Talk:Uzumaki/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Erachima (talk · contribs) 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

2nd Opinion: Protonk (talk)

I typically avoid reviewing articles within the scope of WP:ANIME to avoid questions of partiality, but I'll be making an exception for this page as it looks like in this particular case there might actually be a WP:DEADLINE for the page's author.

Use of Images

One image, proper NFCC rationale. No concerns, though additional illustration as warranted by commentary elsewhere in the article would be a potential area for improvement.

Stability of Content

No concerns.

Focus of Coverage

Generally acceptable. Weighted a bit heavily towards quotes of reviewers, but I wouldn't consider this a holdable flaw.

Verifiability of Assertions

Referencing appears solid, I see no significant unreferenced claims.

Quality of Writing

Most of my concerns with the article lie here, though they should be relatively easily solved.

• The lead section is a disorganized infodump. Please rearrange into paragraphs by theme. A paragraph of basic data, a paragraph explaining what the series is about, and a paragraph covering reception and impact appears to be the most common structure for articles of this sort, I recommend modeling it on that.
  • I'm having trouble organizing the lead, there have been multiple renditions. and i'm currently a little lost on what "basic data is".

• The lead paragraph and plot section both use the construction "revolves around." This is normally poor writing due to being vague, and in the context of this article it reads as a pun. While mildly amusing, this is unprofessional. Please correct.
  • I used a different wording, i hope thats better. if not, perhaps suggest a better phrasing.
• The plot section is difficult to follow, as it jumps from event to event without explanation or transition. I realize that the plot of the series itself is surreal and abrupt, but things like explaining the nature of the curse in general terms and mentioning the snail curse prior to "The only remaining buildings are the abandoned row houses that protect the citizens from whirlwinds and becoming snails as a result of the curse."
  • The curse really hard to describe due to having large variation between chapters. All we know is that people can be affected by it and it can be anything as long as its a spiral pattern.
• Grammar note: "made entirely of spirals and the corpses of Kirie's parents." is ambiguous and needs clarified.
  • I fixed it.
• The development and release sections are relatively readable, but would still benefit from transitions.
  • I did what i could on the development and release section. I'm not sure if there's anything else.
• As a matter of standardization, your development and release sections would both normally be grouped together as "Production" with the chapter list and adaptations grouped together under the header "Media."
  • This is one i really ask a second opinion. Although i generally believe the current format is acceptable as it is heavily focused on the manga.
• The reception section relies excessively on direct quotation. I will not make a major issue of this, but would prefer more paraphrasing.
  • I'll get on that now.
• Also, the PopCultureShock line has some sort of grammatical error in it. Missing word? Not sure.

• I removed a comma. Tezero (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please give some sort of summation of the reviews rather than simply laundry-listing individual quotes.
  • i normally just copy-paste the quotes. i think i did note a grammatical error when i copied it.

In short, the article is On Hold pending a number a writing fix-ups. Good luck. --erachima talk 02:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on it now. Lucia Black (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Yeah, this is why I normally don't review articles in "my" subject area. Anyway, due to that referencing dispute --which I put a substantial amount of time into resolving-- and my own cleanup of the writing, I'm no longer an uninvolved reviewer. I think it's ready at this point, all my concerns being addressed, but want someone else to check it over first. --erachima talk 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erachima:i'm mostly against of unilaterally merging information of the manga along with the other spin-off media. The article is heavily revolving around the manga, and barely makes much coverage of the other media, so i believe it would benefit more separating the manga release information from the other media. Lucia Black (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

erachima, I'm prepared to finish up this GAN in Lucia's stead. I'm not white-knighting her or anything; it just seems pretty lousy that this would fail otherwise and it passing is what she wanted. Tezero (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• A very (very) brief comment from an uninvolved GA reviewer:
  • Basically this article looks good to go. It seems relatively well balanced, has good sources and summarizes the topic adroitly.
  • I'd like to see the "plot" section sourced a little more (and perhaps shortened somewhat), but the latter is driven mostly by my distaste for WP plot summaries in general, not a comment on the quality of this particular section. @Lucia Black: please feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you need some more specific commentary on the plot section. In general I like to see a mix of sources to the primary material and reviews which note plot elements.
  • @Erachima: If you're comfortable with the article quality but worried about your involvement compromising the review and if Tezero is basically happy with the contents I'm willing to pass the article provided the plot section is improved.
• Thanks, Protonk (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Protonk, you should know that Lucia's been indefinitely topic-banned from manga/anime/Japanese video games, against my wishes, and as such is a little incapacitated. I can work on the Plot when I get to a real computer, but you should know that citations for plot summaries aren't required. Tezero (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• while not required I think they make for a better article. Either way, take a look at the plot section and when you're done ping me and I'll do a more complete review of the article. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Protonk, Erachima hasn't edited on en Wikipedia since August 19, so it appears that's all from that reviewer. At this point, it's yours to review and to decide whether it ultimately gets listed or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. I probably won't watchlist this but I'll take a close look and take over the review when Tezero pings me. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I don't understand your objection to the length. It's two above-average paragraphs, extremely short by manga article standards. Or is this about it being excessive for something that's three volumes? If so, consider that this would be short for a Wikipedia summary of an individual book (or even short story, I'd guess), plus longer manga tend to have some repetition and less setup such that less description is needed. Tezero (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. I didn't have a strong opinion on shortening the section anyway. However, now that I've thought about it more I do feel that the plot section needs to be sourced to something, preferably a mix of secondary and primary sources (e.g. School Rumble#Plot). Protonk (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Protonk's comments

• As I said above, the only major blocker for this is the lack of sourcing in the plot section. I can put up some more examples of good/featured articles to show how we tend to source these sections if that's helpful. Once the plot section has been addressed I'll make a run through of the article and spot check sources. It's fairly close to being a GA, so I don't expect that review to take too much time. I'll check back here over the next few days for updates but should a week go by without much work I'll take it out of the GAN queue. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• • @Tezero: I reviewed MOS:PLOT and discovered I was wrong about the plot summary thing. Sorry about that. Since I feel the first review was thorough and the article itself broadly meets the GA criteria I've promoted the article. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)