Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess/2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Air (game)

Air has already achieved Good Article status, and while it may not be up to af Featured Article yet, I believe it statifies the requirements for an A class article.--十八 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not yet It is comprehensive and rated GA, which would make it A-class, but I kind of dispute the GA classification:
    • A couple of blogs in the references section. Is there a good reason for them to be there?
I've removed them.--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.
I brought up a similar point with the Kanon article. Sections such as Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters can not properly be included within the lead, or am I wrong? The lead alrady touches on Gameplay. The rest of the article deals with Release history and Adaptations, so why wouldn't they be included within the lead?--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plot, Setting, and Themes must definitely be in the lead, with a less detailed release history. Characters: Maybe. See the Kanon peer review for more.--GunnarRene 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I introduced a citation needed in Gameplay.
I removed the sentence that could be disputed.--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What IS Sora's true nature.
That can be shown on the List of Air characters article. We are trying to keep spoilers to a minimum on the main page.--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but argue for keeping the level of detail lower per WP:FICTION. See Wikipedia:Spoiler warning#Unacceptable alternatives for why arguing with "it spoils" is a bad idea.--GunnarRene 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For that matter, what is the final good end?
Why would that need to be said? And, I do not know either way what the final good end was, or if even there was one.--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK --GunnarRene 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.
I have stated that it's a site with information on hentai games, among other things I may not be aware of.--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Kanon, we need more info on the site to evaluate if we can rely on it. (Not rely on as in "yes, it speaks the truth", but reliable as in "yes, they have editorial oversight, can be sued and pay their writers". Heh. See WP:RS) --GunnarRene 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When that is fixed, I'll gladly mark it A. --GunnarRene 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Sales should really go into Reception. --GunnarRene 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--十八 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Address the peer review which repeats some of the points I made above. --GunnarRene 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not A-class pending source/reference work. Feel free to re-list. --GunnarRene 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanon

Kanon has already achieved Good Article status, and while it may not be up to af Featured Article yet, I believe it statifies the requirements for an A class article.--十八 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not A-class pending source/reference work. Feel free to re-list. --GunnarRene 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Panic!

Strawberry Panic! has already achieved Good Article status and I believe it statifies the requirements for an A class article at least.--十八 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you ended up removing some of the dates in the lead? I think that my idea of a History section would have worked since it kept that information and didn't bloat the lead. Anyway since the A-class assessment of criteria of well-written introduction appears to be resolved, I think it should be given A-class status. --Squilibob 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that the lead can be at least three paragraphs in length, even without the media information, I've moved it into History and included the full dates.--十八 09:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not A-class pending source/reference work. Feel free to re-list. --GunnarRene 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of RahXephon media

List of RahXephon media. Might not be a Featured List until more of the episodes get their own articles. But is it A-class? (self-nom) --GunnarRene 03:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is more complete than List of Excel Saga media is and I like the layout. For completeness sake, maybe the release dates for certain things such as the Guide books and Art books could be included in the list. Other than that I think it meets all the criteria. I only checked one image for fair use but I assume that they are all reasonably tagged. --Squilibob 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --GunnarRene 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed at WP:FLC--GunnarRene 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RahXephon

RahXephon (self-nom). Pending some tweaks and additional information for the Legacy section, as well as a copy-edit by the league of copy-editors, I don't think this is ready for Featured Article just yet. All the rest of the article is stable. The only real change from the peer review was a reordering of the sections. But is it A-class? --GunnarRene 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meets all the requirements. I agree that it is A-class. --Squilibob 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--SidiLemine 09:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was moved back to B-class 4 March 2007 because of planned revisions. --Squilibob 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madlax

Madlax has been added as an A-Class assessment. --Squilibob 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Alchemist

Fullmetal Alchemist has been added as an A-Class assessment. --Squilibob 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demoted to a B-class assessment. --Squilibob 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

Naruto has been added as an A Class assessment, but is it? --Squilibob 09:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say not quite. There are a couple (citation needed) spots that do sound like they could use a reference. The character section could also be split up as is normal, to avoid it being such a large block of text. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that it's not up to snuff. There's no real criticism, and it focuses almost exclusively on the anime. Hardly "fairly complete" as required by the assessment scheme. I have assessed it as B-class.--Monocrat 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shin Lupin III episodes

