Jump to content

Talk:Sailor Venus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Fails on multiple account. WP:AVOID, WP:LAYOUT for section order and naming, and a lot of excess wording with vague terms.
Can you please be more specific here? --Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The layout a section with the same name as the article and appears to have too much plot information. In addition it has some weasel words and a lot of vague terms like "several", some, etc which should be cleared up.陣内Jinnai 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, the weasel words guideline is not part of the good article criteria. --Malkinann (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Weasel: If a statement can't stand without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them. They may thus cause either a criteria 2 (sourced) or 3 (npov) failure, and are best avoided. G.A.Stalk 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be helpful if all criticisms were clearly drawn from the Good Article Criteria. --Malkinann (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought it was, but it's not. However GAS's point still stands as those phrases could denote WP:NPOV issues.陣内Jinnai 02:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have another look and specifically point out phrases which you regard as problematic - I think most of the phrasing has been changed. --Malkinann (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Several items are marked with {{fact}} tags, numerous controversial statements backed up with no references or only primary sources. In addition, please explain why the following sites are to be considered reliable:
  • Venus - appears to be a fansite on a free webserver
  • Sailor Moon Uncensored appears to be a fansite and doesn't have a publisher i can find
In addition refs 60 and 61 appear to have broken/improper links. (However the latter also appears to be a fansite).
Finally, many of the references are unclear what they are refering to. Such as "Episode 42" (of what?), "Act 12" (of what?), "liner notes" (of what?)", etc. Other website references are missing their publisher info.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    several sections are long and wordy.
Can you please be more specific here? --Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  3. 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):
    There is not much difference between the various images, except the image of the live-action one. None of the images give adequete fair use rationale. See Popotan or School Rumble for examples of quality reasonings. Even so, the number could be cut down. Specifically MinakoManga.jpg doesn't appear to contribute to the article and SailorVtrio.PNG could be replaced with an image of just the live-action version of SV.
    After reading the info on the talk page, I can understand the reasoning behind her civilian image.陣内Jinnai 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Either of you have a live-action image of Sailor Venus for the live-action? My stuff is packed up otherwise I'd be able to get a screenshot. It can still pass without it, but I think it is warranted for this article.陣内Jinnai 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I would normally quick fail this article due to the massive amount of issues, however as the last senshi article passed on after a quick fail contestion, I'll keep it open for a week.

Could you please point out those "controversial statements" which you say are not backed up adequately? --Malkinann (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. I'll mark what needs to be fixed that I can find.陣内Jinnai 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The actress lists do not need to be specifically cited, as they can be drawn from viewing the media and are unlikely to be challenged. --Malkinann (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The musicals are if some sites list them incorrectly.陣内Jinnai 22:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Status update

Appears everything requested has been referenced. However the images still need copyright holder info and as WP:FAIRUSE is one of the few topdown policies for legal reasons, this needs to be addressed before I can pass it. Also the article should go throw a copyedit, perferably by someone not in SM or Anime Wikiprojects.
Considering the amount of work already done to improve this article I'm extending the hold rather than failing it.陣内Jinnai 03:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the images have copyright information in them already. Is there a special template we should be using? --Masamage ♫ 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I see them. They should be probably in a nihongo template and moved into the body rather than summary, but as they are there its fine for a GA. The work still needs editing on prose. Just on a currsary glance I find several things bad. The profile is a bit long and the profile in the live-action is almost as long as the anime and manga combined, her aspects and forms and special items could be tightened as well, especially considering development and reception/influence are so short. It may be too weighted to plot info and fail WP:WAF. I don't think its quite in-universe as some of those sections talk about development info, but they balance might be off comapred to other characters. Also the last section on seiyu/actressess needs to be rewritten as the paragraphs are too short and should be conistant with the rest of the article.陣内Jinnai 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there has no continuing effort to address the above, I am failing this. While the notes about references were taken care of, part of a GA is its prose structure and amount of in-universe content and this fails the former and i believe probably is borderline at best on the latter. However I believe this article could be brought back up to GA level in the future.陣内Jinnai 01:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First round of cleanup

