5.陣内Jinnai 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to me that the majority of improvements to the article were made after I concluded the reassessment. At that time the section on the new Tokyp law had not been updated, the lead included material which was not in the article proper. When disagreements about this appeared in the review, nine days after the review had started, I concluded that it was best to delist. Further improvements have been made since,[1] and so it should perhaps be re-nominated at WP:GAN. I will exclude myself from any further review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is though, most, if not all, of those problems listed were addressed and fixed as far as we could tell (no real feedback was given during the GAR). The failing on #5 I don't see. If you look at the articles history the only unstable time recently was when we were trying to update to comply with the GAR in which case major edits should be expected. #5 specifically refers only to changes in the article itself, not the talk page.陣内Jinnai 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I accept your point that more information could have been given after the improvements to the article, and have rephrased my comment. However, at the start of an individual review of an article (for nomination or reassessment) the reviewer raises problems with the article which need to be fixed on a limited timescale. It is common for closing statements to be brief because the reviewer believes that all the issues cannot be fixed within such a limited timescale. I hope you will receive further guidance on improving the article here, and indeed that the reviewer will comment further. Geometry guy 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved.
- There are a number of members who disagree with your individual review and how you handled it (or rather the lack thereof). That is exactly what a community review is for. Specifically #4.
- I know you didn't notify all relevant parties, specifically the associated wikiprojects (fortunatly this page is on a number of watch pages), however the main point is that you closed it when there it was clear there was improvement ongoing and responses from contributors ongoing. The unabaited improvement (except to discuss and post this community GAR) over the following few days shows your delisting was indeed premature and delisted on faulty basis because you used the failing criteria #5, not on the page itself (which you shouldn't anyway per reasons I stated prior), but on the talk page. In addition, you did not follow the delisting guidelines and give even one single solution - just listed problems - nor did you update your assessment with what info passed so we, the editors of the article, could know what still needed fixing.陣内Jinnai 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer you back to the comment by Geometry guy: "As it happens, I have been watching the individual reassessment since it began, and consider the review to have been conducted in an exemplary fashion in accordance with process, and the delisting in no way "improper", so there is no case to overturn it on procedural grounds. However, interpretation of the GA criteria can be subjective, and the article certainly has improved significantly, so asking for a wider opinion as to whether the article now meets the GA criteria is perfectly reasonable. I hope community GAR will be able to do that; if not, the article can of course be renominated at GAN." If you consider the article is ready for GAN then please renominate it there. There is a backlog drive going on so you will probably only have to wait a week or so at most. If you are looking to slap me with a wet fish, consider it done! I have nothing further to say. Good luck! Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think I speak for a number here that we care more about making certain the process was done right, since that is the issue we have contention with rather than gettinga GA back on their a few weeks quicker. Why even have a community GAR then by your logic since an invidisual reviewer could delist something out of malice and then we'd have to go through a normal GAN. And hope the next reviewer, against 1 person, was more open. NOTE: I'm not saying that you were vendictive here, but rather that there are legitimate concerns brought up by myself and others about your method of reviewing and its impact that we believe the review process - your review process - while meaning good, was fundamentally flawed.陣内Jinnai 22:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- As someone who is not familiar with Lolicon I didn't find the lead helpful. It reads like a dictionary definition - or, at least, like an attempt at defining the term, though it keeps slipping away. I then starting reading the article hoping I might pick it up along the way, but the article is not clear, and I think it is attempting too many things. There is the sense of Lolicon being a popular form of cartoon depicting young women, but the article is also attempting to describe pedophilia in general, in literature, and in Japanese culture. Plus Lolicon is also "a subject of criticism in the Superflat art movement." What has the "Youth Bill" specifically to do with Lolicon? As well as the approach and organisation, the prose is also not helpful - I think there is the tendency sometimes to compress too much information into short sentences. For people who are not familiar with this topic, there are a lot of unfamiliar words and concepts present which make absorption of information difficult. There are words such as "shōjo", "shonen", "otaku", "hentai", which appear to be conveying concepts for which there are no direct translations. I feel there are difficulties in explaining Japanese culture to a Western audience, especially in a short format such an an encyclopedia entry. I think that in order to do it well, there needs to be some clear decisions made on the approach. Make it simpler and more direct. Decide on the topic - and if it is felt that there are several notable and interesting topics, then perhaps make Lolicon a disamb page pointing to Lolicon (comics), Lolicon (pornography), Lolicon (Japanese paedophile) and Lolicon (Lolita complex). Trying to squeeze all those into one article, while using phrases unfamiliar to the general Western reader, is going to result in confusion. At the moment this does not meet criteria 1. I don't know about the other criteria, but I suspect that it would probably not meet criteria 3. This is a high profile article which generates a lot of traffic. I think we should aim to get it right. The more complex and important a topic, the harder it is to get it right; and the higher the traffic and the profile, the more careful we should be. My view is that the article needs a serious re-think which is beyond the scope of this GAR; as such, the GAR should be closed, and editors should work on improving the article to ready it for another nomination. SilkTork *YES! 00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)