Wikipedia:Peer review/Kanon/archive2

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

Kanon[edit]

Previous peer review

This article has gone through much revision in recent months and achieved Good Article status in January. I am looking to nominate this article for Featured Article status soon, and would like to know how to improve it more.-- 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GunnarRene 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GunnarRene
  • Should link to Lycèe Trading Card Game
I'll get on that.-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's been GA rated and is comprehensive enough to be A (more than the Air article), but has a few problems that might undo the GA rating:

    • Livejournal and forum posts used as sources.
This is merely because that information cited in those source could not be easily found in other places, but the information is still very true. I'll try to do some sorting out and find some other sources to use.-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead is inadequate: It should summarize the main points of the article rather than serve as mostly a release history.
The main points...Going off the TOC, we have Plot, Setting, Themes, Gameplay, Characters, Release and Sales, Reception, Adaptations, and Music. The Plot, Setting, Themes, and Characters most likely do not belong in the lead, or am I wrong? Gameplay is lightly touched upon, so that's there. While there is nothing on the Music in the lead, the lead is composed primarily of Release and Sales and Adaptations because there isn't really much else to put about the other sections.-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
They do. Move some of the release details into the release section, and keep less detailed info in the lead. For example, exact release dates belong in the release section, not in the lead unless it's a particularly notable day like September 11 or Christmas Eve. You absolutely need to say something about the setting, plot, themes, characters and reception in the lead, without having to go too far into detail. Those things are the things that set it apart from other works. As for the music, you don't need to say much. Perhaps just state the number of soundtracks along with the other release info. In my view, the lead does not need to be equally balanced regarding each section length, but it has to summarize the article, and it needs to be equally NPOV. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do the secondary characters have severly in-universe articles?

Wait, are you talking about the individual character articles themselves, or the short summaries in this article? If it's the former, then I'd say that's not the concern of this article. For the latter, you can't really describe the characters without getting in-universe, or am I wrong?-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The second. Be aware that on Featured Article review, daughter articles will also be scrutinized. It might be good to proactively reduce the secondaries to a list and reduce the amount of information. See {{plot}} and Wikipedia:Fair use for some reasons why. WP:FICTION is also relevant here. Some in-universe is good, but not so much. --GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What kind of source is hentai.co.uk? I can't find an "about" section even.
This was one of the original sources on this page. I believe the site serves many functions, but also gives information on hentai games, such as Kanon.-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We need more information about who publishes it, and who writes on it. Without such information, it can't be relied on.--GunnarRene 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Anime Densetsu seems like a site that hosts reviews written by anonymous, unpaid, users. WP:RS?
    • Why that geocities reference?
I've removed them.-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sales into reception, preferably.
I'll get on that.-- 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, the prose could use some work before a Featured Article request, but it's understandable as it is - seemed better than the Air article. --GunnarRene 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On the points about the sources that the article uses...I suppose I could remove all the sources and information taken from those sources if you are saying they shouldn't be there.-- 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ See footnote
    • ^ See footnote
    • ^ See footnote