Talk:Hentai/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. This article is going to need substantial expansion and revision before it will meet GA standards. This may take more time than you have right now, so I can fail the article and review it once it is more likely to pass, or I can wait if you think you'll be able to pull it together in a reasonable amount of time. Let me know how you prefer to handle it. I'll go for broad suggestions at this point rather than getting overly specific because the larger issues would need to be addressed before it would be worthwhile to start nitpicking.

• It is not adequately comprehensive in its broader scope or the level of detail. The Russian and Chinese versions are at FA and I've provided a translation of the Chinese TOC so you can see what kind of material is covered (the Russian is basically the same).

An you should realize they are not even one article. They are a basic copy and paste of several English Wikipedia's articles run through Google Translate. Notably on yaoi and yuri. Hentai has to be broad, not comprehensive and definitely not splitting up entire works. I already believe this article to be longer than it should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish we could talk about this instead of writing, because I feel like we're miscommunicating here. Any article, as it improves in quality, improves in comprehensiveness. That's a criteria for GA and FA. But what does comprehensive mean? Obviously it shouldn't include every detail about every element of every subtopic - that's what we create other articles for. So the Hentai article doesn't need to copy, paste and contain every bit of what's in the main Yaoi article for example, but it does need to briefly summarize the key information (think 4-5 sentences) in the genres discussion. This is like a top-level article that people will visit to get a broad overview of the most important aspects of hentai. There are important aspects like particular genres and themes that are missing here. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 10,000 sexual kinks that hentai has been written about. But if there's an entire extensive article written about a genre, it should be paraphrased in this article too. Does that help clarify the level of detail and comprehensiveness I'm looking for? Part of the problem now is the coverage of topics is too light. You feel the article is too long, but I don't agree. Take as long as you need to do the topic justice. As it's written now, it's a bit fragmented and hard for a casual reader to get a sense of the full extent of what hentai means as a genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemurbaby (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

To briefly summarise that: Notability.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sections missing in this English version are (1) a discussion of the industry itself, to include production, and (2) a discussion on controversy and criticism.

Fair point on #1. #2, did I not cover it adequately?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Once the section on the industry is created, here are some images to potentially include: pic of Eroge shop File:A eroge shop in Akihabara.jpg, pic of manga in a store File:Yaoi Books by miyagawa.jpg, pic of hentai videos for sale File:Hentai manga in Japan 002.jpg, pic of production studio File:Nitroplus Office Tour (8).jpg

Alright... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• It makes more sense to combine the Term and Etymology sections under the Etymology heading.

I guess, but the words origin is different then its usage. I prefer to be specific for this, but it is an editorial decision is all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The history section needs to be significantly expanded to better trace the emergence, rise in popularity, internationalization and diversification of hentai across genres and formats.

Are you serious? I not only covered it, but gave each major milestone in its development including the first stylistically anime pornographic "hentai" and the originator of all "true" hentai. Hentai is not merely vanilla sex, its original definition is perverse and I doubt that Wikipedia needs another 30k on the development of tentacle sex when that article already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Hentai is not merely vanilla sex"? Not in Japan, certainly, but according to the western usage (which is what the Hentai article on the English Wikipedia must cover) does include vanilla sex. If you wish to cover the Japanese term, rather than the English one, then you are not writing about what the article is supposed to cover. You are instead pushing your own, personal, point of view.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Check for internal consistency - the lead paragraph suggests hentai emerged in the 1970s, and then the next section on manga suggests erotic art goes back to the Heian period. Although these things are distinct, the article doesn't make the distinction clear to the reader so it calls the 1970s assertion into question to a certain extent. A more complete explanation of the history and evolution of erotic art becoming hentai will help clear this up.

That would be pushing my opinion of the matter; your definition is the lens upon which you want to attribute. Scholars have attributed Shunga as the precursor or the start of hentai, where Azuma and others point to the penning of Cybele as the "Tezuka-style" is the iconic anime traits, but the erogekiga and even pre-war eroguro works are retroactively hentai. No clear explanation is going to come on this page unless someone decides to establish a strong POV. I can address wording; but I am not going to be pushing my stance or research on it here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just have the article say one thing somewhere, and something else, in another place. If there are differing views, these should be mentioned and explained. From WP:VERIFY: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The classification section needs to be expanded to cover all the subsets of hentai and basically provide a summary of the key information about each of them that can be found in their respective main articles (terminology and defining characteristics, origin and spread, author and reader demographic, revenues etc).

This would push into OR and worse very quickly. Consider it a courtesy we are dealing with the definition and not explaining the finer points of how perverse and niche it can be. Not only have I never seen a single "reliable source" on those parts of subject matter, but I'd be hard pressed to find even questionable sources. It is hard to be really fair or present a valid view when the only coverage amounts to "... is a repellent piece of shit concocted by the worse degenerates our society has ever produced". I'd take a failure over even attempting to detail half the niche stuff in hentai... I can't stomach it. NOTCENSORED is one thing, but mere descriptions are stomach churning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lemurbaby covers this pretty well, in the above comments on being comprehensive. Also, what you personally can stomach, has no relevance whatsoever. If it's notable and relevant enough, it needs to be included. If you, personally, can't stomach it... Fine. Let someone else do so. You are not the only editor of wikipedia, after all. You are not the sole person responsible for the Hentai article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The section on Censorship can be expanded to include "Censorship and legislation" to discuss laws pertaining to age restrictions, labeling, packaging, distribution etc.

