Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/2008


Requests for assessment

(→ Further discussions)
Merging Anime and Ova is now done. I've kept the plot summary for the Ova in, presumably plot summary's should be added for the two specials as well or reduced?. Those two examples will help a lot with the article in general, thanks. I have more sources for production info, the problem is getting them translated or finding reliable english sources instead. I had to remove a lot of information that was considered OR because I couldn't find reliable sources, even if it was factually accurate. If I can find sources for those it will fill out the article quite nicely. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the plot should be kept in, though maybe in a different section within "Plot"? See Tokyo Mew Mew#Sequel for a (distantly) similar case. Japanese sources should be fine, for online translators see Excite and Babelfish gives the best results. Google translate may also help. (Chance is you already know about one or more of these.) G.A.Stalk 10:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not so much online japanese sources, but rather translating stuff in the various guidebooks. I can't read the kanji to use an online translator. For example early production info is well documented in one of the books, but most of the specific details are beyond me, and I don't fancy asking someone to translate 50 pages for me. The stuff available in the english manga is minimal compared to the stuff in the japanese manga and the guidebooks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on the barely? I only did a relatively quick set of edits on it as I was passing through the article. With an idea of what needs improving I can give it another lookDandy Sephy (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, it's B-class alright. What I meant was, that - for a B-class - it's as far away from a FL as is possible. Many summaries need to get longer. The list should have a navigational template or a "See also" section. (External links wouldn't hurt either.) It needs cleanup (read: made to comply with the MOS) from the lead to the references. And it needs copy-editing. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • List of One Piece video games currently rated Start-class, Low-importance; remade it with FL:List of Castlevania titles in mind. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • (Version reviewed) I also had a chat with Sephiroth BCR regarding this one. The article is B class, but a few issues should be addressed before FLC is attempted.
      • I find the lead a bit too short: Is it possible to add some real world information there as well, eg reception by the public?
      • It is not necessary to provide the genre in the list; though you can mention in the lead that these games span a range of genres, with examples.
      • External links should not be provided in the list itself. Please remove them. A link for the series in the "External links" section should be sufficient.
    • Regards, G.A.S 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your assessment. All three issues have been addressed, though I had to remove some of the external links without replacement, as the series does, to my knowledge, not have a central website from where all other pages could be reached. So, would you please take a look at it again? Regards, Goodraise (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The article seems fine to me now: I would recommend giving it a final check for completeness, and checking whether it meets all featured list criteria—as I believe that would be the next step. Make sure that you have enough time to edit the article, as other editors will most likely ask for issues to be addressed before supporting the article. G.A.S 05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Black God (manga) - Revised. Added more citations Ominae (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • (Version reveiwed) C class: The article still requires more cleanup, e.g. I believe that the "Terminology" section can be integrated with the rest of the article (move each entry to where it is used first, remove if trivial). I am not sure about the characters section: Consider integrating it with the synopsis/plot section, introducing the reader to each character within the plot section. (I know it was assessed as start yesterday; I upgraded to C class as I required the B class checklist). G.A.S 05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Blassreiter - Need some advise. The characters portion is a problem. Not sure on how to proceed Ominae (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • (Version reviewed) Start class. Without having looked at the article in detail, The best way to proceed would likely be to scrap Joseph Jobson's section (consider merging the applicable parts from Joseph Jobson into the plot as it reads like a plot summary), and rewrite it from scratch. Detailed comment will follow on request. G.A.S 11:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fullmetal Alchemist - The article has gone throught several clean-ups during this year and also a peer review. I know the article needs copyediting for a review, but since I am unable to copyedit I would like to know other things that it needs to be improved. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (Version reviewed) B-class, definitely. I will provide a full review as soon as possible, but from a quick once-over, it should be able to improve the article to GA status quite easily, esp when the article has been copy-edited. G.A.S 04:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Assessed as High for now. Any higher should be discussed. Perhaps this is an indication that an assessment review board needs to be constructed and kept separate from this page. --Farix (Talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Believers - It was made a GA back in 2006, but it has very few references and I doubt it meets the standard now. I'm not sure whether it should just be delisted or if it should go through a GA reassessment; or if it should stay GA. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems to be start class: It is lacking substantial amounts of information per WP:MOS-ANIME. Anybody may delist a GA, you may list it at WP:GAR, or you may defer doing so, instead opting to raise the issue on the talk page. In this case I recommend delisting it: the issues are too severe to easily fix. G.A.S 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Chibiusa and ChibiChibi - both recently reassessed as C-class, but the B-class checklists weren't filled out. Requesting someone to fill out the B-class checklists. -Malkinann (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Although not mentioned in the review, Chibiusa seems to contain some OR, e.g. "Usagi shows signs of being pregnant (such as morning sickness) during the direct-to-DVD Special Act."
    • I wish people would complete those—Originally, the template did not require the checklist to be completed for C-class articles, that is a more recent change, and I did not quite update the Tag & Assess instructions in time (nor do I think everybody read that instruction. In any case, Once the Tag and assess is done, I will turn my attention to the backlog. G.A.S 05:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I have completed the checklists, please list further requests here as well. G.A.S 05:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Will try and see if other info can be added since it's only recent. Ominae (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! G.A.S 09:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll probably wait 'til the show ends in Japan. Ominae (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Blue Dragon. Upgraded to B class during the assessment drive, but recently failed a GA nomination. Specifically requesting assessment of B1, B2, B4; as these were issues raised by the GA reviewer. G.A.S 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Shojo Beat - requesting B-class checklist, uh, check, before I attempt a GA nom. It was noted in the just completed CE that the reception section is brief, but neither me nor other editors have found any other reliably sourcable information or reviews so I think it as complete as possible at this time. It has already been peer reviewed as well.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (Version reviewed) Done, feel free to change the importance, I am unsure about this one, also not sure about B2: The article is very good, but maybe a bit too short, for instance:
      • Expand about the audience (Who? Where are they located? Age?)
