Talk:Steven the Sword Fighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steven the Sword Fighter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Note from Bilorv: This is my first review so additional comments from other people are especially welcome. If I make any stupid suggestions or comments, feel more than welcome to say so.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A Note[edit]

"Lonely Blade" is less of an anime parody than a parody of the Live Action film series Lone Wolf and Cub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub#Films --99.246.62.61 (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I have made minor changes to the article myself in this edit.
Lead:

  • The lead might be a bit too long. 1-2 paragraphs is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH from an article of this length (currently 6363 characters). Personally, I would remove names of the animation, art and supervising directors from the lead (it's already in the infobox anyway). I might possibly remove the last sentence of the third paragraph as well.
    • Shortened it to two paragraphs following your suggestions.
  • Can we have a couple of refs on the prod code and running time?
    • The running time is intrinsic to the episode, so wouldn't it be referencing itself (as a primary source, if I'm correct)? I added a reference for the production code.
  • Joe Johnston, one of the writers, is unlinked. Is this a different person to Joe Johnston?
    • Correct.
  • If Aivi & Surasshu doesn't have an article, is it worth mentioning the group at all? If it's a notable group, would it be worth redlinking it?
    • Aivi & Surasshu are composers for the series, and (in my opinion) play a pretty important role as far as establishing the tone and atmosphere in general. I'd say the group has minor notability ([1] [2]), or at least one of the two is bound to be in some way.
  • "Facsimile" is linked to fax in the two other instances of the quote, but not in the lead (in its first mention). It would make more sense to me to link it on all three occurrences, or in the lead and production sections (not the caption).
    • Added a link for the lead and removed the image (see below).

Plot: well written, good length (200-500 words recommended at WP:TVPLOT), can't find any problems
Cultural references: nicely done, no issues
Production:

  • Is the image really necessary? Anyone who doesn't know what a fax is could easily click on the link to it from "facsimile". The caption adds nothing new - it just rephrases the description in the second paragraph.
Per GA criteria 6, if a more relevant image could be found to replace this (not necessarily for the same purpose or in the same place), that would be brilliant.
  • The image was a bit silly to include in hindsight, so I removed it. I couldn't find any other free image to replace it, unfortunately; perhaps you can lead me to one.
  • Reference #6 follows the text "...various background art and animation props were released after its premiere" (emphasis added), but the page shows the caption "Just a few hours until a new episode of Steven Universe!"
    • Hmm, a bit odd since its referenced to three citations, with the first one published before its airing and the other two afterwards. Tweaked to say: "before and after".
  • Reference #8 follows the text "the animation props indicate the episode was produced sixteenth in production order", but all pictures in the link have "013" under episode number. Is the text supposed to say "thirteenth"? 16th was the order the episode aired, so it being produced 13th would seem like a more noteworthy point.
    • Whoops, must've mixed up the broadcast order with the production code. Fixed.

Reception:

  • Reference #1 is cited for the 1.098 million viewers, but I can't see that anywhere on the page. It also says the episode is "Season 1, Episode 15", when it is actually episode 16. I would remove ref #13 completely - it seems to clarify no statements and contain an incorrect fact.
I cited ref #1 in the infobox for the airdate, before realising it was potentially dodgy. If you remove ref #1, please find another ref that mentions the airdate and put that there instead.
  • TV Guide references the airdate, with Son of the Bronx for viewership info; I replaced TV Guide with Zap2it.
  • "Upon its premiere on April 16, 2014" - the episode aired on April 9, 2014.
    • Fixed.
  • Reference #14 doesn't work for me - it says "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist." Is it a dead link? If so, please change "|deadurl=no" to "|deadurl=yes" in the cite web template.
    • Changed to deadurl=yes.
  • Do we need ref #12 to be cited three times in one paragraph, with no refs anywhere else in the paragraph? It would make more sense to me to just cite it once at the end of the paragraph.
    • I've seen reviewers ask for references following direct quotations, but since I only quoted "weird" in the second sentence of the paragraph, I removed the reference.
  • Same issue with ref #15 in the following paragraph.
    • Keeping it per some reviewers asking for references following direct quotations. I think the relevant guideline is MOS:QUOTE, but I may be wrong on that.

External links, categories: brilliant

Overall, nice article - I enjoyed reading it. If the following issues are addressed, I'll be more than happy to promote the article to GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review! I think I've applied your suggestions, although I couldn't find a good free image for the body. 23W (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the issues I've raised have been fixed. The only thing is the image... Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 06:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - somehow, I missed the image in the infobox. Pass for GA. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 07:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Notable?[edit]

I have some concerns that this episode may fail WP:GNG, like other articles about episodes of Steven Universe. With most of its content sourced to Tumblr, and few mentions in reliable secondary sources, I was inclined to nominate it for deletion (just like this and this). Just wondering what anyone (especially you, Bilorv, as the GA reviewer) thinks. Thanks — Quasar G. 12:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So this was the first GA nom I ever did, and so I may not have done a sufficient job. Notability is not a GA criterion but I did believe at the time that the article was notable. Tumblr is fine as a primary source but of course doesn't establish notability; the reason I thought it is notable is these sources: [3][4][5] (especially the AV source). I feel I should point out that 23W (article creator, GA nominator) did have some notability concerns themselves (see Special:Diff/605375353). @TenPoundHammer: in 2014 you seemed to believe the Steven Universe episode articles were notable in 2014 here; is this still your opinion? As for my current opinion, I believe this episode is just about notable, and would vote keep in an AfD (not that that should stop you nominating it if you believe it fails GNG), but I'm not too sure it should be a GA so I would probably abstain if you nominated it at WP:GAR. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bilorv: re the sources you mentioned, they all seem a little too blog-ish to me; the AV club one is the best but every episode has an article so it doesn't prove that this episode is particularly special. I'm not sure myself if this passes the GNG, and would probably vote weak delete in an AfD, if I were not the nominator. Hence, I will nominate it to gain further consensus. — Quasar G. 16:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
AV Club and Cartoon Brew have passed muster in other articles, as while "blogs" they have editorial oversight, which is a cornerstone of reliability. However, about 90% of this article is source to Tumblr, which is a bit too WP:PRIMARY. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)