Sailor Moon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. Improvements were made in response to concerns about citation and broadness issues. No further case has been made that the article does not meet the criteria, or in support of delisting it now. The article may not meet some WikiProject criteria, but these are not, per se, part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent reassessment seems much more focussed on the anime-manga manual of style than on the good article criteria, and isn't specific enough in its criticisms. --Malkinann (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly fails all of the Good Article criteria. If you felt I needed to be more specific, then asking would have been sufficient. I felt the problems were large enough that going into minute detail would have only been excessive. Do you actually disagree that it does not meet the GA criteria, with the reams of unsourced content, lacking completeness in that it has no production information (despite it being available), lacking proper coverage of the actual main medium (the manga), and lacking an actual plot summary. And meeting the anime/manga MoS is part of the GA criteria, criteria #1. I left specific comments on every section and noted the major problems in each. I stand behind my delisting of this article. And it would seem the review was at least specific enough that you began attempting to make some fixes to the article after starting this GAR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for more specific details and a second opinion, via this group reassessment. I don't feel that there is 'reams of unsourced content' - I'd appreciate you pointing it out for me, specifically rather than by banner tags - in the past when we have asked you to use inline tags rather than banner tags we have been able to find citations etc. to solve your concerns. There is production information in the article already, although if you have more, I'd appreciate it if you made it available. I'd appreciate knowing what would constitute a 'proper' coverage of the manga, too, as I'm not sure what the current manga section is lacking. It has a plot summary in the story section. The article does not have to comply with the anime manga manual of style, as part one clearly states it only has to comply with lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation, no other manuals of style are required for GA status. Thanks for your participation in this GAR discussion. I have attempted to make a good faith effort to fix some of the stuff that's easily fixable, but I would appreciate more direction for the rest.--Malkinann (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article does have to comply with the anime/manga MoS, same as film articles must comply with the Film MoS, etc to be a good article. The FA criteria also does not state this explicitly, but its understood that following the appropriate part of its relevant MoS is a necessity. The "story" section does not have a plot summary, it has a teaser with a list of links to arcs. That is not a proper plot summary at all. I use banner tags with adding inline citations would be ridiculously excessive. The entire character section is unsourced except for a single line in Usagi description (and yes, it does have to be sourced). The bulk of the manga section is unsourced. The anime section's section paragraph, entirely unsourced, and the last part of the first. Stage musicals - only one source in the first paragraph. Live action series - only has two sources on the first paragraph, nothing more. English adaptations - most of first paragraph is unsourced, as is most of the fourth. The article does NOT have a production section nor production information beyond the music section, and two small paragraphs in the manga section. There are many sources on this series due to its fame and longevity. Simple search of Google Books shows many untapped resources, as do Google News searches. This is not completeness. Proper coverage of the manga's reception would start with having some at all. Except for a single paragraph noting the manga won an award, the entire reception section is purely about the anime, which is completely unbalanced. There are critical reviews of the manga as well, yet none are in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA explicitly states in the first footnote that the only manuals of style that apply are those I listed earlier. I believe this means that the anime manga manual of style is irrelevant in terms of being part of the GA criteria. The Google results are misleading - Sailor Moon is used extensively as an example of popular anime and manga, plastic girlhood of the 90s and so on - many of the mentions of Sailor Moon are inconsequential and irrelevant to the article. I've looked through Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar before this and used some citations from there. --Malkinann (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (without prejudice). I've stated this before at GAR on several occasions, but it seems appropriate to reiterate it here: WikiProject guidelines are not, and never have been, part of the GA criteria... (See the talk page.)

Per Wikipedia:Good article criteria it does state it needs only apply to the primary MoS. However, MoS says in the first paragraph, "Additional subpages of the Manual of Style, listed and linked in the menu on the right-hand side of this page, explore some topics in more detail." for which MOS-AM is a subpage, so the bottom line is that t's unclear by the criteria of 1b as currently stated if MoS-AM applies or not.陣内_Jinnai 07:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Malkinann on this. GAs do not have to be compliant with the MoS, only the specifically listed sections of it. Therefore, MoS subpages and project guidelines are not part of WIAGA.YobMod 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to be more explicit than footnote 1: "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles." Geometry guy 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- the guidelines seem to be clear on this point. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment MoS and review-style aside, i think it would have merited delisting for the uncited paragraphs, of which there are many (most have see also to subarticles, so maybe there are cites therein that simply need copying over?). Presumable this is fixable within a reassesment timescale, as much of the unsourced content is release dates and formats (although the character descriptions may be more difficult - i they just from the primary sources?). No opinion yet on the other templates.YobMod 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and question. I agree that there are some statements needing citation which are not cited: in the last paragraph of "Manga" and the middle paragraph of "Anime" for example. There is some production information at various places in the article (a separate section is not required): what is missing? Geometry guy 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already noted what I felt was missing above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While there is probably reception and production information available that is not being used, I would like to assume good faith and believe Malkinann when she says she has checked most of the Google Scholar and Google Books hits and found most of them trivial mentions-in-passing and so not useful. The uncited bits are the sort of information that warrant opening a GAR (with detailed guidance) so that editors have a week to work on it, rather than immediate delisting. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your helpful remarks. Tempting though it can be to discuss guidelines, process and editors' contributions, I hope we can focus on whether the article meets the criteria or not and encourage article improvement: that is what GAR is for. Geometry guy 22:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - How is the article looking now? What else needs citing, or what else needs fixing to retain GA status? Although the prose quality was criticised in the initial GAR, I don't think it's that bad... it's serviceable enough. --Malkinann (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph on the stage musicals and live-action section needs citations.陣内_Jinnai 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! :-) What else? --Malkinann (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not every paragraph requires an in-line citation. The Good Article criteria say that in-line citations are required "for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons." While the article had citation issues a few days ago it is much improved now. And at this point I'm concerned that reviewers are requesting citations for innoculous statements. Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the musicals and live action series isn't as well known as the anime or manga in the English-speaking world, those items are more likely to be challenged.陣内_Jinnai 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When people ask for citations on general areas of the article rather than specific claims made by the article, I can provide citations, but I am left wondering if I cited the important parts, or merely the easy parts to provide citations for. --Malkinann (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it seems kind of strange that such a series like this would not have an (cultural) impact section, but if all the other sources are trivial, I guess not.陣内_Jinnai 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a reception section that touches on the cultural impact Sailor Moon has had to anime and manga fandom (mostly by making it more girl-friendly), is that the kind of information you were looking for? --Malkinann (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess so. That kind of information is usually not put in the reception, but in a legacy or cultural impact section since it's not really "reception".陣内_Jinnai 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The important thing is that the information is in there, yes? ;-) So what else needs doing for the article to meet the GA criteria? --Malkinann (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • GA criteria it's fine and don't think it should fail for that. Be aware though the issue is likely to arise if this goes to a FAC. The more important issue is that it may possibly fail in the lead section then if the info is listed elsewhere since references in the lead are generally removed in such cases.陣内_Jinnai 01:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As far as I'm aware, there are no immediate plans for a FA drive for the Sailor Moon article. I don't know why references in the lead would be removed, as per WP:LEADCITE (part of WP:LEAD) the lead has the same citation requirements as the rest of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." - This is why. The lead section is often the main section quoted in multiple pages from wikipedia without the citations added therefore it generally disliked. The information being cited in the first paragraph of the lead would seem to fit with the latter part of the 2nd paragraph in Reception. The only item in the lead which is not discussed later and does not have an appropriate section deals with the Takeuch's influence for the manga.陣内_Jinnai 04:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]