      • Table: I was unsure at first why certain rows were highlighted, adding a legend, or removing the highlighting may help; Completed column: It may help to say x/y chapters published.
Regards, G.A.S 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think some of Viz's press info mentioned the audience, so I'll check inot that. I'll also work on the tables some. I've been back and forth on whether its even a good thing to have at all, but that's a discuss for the main project talk ;) Meanwhile... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Shonen Jump (magazine) - similar to above, requesting a B-class checklist. This one has not been peer reviewed yet, though I applied the general stuff from SJ's peer review to it. It also needs a CE, but otherwise I'm prepping for GA, so would like to see how it stands on the B scale. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (Version reviewed) Done, pretty much the same as above, though. The most pressing issue is pretty much getting the article copy edited, and getting the formatting consistent (e.g. the two quotes)
      • "Viz decided to allow retailers to return to the first two issues"—Is this right?
      • Expand about the audience (Who? Where are they located? Age?)
      • Table: Please explain the highlighting
Regards, G.A.S 05:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Regards, G.A.S 05:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on Talk:Kiki's Delivery Service. -Malkinann (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(→Further discussions)
  • List of Martian Successor Nadesico episodes - requesting B-Class checklist, since it's at FLC. Note that I haven't been working on it, I only just stumbled across it while looking at the most recent set of changes in the quality log. —Dinoguy1000 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    (Version reviewed) I originally put it at list class; as it has virtually no information on each episode. I do not think it is ready for FL class, unless said information is removed (in which case, it would be list class). I have completed the checklist, though. G.A.Stalk 04:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    All right, thanks. IMHO, an episode list shouldn't be sent off to FLC until it has proper, appropriately detailed plot summaries for each episode, but I'm not very familiar with the process, and that's just my opinion. ;) Also my opinion, if an episode list has *no* summaries, it should be Stub-class, not List-class. —Dinoguy1000 17:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Th problem of the series is that the first 7 volumes contain chapters that most of them are unrelated. In volume 8, it turns more into a shonen arc.Tintor2 (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, Goodraise?Tintor2 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that you expected a reply. I don't know the story, that's why I can't really make detailed suggestions on how to improve the summaries. I simply think that potential reviewers would have a hard time supporting an FLC for this list. Because I myself don't think that it meets Wikipedia:WIAFL#1 just yet. - Maybe it is possible to explain (in the lead or in the first summaries) to the reader, that the early chapters are largely unrelated. That might improve the reading experience. - But aside from WIAFL#1, I see no reason for this list not to become featured. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I read a bit deeper into the summaries. It seems all the characters named in the first summary are acutally important in later volumes... Also, the read isn't as unengaging as I first thought. (I was pretty tired when I first read it. That probably biased my first assessment.) Take it to FLC if you dare and have the time. They will make you copy-edit the list. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Those characters become important, but some of the first storylines are not connected because they are short chapters (like some from Ranma 1/2 or fillers from Naruto).Tintor2 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The Rose of Versailles - B-class checklist, also requesting a second opinion on whether it should be rated High or Mid importance. --Malkinann (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. About the importance, I'd say it's Mid. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the reception section, and I've found a quote saying that its popularity seems to have made shoujo manga a valid field for academic study. The musical series was recently revived, and three different musicals have played this year. Why isn't it of High importance? --Malkinann (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Upon added reception information I reconsider my suggestion. It's on the border between Mid and High. I am no longer advocating Mid, but I'm not in support of High either. I'll remove the striking from the link. Lets hear another opinion. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Having re-read the article, and the arguments here, I agree with Goodraise. The series was definitely a commercial success, but "lasting impact"? "...most influential manga ever written...", but this is not really expanded on. Why is it one of the most influential manga ever written? If this can be explained, I will be happy with a "High" rating. G.A.Stalk 05:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
          • As far as I can tell, Rose of Versailles was a zeitgeist - it captured the imagination of the public on its release. Although I can't work out how to fit it into the article, the Salaryman Doxa book (which quotes Schodt in 1986) says that suddenly, boys and men started reading shoujo manga because of RoV, and that suddenly the entire field of shoujo manga was considered worthy of academic attention. Most of the scholarship I've been able to find talks about the revolutionary equality between Oscar and Andre, as opposed to a silly Cinderella type girl who finds her purpose in life through her love for generic Prince Charming #389. Shamoon reckons that female agency in romances in shoujo manga is still problematic. I'm also loving the Fujimoto quote which I've put at the end of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Reassesment of Love Hina for B-class. The media page was merged into the main article so b2 should now pass. I've redone the character section for tone and MOS-AM fixes so I'm also requesting a assesment of the tone/style tag to see if it is still needed. there should be enough references, but I'll let someone else decide if it is. If there are still issues I'd appreciate some hidden comments as I really want to get this to B for possible GA in the future. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The lead needs a bit of cleanup. Episode 12.5 should have a full summary, even if it is only recap. And a copy-edit wouldn't hurt. But that's all I can think of right now. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)