Talk:Amy Rose/GA2

GA Reassessment

The result was delist. Concerns were not addressed, and there was a consensus that the article does not meet the GA criteria. JOE BRO 64 20:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am nominating this for GAR because I believe it has a number of serious problems for a good article. In my opinion, this article is at least C-class quality. Issues I notice include but are not necessarily limited to:

Referencing is concerning. There are a few barelinks and some questionable sources (i.e. "Behind the Voice Actors"). However, I think the most severe problem here is the over-reliance on primary sources. Virtually every source from 15 to 139 is referenced to a certain game, instruction manual, or some other thing that comes from Sega. As Amy is a pretty significant character in Sonic and gaming in general, there's bound to be plenty of coverage from secondary, reliable sources.
The primary sources issue leads to another problem: the appearances section is massive. It's a detailed, in-universe retelling of every single game Amy has had somewhat of a role in, with no context as to how this relates to the character's significance. Even the comics and TV shows are discussed in the same amount of detail. See a more recent character GA like Doomfist to compare—the in-universe details are a very small fraction of Doomfist's article, but are basically 80% of this one.
The lead is too short.
Sega Mega Drive/Genesis: Collected Works has some very interesting information about how Amy was designed.
Half the reception section is random quotations that are either pulled from passing mentions or listicles.

Overall, I don't think this article is fit to be a GA unless my comments are addressed. JOE BRO 64 11:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea this isn't GA quality. Way too many in-universe details and original research based on in-game/comic/show sources. TarkusAB^talk

Agreed. I've just removed some unsourced claims from the lead ("recognizable" and "popular"). A long list of appearances does not provide the reader with any additional information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the GA status too. (I find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to fix up the primary sources sufficiently - that isn't a quick fix, that's a full re-do.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are few objections here that are reasonably simple to address (such as the lede, and potentially a removal of the primary sourcing.) However, doing a re-write of the reception section, and finding secondary sources will take some time. I'd propose contacting any major editors of the article to find the sourcing, but otherwise a downgrade would be acceptable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the writer of the article, Tezero, appears to have retired, as he hasn't edited since October 2015. I'd be interested in rewriting this, but character articles aren't my best topic areas (I'm more of the comics/games the characters appear in, not the characters themselves). I'm also trying to rewrite all the Game Gear Sonic games' articles now, so I'm preoccupied at the moment. JOE BRO 64 13:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue here is the "Appearances" section, which you pointed out is full of in-universe primary sourced detail. This section is going to need a major re-write which should be done by an editor who is unfamiliar with the subject. As for sources "BTVA" is considered "situational" as clicking on the green check mark next to the subject's name links directly to a resume (This is considered a self-published source). The bare links, and lead are cleanup issues which should not be weighed here, as far as the reception goes this can be looked up through WP:A&M/ORS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see too many issues for a GA but I recommend that the first six sources be formatted and that the lead might be expanded based on how big are some sections.Tintor2 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once the excessive primary source and fluffy commentary is pared down, what is left? Still feel this should be merged to the character list based on the quality of the extant sourcing. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While the current sourcing is crap, Amy is typically a big point of discussion when she's playable or has a big role in Sonic games. The article's bad now, but I don't think she's not notable. JOE BRO 64 18:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair bit of this article missing, too, and that's development information about Amy. This would be necessary to meet the broadness criterion as it's notability-conferring, potentially enough to maintain a full article. Surprisingly there is some available about her character design for the games; according to the Sonic CD article:

"The game marks the video game debuts of Amy Rose and Metal Sonic, both designed by artist Kazuyuki Hoshino. Amy had previously appeared in the Sonic the Hedgehog manga, but was redesigned. Although her in-game graphics were created by Hoshino, many staff members contributed ideas to her design. Her headband and trainer shoes reflected Ohshima's tastes while her mannerisms reflected the traits Hoshino looked for in women at the time."
— Sonic CD on Wikipedia

Add to that that we know Amy got a redesign for Sonic Adventure and I bet we can find enough to make a development section, going along with her manga design and later redesign for Sonic Boom. If anyone has the source used in the Sonic CD article for this quote, which is from a book, that would help to make that a reality. For now, however, I would agree to delist, have the article reshaped, and run this through a new GAN if the improvements can be made. I wouldn't mind working on it but I lack the time and interest at the moment. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I know this has only been open for a few days, but I think there's a pretty strong consensus that it doesn't meet the GA standards. In delisting the article, I will be adding a number of tags, such as {{Primary sources}}, {{In-universe}}, and {{Missing information}}. When this article is rewritten, sourced to secondary, reliable sources, and trimmed of in-universe details, it can be renominated. JOE BRO 64 20:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.