Talk:BanG Dream!/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

As part of the October Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing this article for GA status. Lazman321 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

1 - Well Written

a - Clear and Concise Prose

I was able to read this article quite clearly. Especially the history section. It is always good for an article to have clear prose. No action is needed.

b - MOS Adherence

The 5 MOS rules that need to be followed to pass for GA are the rules on lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I think the lead section is fine, along with the layout. I didn't see any words to watch out for. Unlike most articles, the rules on fiction do apply here due to this article being about something fictional. I do have a problem with the plot, but its more of a main aspect and focus issue, not a MOS issue.

List incorporation isn't a big deal in this article. In other articles, the discography section usually has a list of studio albums and a link to the band or artist's discography page. In other articles, if a GAN article had a discography section listing the studio albums in prose format, I'd have the nominator change it to list format. However, in this case, it looks like that won't be possible due to the amount of many albums from many different bands, most of them being soundtrack albums.

It is worth noting that I tried using the automated peer review to reformat the article for MOS adherence to see if there any MOS violations at all. I didn't use it due to it trying to wiki-link [] brackets, even if the wiki-linking was excessive and the [] brackets were being used correctly. The only two MOS problems were the use of "don't" contractions (The MOS requires "do not" to be used over "don't".) and a pipe being used in one of the categories without an additional parameter being used. Neither of these things is required to be changed for GA status.

2 - Verifiable with No Original Research=

a - Reference List

There is a reference list. This is the easiest GA criterion to meet. No action needed.

b - Reliable Sources

Every source used seems to be reliable. No action needed.

c - No Orignial Research

Note A seems to be original research because there is no citation accompanying it. The controversy section has no citation accompanying it also.

Controversy section was added by an IP with a (brief) history of unsourced content and has been reverted. Zappa⚡Matic 16:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

After doing a lot more digging for sources than I expected for Note A (turns out a general consensus among the fan base was so commonly accepted that nobody bothered to address it outside of the author himself, hah), reference provided. Zappa⚡Matic 04:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good job. I'll pass this one now.

d - No Copyright Violations

I don't see any copyright violations. No action needed.

3 - Broad in its Coverage

a - Main Aspects

Are you sure there are no reviews about the multimedia franchise as a whole? If there are, they could be added to the critical reception section. Also, you may want to rename the Plot section to the Fictional backstory section and have information about the fictional backstory comes from. Though, I am getting the feeling that the plot section is a summary of the anime.

To my knowledge, while there are individual reviews of certain media, the franchise as a whole does not have one. Most reviews I could find (in English or Japanese) are exclusively limited to either the anime or game (the latter of which already has its own section at the relevant page). Most of the information about the story's creation is in the early history section. Zappa⚡Matic 04:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

b - Stays Focused

If the plot section is just the anime plot summary, you might want to move it to the article about the anime as that article is seriously lacking in content. I've never seen the anime before so I don't know for sure if its the anime plot summary, but I am getting the feeling that it is. You might also want to copy the anime subsection in the reception section, add it to the article about the anime, use {{copied}} in the anime talk page and the main article talk page, and then in the main article, trim the subsection down. Overall, I think that a lot of the information about the anime could go into the article about the anime.

While the section is mainly based on the anime's plot (particularly the first season), the story is also retold in the game and manga with the main events staying mostly the same. In a way, this means the section is basically a general and universal plot. Girls Band Party! Pico is not the main anime; it's an episodic spin-off series with little continuity between episodes, so I don't see any reason to add anything from that to this article's plot. Zappa⚡Matic 04:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not know that. That means there is no article on the anime itself meaning that there isn't any focus problem in this article at all. Okay, I'll pass this part of the review. I am a little surprised that there is not an article on the main anime and instead, an article on the spin-off anime, but I won't require an article to be made of the anime.

4 - Neutral

This article is neutral. It did not read like an advertisement or read like it was written from a fan's point of view. No action needed.

5 - Stable

There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes going on right now. No action needed.

6 - Illustrated

a - Copyright tags on non-free media

There are only three images, a logo, an image of promotional material, and an image of a building promoting the franchise. The logo is not protected under copyright law. As a result, it is free to use on Wikipedia. The promotional image has a non-free image use rationale, so that one is fine. If the picture of a building was non-free, it would've not been allowed on Wikipedia. However, the image was the uploader's own work and was uploaded to Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International tag. As a result, it is free to use on Wikipedia. Overall, no action needed.

b - Relevant media

The three only images used on Wikipedia are relevant to the article. The logo is the main logo of the franchise as a whole. The promotional material shows the vocalists from the five bands. The image of the building was a convenience store that was promoting the mobile game. No action needed.

7 - Overall

This article is great, but there are still some issues that need to be resolved. I am putting this article  On hold for 14 days. Good luck! Lazman321 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Good job, I believe I can now ✓ Pass this article for GA.