Talk:Golden Boy (manga)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 20, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Fails to follow WP:MOS-AM and general Wikipedia stylings. Manga table is not using appropriate {{graphic novel list}} template, OVA section needs to be converted to us {{Japanese episode list}}. Sections misordered and misnamed. References inappropriately split into two columns when it only has nine. Character name is inappropriately bolded in the lead, which is also malformed. Infoboxes have formatting errors, including bad date formatting, and an inappropriate break in the series name.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What makes DigitallyObsessed a reliable source? Anime Meta-Review is not a reliable source. "Summary" contains interpretive statements which are unsourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Has no production section, missing basic details on the original manga (just having the table is not enough), OVA section missing release dates and Japanese episode names. Reception section has no reception on the manga, and is far too brief, giving only snap phrases from the various reviews. Needs expansion to include manga reception and to better utilize the OVA reviews.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Too focused on the anime, with little to no information on the manga. Does the manga have the same lack of central plot that the OVA does or does it have a underlying plot? When was the manga released? What about translations? It was released in France and Germany, so there should be much more information out there that is not being noted. Etc.

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):

   Infobox image should be the first volume cover from the manga, not a random promotional image. File:Goldenboy toiletfetish.jpg is not supported by the text failing Wikipedia's fair use requirements. File:Golden Boy facial exp.jpg is not supported by critical commentary from reliable sources and is lacking a FUR. Both need removing.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)