All of one case in Japan? I dunno, I suppose I could throw Honey Room into it, but aside from the whole "demonic phalluses" and one issue of rape in the book it is actually really borderline in Japan... even by its definition. I could go into Rapelay though...— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both the Russian and Chinese versions dedicate a section to doujinshi, which should probably be added here, too.

Yeah... they just copied and merged the articles together. I don't like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The prose needs to be revised for clarity, conciseness and correctness of grammar. I'd recommend a copy edit either by you or a third party after you've made your expansions and content revisions.
• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the content in the article.
• There are quite a few statements that lack references, and some referenced statements that are of questionable accuracy as identified by other editors below (but the Naruto one was my mistake - I was trying to revise the sentence so it made sense and that was the conclusion I came to, evidence of the need for the prose to be copy edited for clarity!)

Please point them out with tags, most are cited at the end of the paragraph or section and I can just pop the inline citation to them. I didn't want citation overkill, I was told one per paragraph or section was enough when I was doing this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you were massively misinformed. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:When to cite and WP:BURDEN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Need for consistency in the formatting of references, in terms of date formatting, where the page numbers are (in-line or under References section), completeness of citation information etc like in the other anime articles we're tackling

Not a GA criteria, but this won't pass I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Remove periods at the end of incomplete sentences in image captions
• I removed the Futumari Ecchi image because the copyright allows it (as a non-free work) to be used in the article about the specific manga only. We can replace this with an uncopyrighted work. I've added some, and you can tweak the captions to make best use of them to illustrate points in the article. Otherwise image copyrights check out.

End review until these changes are made. The translated table of contents are below.

There are more problems than that. The article contains unverified statements:

• It is claimed that Yuri is defined as referring exclusively to pornographic lesbian works, in Japan. This is unverified, and runs counter to the verified information in Yuri.

Was this for over two decades. I am not going to deal with that editor's issue here - surely there is a language barrier, but the last 5 years are a bit much to discount its 90%+ usage just because some erotic magazines run softer content as well and a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues really doesn't impact the whole.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true... Please verify it, using reliable sources. Reliable sources which actually say what you claim. So far you have failed to provide any sources, which anyone sees as backing you position ...and what is this talk about a magazine that didn't even make it to a dozen issues? I don't remember there being any mention of any such magazine (if you mean Yuri Shimai, that was almost immediately replaced by Comic Yuri Hime, so...)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is claimed that the genres that contain homosexual acts, are Yaoi and Yuri ...which ignores Bara (works containing male homosexuality, which is directed at gay men).

Again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not an answer. That doesn't say or communicate anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Any and all mentions of the demographics of said genres.

I have only read a few bits of the article, so I may have missed a lot more problems, but... A Good Article needs "Citation of reliable sources where necessary", and these are clear examples where it lacks them. Thus making it unworthy, in its current state. Oh, and the article claims that Naruto is female, which is clearly wrong (just check the article about him ...or read the manga. He's a boy).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That was not me. The reviewer made that mistake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Lemurbaby already admitted to that mistake. There is no need for you to repeat it ...but more importantly: Why did you assume that you were blamed for it? You do realise that you aren't the sole editor of wikipedia, I hope? Wikipedia articles are not made by one person.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The very first sentence of the lede is incorrect - The negation term "not" is missing from the second part of the statement and is confusing.
   • Should read

     "..., it does not represent a genre of work."

     Nitpicky crap, but I tend to catch these while perusing. Thumbcat (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
     
     

Unless I am going crazy... what happened to the lede? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Table of Contents - Chinese version 1 Etymology 2 Historical development 2.1 Early art 2.1.1 Erotic Fiction Illustration 2.1.2 The emergence of spring painting 2.2 The rise of the word hentai 2.2.1 Adult Animation 2.2.2 Adult comics 2.2.3 Alternative Comics 2.3 1980 2.3.1 The golden age of animation 2.3.2 Lolicon craze in Japan 2.3.3 Other types 2.4 Modern development 2.4.1 1990 2.4.1.1 Review questions (?) 2.4.1.2 Japanese comics industry 2.4.1.3 Hentai overseas 2.4.2 2000s 3 Classification 3.1 Homosexuality type 3.1.1 Gay relationship 3.1.2 Lesbian relationship 3.2 Child sexual relations 3.2.1 Controlling 3.2.2 Lolicon 3.3 Types of sexual abuse 3.3.1 Novelty style 3.3.2 Tentacle theme 3.4 Other 4 Industry Development 4.1 Adult Animation 4.2 Adult comics 4.3 Adult games 4.4 Other Products 4.5 Doujinshi 5 Review of legislation 5.1 Product Review 5.2 Legislative restrictions 6 Controversy and criticism Table of Contents - Russian version 1 Etymology 2 History 3 Censorship 4 Classification 4.1 Tentacles 4.2 «ML» (bara) and «BL» (Yaoi) 4.3 Lesbian relationship 4.4 Futanari 4.5 Eroguro 4.6 Early sex 4.7 Other Genres 5 Industry 5.1 Anime 5.2 Manga 5.3 Computer Games 5.4 Other Items 6 Doujinshi 7 Controversy and criticism of the genre 8 Legislation

It has been two weeks. Has a decision been reached? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• It has been another month: in that time, there have been no edits here, and only one minor edit to the article by someone not involved in this review. Given over six weeks of complete inaction while this has been on hold, and the many issues raised with breadth of coverage, it's time to close this review. Once the article has been given the work and attention it needs, it can be resubmitted to GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)