Talk:Jutsu (Naruto)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article and will leave some comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like this article, but I am concerned that it is too list-like. Do you think it would be better as a list? Or do you think you could prosofy it some, and reduce the number of similar sections?

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's better as a list format, as making it a list would imply listing more jutsu, which delving into WP:NOT#PLOT territory. This is an example of just one of the lists that were originally here (and attracted a ton of vandalism, poor edits, and whatnot; we had four or five people reverting more than a dozen edits a day when they were up) and they obviously fail the aforementioned policy.
As for whether this is a list, I don't think so. It addresses the subject and covers all its aspects rather than simply repeating an iterative format. The only reason we have the recurring jutsu section is a result of a longtime merging process of covering stuff that 1) was recurring enough throughout the series to merit mention (hence a WP:WEIGHT issue) 2) was sufficiently complex that explaining it would be beneficial for a reader's understanding (thus we don't need to explain the mechanics of someone blasting a fireball at someone else, despite a lot of characters using fire techniques). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as I've seen you've made inquiries as to whether this should be a list or an article, I'm a very prolific featured list writer, so if I intended for this it to be a list, I would have done so, I assure you ;-) The difference between an article and a list is sometimes murky, but from my experience, this falls fairly squarely on the article side. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say this is not a list because it covers all aspects of the subject it addresses, even though it has an iterative format?

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it doesn't have an iterative format. You could say that the recurring jutsu section has an iterative format in some aspects, but the presence of an embedded list doesn't make the whole article a list. If this was merely a list, I wouldn't have to cover chakra for instance, as my goal would be simply covering the jutsu. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you have the jutzu broken down. You say there are three types. But then you have listed six different names under "Jutsu types". Next you have "Recurring jutsu" with another long list of tecniques under that. Is there a different way of listing these that would be more understandable to the general reader?

Read the introduction to the "jutsu types" section. Ninjutsu has sealing jutsu and cursed seal jutsu as sub-categories, and it's stated that senjutsu and kekkai genkai are not really jutsu, but different ways of performing jutsu. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am checking the "list" status before we proceed.

—Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what there is to check. I seriously doubt any of the FLC regulars will consider this a list, and I can say this with a good amount of confidence. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. It is an interesting article and well done. It is not a list. Sorry to have kicked up a disturbance because I was unsure about that. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: