Talk:A, A Prime/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not reviewing this article just yet; I'll give the contributors time to expand the article, but the article feels a bit short. I'm not sure if it's because the article isn't finished yet, or because that's all the sources say. At the very least, the article is right now a C-class and possibly even a B-class, but I'm not sure if it can pass the GA criteria just yet.

Also, just a comment, but is there any available information on the anthology's production? And, while not required, more Japanese sources (particularly Japanese reviews/views/other sources) are very much appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is finished. There's nothing more left (at least in English); beyond our online reliable sources, I've also checked the archives of now defunct RSes like Mania and PopCultureShock and was able to have access to two imprint-only articles through WP:RX. How is it short? The GA criteria does not require an article to be long, it requires it to address the main aspects of the topic. All vital sections are present (except for production info) and are fully explored on what the sources have to say. Look at Arisa (manga), Fairy Cube or Free Collars Kingdom, for example. It is not short, it's just the size of a single-volume manga. I totally understand if you fail this for not being comprehensive because it lacks a production section, but not because it is "short". (Although it is akin to IC in a Sunflower in which "Style and themes" replaces "Production", and of all Hagio's interviews [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] I found none of them has anything relevant to say about A, A Prime[!!] and the graphic novel itself doesn't have a any production stuff like many others do.) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, I will fail this in a week unless more Japanese reception is included. If there's a clear lack of production information out there to write a production section, then so be it. In which case, instead it would be appropriate to include more information on how the manga was received in Japan. As it is, the article's reception and other sections are slightly Western-centric since most sources are not of Japannese origin. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's only one or two mentions of Japanese reception (i.e. the award and that one mention involving X+Y) and some more information and background would be appreciated. If no more Japanese sources can be found, I'll either fail this or request a second opinion, depending on the context. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's as dificult as. If you pick one of this randomly I'm pretty sure you'll not find Japanese reception and it's a 80's series so it will be probably difficult to find anything in Japanese on the Internet. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. it is, then. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here, the article does not resemble the other GA examples and one of the big areas that it is lacking in is content. Like Gabriel Yuji said, it's possible that there aren't any more reliable sources available in English, but there really isn't a point where an article becomes "finished" and gets classed up. As someone who's done a quite a bit of assessment with WP:ANIME in the past, I would say this probably has achieved B-Class but is not sufficiently fleshed out to be considered GA. -- Kraftlos  (Talk &#124; Contrib) 10:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the second opinion . With that in mind I am failing the GAN, although the article has been reassessed as B-class. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)