The list was a Featured List Candidate and received three supports and two opposes. Both of the issues raised by the two people who opposed were addressed by the voters did not go back to change their vote, possibly because they didn't have the page on watch and didn't know the issue has been fixed, but regardless, the nomination failed. If the list can't be a featured list (which, when comparing it to the featured lists we have, it meets all of the requirements), I think it deserves at least an A status :) --AutoGyro 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points, you could use a different cite template as your magazine is being cited as a journal. I think you can use {{Cite news}}. Your information is being hampered by the template you are using. I can see that you've converted it to a new template but in doing that the English language titles are still in bold. This was fine when they were grouped together with Japanese but now it is separated there's no reason for it to be bold type. Another reason your information is being hampered is the whitespace. At episode 80 and onwards the text takes up way too much vertical space for no reason. You have also seemed to cut out the original air dates vs english language air dates. You've done this just to accommodate a different template. There's a simple fix, don't use a template. Just make a table yourself. Your list doesn't have to look like every other featured list in order to become one. You could present the information clearly if you aren't restricted by design.--Squilibob 07:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Mizuno

This article has been a good article for a couple of months now, and as WP:SM is using it as a template for the other major characters, we'd like to make it better, so that we can hopefully bring the others up to its quality. I guess I'm putting it here to ask for assistance in determining if it's A-class, and if not, why not. Thanks for your time. -Malkinann 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start going through and polishing the language so it is more formal. You may want to brush up some of your references, for example this one: She is frequently cited as one of the series' most popular characters, especially among Japanese audiences. has only one cite which isn't very frequent and it's in English which isn't very Japanese. On top of that, the cite is from 1992 from a newsgroup, so it's basically uncited. So, clean up those little things, language and references. --Squilibob 09:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We're discussing the "most popular" thing on the talk page as a result of this review to work out our options with citing it better or whether it's really that important. Do you mind if I ask for some clarification on the language stuff? Where could our language be more formal? How could our language be more formal? Sorry about this, but I can't really see it myself - not saying it's not there, but that's why we put it up for review.  :) Fresh eyes and whatnot. -Malkinann 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's just the odd phrase here and there. A line like "Early on she relies somewhat heavily on the" should be rewritten. It is in-universe (maybe just add to it, eg. "Early on in the story she") and ambiguous - somewhat heavily. There is redundancy in terms like "also" which is used 10 times in the article by my count. A phase like "Ami also has something of a crazy streak" should be rephrased, such language is more suitable for a review than an encyclopedia article. Other than those points, the article is great. --Squilibob 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've worked on this since; how does it look now? --Masamage ♫ 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto

The article was once an FAC, but was declined for rather unclear reasons (the sub-page over the issue doesn't explain very well). The Naruto page is very well written and has all the proper information that should be in there, such as characters, a small plot summary, popularity, and a few other things. There's no fancruft, and has references for information. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:15 (Eastern Standard Time), 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to WP:Peer Review this article. The main problem I see with the article is that it doesn't establish context properly. You could move things like Plot overview earlier in the article to better explain unique themes to Naruto -- Anime details would need to be below Plot overview. A casual reader knowing nothing about manga and anime would be very confused reading this article. For example, explain what a village is in Naruto and how it compares to a normal village. A normal reader can only assume what the village is, how it's residents behave and live, its surroundings, briefly explain the level of technology in the Naruto world. Other things I couldn't learn from the article are:
  • Are the ninjas sterotypical ninjas? There's no context about the main theme of the anime, ninjas!
  • Why is the village called Leaf village and thereafter called the village that Naruto grew up in? Confusing to the reader.
  • What is the relationship between Naruto and the other characters? Sasuke's rivalry, love interests (Sakura), Lee isn't mentioned. Are these characters important past the fact that they are Naruto's team-mates? "Sensei-student relationships play a significant role in the series" but peer relationships aren't? This is misleading to the reader.
The article is far from thorough. I can understand why it was unanimously opposed to FA. Peer review! --Squilibob 10:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if the article discuss some of the other media and a brief description of the main characters as well.--88wolfmaster 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Assess/2007&oldid=1136065512"