Talk:Azumanga Daioh/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days (May 30, 2009). If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Needs a copyedit and article needs some basic tweaking to better follow both WP:MOS and WP:MOS-AM. (fixed) WP:LEAD fixes as noted below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Article is badly lacking in "real" sources. Many references are simply footnotes without references themselves. Several sentences marked as needing citations or with citations questioned. Entire character section completely unreferenced.(fixed) Plot section appears to contain OR in discussing anime/differences.(fixed)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lacking production information beyond the title section, and considering the DVDs contain quite a bit of making of type info, this is a large oversight. Plot section seems short while character section is too detailed; central characters should be listed only, with rest covered by the main list.(fixed) The article is also a little out dated, lacking information on the graphic novel omnibus.(fixed) Three CD soundtracks should be in their own section with more than just two sentences of coverage.(fixed) The unofficial video game section seems entirely sources to non-reliable sources and should be removed unless reliable sources have given them any coverage.(fixed) Reception section seems to be lacking any reviews on manga, and needs reorganization.(fixed) The external link section contains unnecessary links (authors personal site, a podcast review that isn't being used as a reference; ADV link needs checking, after first page, seems dead)(fixed)

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   As series primary work is manga, infobox should have a manga cover; logo does not convey any information beyond title which isn't necessary for image depiction, which goes against WP:NONFREE. Character image is unnecessary in this article and goes against WP:NONFREE - already in character list anyway. It is also too big and has a badly written FUR. (fixed)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree. I was an editor on the article at the time of the GAC, though not directly involved with the GA effort, and was frankly a bit dubious about it passing but didn't say anything as I was a new editor. Standards have since been raised, but I'd moved on and have only intermittently worked on improvements, most of them structural. The copyedit, I can work on now -- we'll see how far I can get on the rest without help. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I also have concerns about the "Unofficial" game list as I don't see any of them being notable. Many anime/manga have unofficial games made for them, but we don't go and add them unless they are themselves notable, ie they have won awards from reliable sites or were talked about by independant reliable sources.じんない 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. When I asked about them on the project page a couple years ago, I was told to leave them in. How quickly fashions change. Personally, I wouldn't disagree with removing them -- I don't see how a doujin game is any more significant to the subject than doujinshi or fan fiction. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the idea - unless you have some independent RSs that can show the item has some notability. They are very rare though.じんない 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

6. has been addressed. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@AnmaFinotera: Could we get a health-check of what you think remains to be done to meet the GA criteria? So we can focus our efforts on those things. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated above...still think Title should be the start of a production section, but I'm considering the A/M MoS issues fixed. Reference formats still need some clean up (got some mixed date formats, unlinked published, etc). Referencing much improve, though the lead shouldn't need any references. Anything there should already be sourced in the article proper. It also isn't following WP:LEAD in that it is not summarizing the article. It has no summary of the reception and doesn't give any mention ot the other adaptations (at min, needs a sentence saying "was also adapted into blah blah blah"). Added a few fact tags for last places references needed. Is Barnes and Noble the only reference available for the manga release dates? Soundtrack section still missing basic details: releasing company and dates. # of tracks is also a nice touch. CDJapan is usually a good RS for these. Video games should be prose with only three games. Reception is looking better, but is that all available? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Book references: Dead links to ADV & no back up from Wayback machine. I will change Barnes & Noble refs to Mania reviews references.

Audio references: All the refs are stockpiled in the discussion page & there are also the refs to Oricon peak rank the CD which ranked. Now if i stop being lazy and wrote about them :p --KrebMarkt 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reference in the Lead for the demographic: historically, the article has repeatedly had the demographic changed to shoujo by various editors, both IPs and accounts -- and the frequency of this went way down when we finally put a reference that it is shonen on it. As such, it is (bizarrely) the sort of controversial information that WP:LEAD allows do need references, and I will strenuously argue against removing that particular one. (In fact, the reference really needs to be on the word shounen instead of the end of the sentence, but keeps getting moved due to a common misreading of the MOS.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, aside from continuing to expand the Reception, and in any case that now has a larger, more representative sample of reviews than before, I think just about all the concerns have been adressed. Anything else you see need doing to keep GA (as opposed to ongoing improvements from that level)? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead fix and added three final fact tags. All else, I think, has been addressed. May want to check some of the diambigs[1]. Some of the references still need fixing: when using archive, those urls go in archiveurl, not as the main URL, and the publisher remains the original publisher, not the archiver. #34, for example, is was incorrectly done. The AoD link needs to be updated to the Mania one[2], the NewType USA link is dead (and that should be a cite journal with the remaining details added, not cite book), and what makes Anime Expressway and reliable source?.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, per the notes on my talk page [3] and the good faith efforts being made to fix this one up, I've extended the "deadline" of this GAR an additional week to June 5th. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The GAR has now run over two weeks. While significant improvements have been made, from the talk page and notes here, there is still some work left to do. I can't extend the reassessment indefinitely, though, and activity seems to be slowing. Think the remaining issues can be addressed within the next few days? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but my DSL connection has been crapping out on me all weekend (this is my fourth attempt to post this reply) -- will try again to work on it later. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to argue with point #3: As discussed on the article talk page, contra the assertion above, we don't have enough information to create a real production section. While the DVD extras look promising on the surface, all the staff comments are trivial, offering at most "I wanted to do do a good job" statements. Neither have any interviews with the mangaka come to light, offering insights on the inspiration of the manga. The article is (pending adding the artbooks, which I'm about to do) as broad in its coverage as possible. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that on the DVD. Did we ever get confirmation on the lack of any info in the manga volumes? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are no author comments whatsoever in the manga (I have all four and reread them frequently). Anything else you see missing on the breadth front? Or, for that matter, on the rest of it? Unless I missed something, I think all stated concerns have been covered. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the lead! It is still too short...the reception summary is too brief. :P Other than that, I think the citation issues have all been fixed with the removal of the hoax. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to unpack things a little for me: what do you see as missing from the lead? All the main sections are covered, and the number of paragraphs is per WP:LEAD's suggestion. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead isn't really summarizing the reception section very well. All it has is "has been praised for its off-beat humor driven by eccentric characters". And actually, going by the length guide, it should be closer to 3 paragraphs as its 43 KB :P, though really just feel it needs 2-3 sentences on reception summary rather than a single partial sentence.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll work on that ... after lunch. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work all on this one. I've closed the GAR as "keep listed". If anyone is aiming for FA, I'd recommend expanding the Reception with more available sources, and maybe looking for magazine articles from around its release time for any additional info. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be my thought of the next steps. That and digging up the scoop on the live-action hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)