[edit]
  1. All "citation needed" tags have been dealt with, either by applying appropriate sources or by removing the offending statement altogether.
  2. All fansite references have been done away with in the same way.
  3. All vague citations have been clarified (as far as I can tell).
    14 and 26. 14 is missing what the anime is (It can't just be assumed to SM) and if 26 a citation it needs to be formatted correctly and if its a footnote, there isn't much new that adding the year to the prose would make it easier.陣内Jinnai 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, okay. The first is fixed. The latter (now ref 34, "Super Revue Musical Show in 2001") is gonna be really hard to figure out how to format, though. It's a reference to one of the stage musicals, which have incredibly confusing names and publication histories. X) I'll keep trying, though. --Masamage ♫ 22:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sections have been reordered and renamed to fit the MOS
  5. Two images have been removed; the remaining two images have been given updated fair use rationales.
    Info on who owns/holds the copyright should be added. Other than that, it's fine.陣内Jinnai 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining items of complaint are sort of vague. Does it pretty much just need to be rewritten in a tighter style and with less detail about the story? I can see that a lot of fancruft has snuck in since its last rewrite...that's always the problem with these darn things... --Masamage ♫ 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sooooo, I have a few questions about individual tags...

  1. Why is ref 6 tagged as OR despite having a source? Is it just the entire mention of Usagi's and Minako's parents looking the same?
    even their families look the same, as both are based on Takeuchi's own family - that's synthesis
  2. Similar question for ref 10. If that counts as a reliable source, and it explicitly says Minako's lines were rewritten in the dub to make her more of a jerk, why doesn't it work to cite that assertion?
    n the latter two seasons is rewritten as being sarcastic or rude in places where she had only been melodramatic in the original Japanese - same as the previous
    One of the sources cited says "Cloverway made Mina a bitch", Cloverway being the company that dubbed the third and fourth seasons, so that seems to apply in general. I guess the remark about her being merely melodramatic in Japanese was only referring the changes made to a particular scene, though. Would you agree with that reading? If so, I'll rephrase that bit to more accurately reflect what the source says. --Masamage ♫ 02:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fine. If you can find another source commenting on her then that's also fine. Also, does this apply to the movies ans S and SuperS seasons? That's also not clear.陣内Jinnai 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the TV episodes. (The movies were dubbed by someone else, DiC or Geneon, I think.) I can try to make that more obvious, too. --Masamage ♫ 02:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "She is also the only Senshi other than Usagi to live with both parents" has a fact tag. Not sure how to deal with this one. It's definitely true (I can rattle off the deaths, divorces, and nonexistence of the other characters' families), but it would require like ten citations if we really wanted to get into that. Should we make one giant monster ref explaining the situation? Or maybe just leave this out altogether?
    How important to her character development and portrayl is the lack of a parental figure? If it isn't, remove it, if you'll have to find sources for all the senshi. You can also reword it so that it wouldn't involve the other senshi. If the purpose is to show she's modeled close to Usagi then just needing 2 refernces.
  4. Does anyone know a handy source for the "nosebleeds = horny" anime equivalency?
    check the nosebleed article.
  5. Since no third-party source is likely to have mentioned that Minako's horny nosebleed is the only one in the series, should we just leave that out?
    well you can remove that she is the only character while mentioning the nosebleeds.
  6. Why is it OR to state that most of her powers use "love" as their element? They generally have "love" or "heart" right there in their names.
    If that's the case remove those.
    Haha, too late. Malkinann is amazing and had a third-party source. --Masamage ♫ 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Similarly, when we say that Sailor V had more moon powers than Venus powers, this is because they have "crescent" in their names.
    Cresents can be seen for other celestial objects, especially planets.
    Hmm...okay, fair enough, but for what it's worth, this is during the time when she's functioning as the decoy Moon Princess. In the manga, she never has any crescent powers as Sailor Venus. (It's a little weirder in the anime because they got ahead of the manga, and just took her attack names from the Sailor V series, not knowing what Takeuchi would give her once she showed up.) --Masamage ♫ 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be something else to see a 2nd opinion on.
  8. Sailor V's costume definitely has more going on on it than the other Senshi's. It's just...there's more there! More weird details, more designs, more gewgaws. Just visually. Is it really OR to say so?
    Not sure...It may be synth to say that, but maybe not. You can always ask at WT:ANIME or elswhere for a second opinion on that.
  9. How can we cite something like "Minako is not shown using any special powers in her civilian form," or that the animation in her transformation sequence stays the same, or that a certain item doesn't appear in the anime?
    it is tough as you'll probably have to find secondary RSes for those.

Sorry for the barrage, and thanks for helping us improve things. --Masamage ♫ 22:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating atm so just commenting briefly.陣内Jinnai 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sailor_Venus/GA1&oldid=319147565"