Talk:X (manga)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have started this good article reassessment as I feel this article no longer meets the GA criteria. Specifically, it greatly fails criteria 2, with whole sections of unsourced text. It also heavily fails criteria 3 regarding completeness and : the plot is incomplete and more teaser than a proper plot summary and the article is completely lacking in a reception section. It also fails criteria 1 in that it does not follow the WP:MOS-AM, and has some prose issues. It may also be using the Japanese names instead of English for the characters, but this needs confirmation. I also feel it fails criteria 6. The infobox image is an image of a stylized text logo, which goes against both the MoS and appropriate WP:NONFREE usage and needs to replaced with a manga cover. The image of the characters does not add significantly to the reader's understanding as a whole, and has no source information. The image in the influences section appears to be used to support WP:OR, as it is not supported within the text by reliable sources. File:Kamui v. Kamui (X manga).jpg also does not add significantly to the article quality and appears more decorative than necessary.

If the article can not be brought back up to GA standards by April 12, 2009, it will be delisted as a Good Article and reassessed to a C. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a scan of the first japanese volume (had to crop it ever so slightly). It's not great quality, but the best I could find so far. I've uploaded it as a seperate file to the previous one, so it will be easier to replace it (will show up differently if the current file is replaced at the same location) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a better one. Should be fine now. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it fails. Let me enumerate: The "Plot" and "Characters" section don't usually require sources, but they are anyway for good measure. "Publication" is sourced with ComiPress, Anime News Network and Anime Nation. "Adaptations" is pretty straight-forward, no room for interpretation, synthesis or original research; but it is, nonetheless, referenced with articles found in EX: The Online World of Anime & Manga, The New York Times, Daily Variety, ANN, Animefringe, AnimeonDVD (now Mania.com). "Design", the beefiest section and the one most likely to require sources, is fully referenced to various anime sites, mainstream publications and interviews with the creators. If there's anything specific that jumps out as "needing sources", let us know.

The plot is "incomplete" because the series is "incomplete", but the "Plot" section does a pretty good job of summarizing what's available while avoiding "excessive details of twists and turns in the story" (from WP:MOS-AM).

The reason why there's no "Reception" section it is because I found no reviews of the original manga series. Padding a "Reception" section with movie and TV reviews would be dishonest. They are different mediums and cannot be judged by the same standards. However, the TV and film sub-sections of "Adaptations" accurately present the consensus among reviewers who've watched the respective anime adaptation.

The color image is scanned from the X artbook, while the B&W images come straight from the manga. The first one illustrates the protagonist, while the last one illustrates a recurring motif of the series. As motifs are visual, an image is more than significant and not "decorative" at all... At least, no more decorative than an image of a DVD Box Cover (which appears in most other anime articles with no significant added value). The second is kinda dubious, I admit, but it helps understand the influence of Christian mythology on the series. We could find one of a crucified Kamui, if you like.

So, if the prose needs fixing... go right ahead. If it needs a new infobox image... go ahead and change it (thanks Dandy Sephy). But I don't see any glaring problems and those pointed out seem to be no problem at all. Although, I must confess it has always troubled me having a GA without an actual "Reception" section (see Talk:X (manga)/Archive 1) but... whatever.--Nohansen (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, character sections do now require sources. The GA criteria is stronger than it was when this article originally passed. However, those were not the sections I was referring to, but to the entire Media section, which does not have a single source. The Adaptations sections is also missing sources in several places. It doesn't matter if there is "room for interpretation, synthesis or original research" - they are still statement of facts that must be sourced. The plot is not complete. I have seen the series, so I know there is a lot more than what is covered there. And the anime is entirely unaddressed (differences section missing). I'm sorry, but a lack of reception on the original manga is not a valid excuse for not providing reception for the rest of the series. To me, that's like saying "I didn't include valid, reliable sourced info because I couldn't find Japanese reviews" either. Also, there are references available for the manga, even if there aren't as many, so perhaps a relook is in order. In either case, by your own admission, valid information is being left out. There is also a lot more reception available on the film and the series than is being included here. Claiming "consensus" is seen seems a bit ORish to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If "the anime is entirely unaddressed" (which one? the film or the TV series?) it is because the article is focused on the manga (as I feel it should be). There not much more we can write on add about them without risking an Elfen Lied situation, where people who've never read the original manga (and have only seen the anime) pad the article without realizing the info may not be entirely correct or downright wrong. I hate it when manga articles concern themselves more with the animated adaptations. Don't you?

But anyway, we need specifics. A specific statement you feel needs sourcing. Or better yet, you source it. You fix the prose. You add "Reception" info. This is supposed to be a collective effort, after all. Not "This article needs fixing. Fix it or I'll demote it". I don't go around looking to point out any given article's deficiencies, my M.O. is going around fixing article deficiencies. I expect no less of everyone else.

I may be the article's main contributor, but I can't go around fixing what you think needs fixing when I don't know what you think needs fixing and, worse, when I don't see anything that needs immediate attention (see April 12 deadline).--Nohansen (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I've gone through the article and marked what is in need of referencing/citation.[1] -- Goodraise (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the manga article, yes, but that doesn't mean pretending the anime nor film doesn't exist at all. It should have reviews of all of them, not just the manga. It should have at least a summarized differences area (most obvious, of course, being the anime has an ending). It should properly address them all. Right now, this article doesn't just "focus on the manga" it does a disservice to the franchise as a whole by overly downplaying the rest. Its all about balance, and right now, this is balanced the other way. And sorry, but no, saying "eh, go fix it yourself" is not a helpful response at all. As the main contributer, its presumed you either wrote it or vetted it, so if you don't have the sources, why is it there. Why would you claim its GA material when you can clearly see, it has no sources there. That isn't how a GAR works, as I'm sure you know. It is not a system of: "okay, article doesn't meet, so here's what I'm fixing. Nor do I have the time (or desire) to go through and redo this entire article to be GA quality. Also, you and I both know that due to our fundamental differences of views on some very basic things, you are likely to just undo it all anyway; we've been there before. Giving a deadline is a part of doing a GAR. It is how all GARs work. Fixing minor deficiencies is one thing, fixing major is another. Nor did anyone say YOU personally had to fix anything, you were just notified because it is also required. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If I have some time this afternoon/evening I can provide at least initial reception info for all 3 versions Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not done this yet as I've been taking a closer look at the article itself. The comipress reference needs to go, one of it's sources for the article is wikipedia, which is a complete fail - wikipedia itself is not classed as a reliable source! You can't use a reference which is based on potentially incorrect information. For the useage of it to show the end of serialisation, I can replace it with another referenece, however I can't replace the Jun Hase useage (which if you read the source, doesn't talk about it, just links to wikipedia...). I strongly suggest the reference be replaced with a more reliable source, or the claim be removed. Unreliable sources are a reason to demote a GA. I also have concerns over the layout of the page, surely it needs changes so it follows WP:MOS-AM? I would personally expect to see the article demoted, it's a lot of work. It's a shame, but it simply needs too much work to be a "quick fix" Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Comipress reference is okay would have been okay if it was in English - you can cite a source which uses Wikipedia as a source with care. --Malkinann (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the original notice, there has been no major movement on improving the article and discussion stalled within 24 hours. The article has now been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)