Talk:B Gata H Kei

Notability
How does this satisfy BK? The article doesn't discuss how it has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. If you have the time to remove my notability tag, then you should take the time to put these facts into the article. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Kraftlos, B Gata H Kei meets WP:BK#3 because the manga was adapted into an anime. I hope my additions of sources from the previews at Anime News Network and the assessment on the anime-manga request page allay your qualms about the notability of this article. --Malkinann (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That link you showed me only leads to a link to the ANN Encylopedia article, which is not a reliable source. However upon further inspection I see that there are previews referenced on the article which would satisfy WP:N and WP:BK.  I'd recommend converting those references to citation templates, just to make them easier to read; but I think notability has been demonstrated.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand how the WP:ANIME/REQUEST page works, Kraftlos. As the ANN encyclopedia is still considered a valid WP:EL, requested pages are often listed with their ANN encyclopedia links, publisher links, and any reviews, with more links being added as they become available (until the page is created).  When the page was created, there was no publisher information, which I incorporated from the request page.  I was also vaguely aware of the reviews from surfing ANN, so I was confident that the article met the notability criteria (GNGs and OUTCOMES for the anime, WP:BK#3 for the manga).  I went away to find the reviews, incorporated them into a reception section, and then found your note here.  Hope this helps.  Cleanup is not my forte, and I find the anime-manga manual of style labyrinthine.  Kraftlos, as you seem to have had the time to ask for advice at WT:ANIME and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books), could you please take the time to clean up the article to your liking?  --Malkinann (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS-AM isn't that confusing; people aren't expected to have it memorized, it's a guide. You're right, I've never had anything to do with WP:ANIME/REQUEST. I'm just saying from what you gave me there was nothing I could see that gave me indication of notability, however I now see that there are some substantial previews at ANN (not linked in any way from the encyclopedia page and not mentioned in the request).  Of course the encyclopedia is still a valid external link.  If I have a chance I'll format the references, I just figured you were more involved with this article since you were the only on to respond here.  So I guess this is a case of "whoever-gets-to-it-first".  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're conversant with MOS-AM, so that you'll be able to clean up this article to better fit it or whatever other cleanup you had in mind. I've always found MOS-AM too confusing to be of much practical help, but YMMV.  I considered (and still consider) B Gata H Kei clearly notable by virtue of the anime adaptation being aired, and the assessment given to it at the requests page. I furthermore gave indication of notability by the previews which I added on the article itself before I saw your notice here. I suppose I could have put an inuse template on between me removing the notability template and me adding the reviews, but I did not foresee that anyone would have any difficulties with me removing the notability template, because I regarded it as being clearly notable.   I don't enjoy the premise of the series, and so I can't really work up too much passion about the article other than to ensure its existence unencumbered by notability, which I have done.  I look forward to seeing what you can do with the article, though. --Malkinann (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, I'm not really into this sort of show. When I see new articles go into the assessment cue I like to make sure they're actually viable.  So many articles get created then no one from the project looks at them for years.  Better to take care of it now I figure than let it slip by.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I've found it useful to follow WP:ANIME/REQUEST and WP:BEFORE procedures when assessing new articles for viability too. --Malkinann (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Workup
I did some copy editing to the prose as well as added the Plot and Media sections, of which the latter should cover information about the manga, anime, and drama cd. A list table for the episodes would be great if anyone can add that. I'm not sure if I'm going to follow the series after the first episode, the premise is interesting nonetheless, so in terms of plot and character elaboration my contributions will be limited. Fox816 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: After watching the second episode, I actually may see this series through. Fox816 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
I've reassessed the article. The structure looks good, but virtually every section could be expanded. This might take time since the series has just started airing, but I think it should have more content before it moves up to B-Class. Otherwise, this looks like its heading the right direction.

In the future, if you need another assessment, please leave a request at WP:ANIME/ASSESS rather than blanking the template. Thanks! -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 09:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Review(s)

 * ANN Spring 2010 Previews: Carl Kimlinger, Theron Martin, Hope Chapman, Tim Maughan, Zac Bertschy, Rebecca Bundy

Some of these have already been used, but I'm dropping the complete list here for future reference about genres and etc. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception
How come all of these are from some english/american named guys and none are japanese? I understand if there is one such quote but the reception shouldn't be english dominated when this wasn't even an UK/US production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.12.238 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Translated commentary. Hard to find. Fox816 (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviews lacking a NPOV
I feel that the reviews are not the overall reception of the series. It's from a single source, ANN, and their reviews are sometimes biased against moe and romantic comedies, like KissXSis, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha, and this, B Gata H Kei. Cmh(9) (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We can only add what we've got. If you find other reviews from reliable sources then please do add them in yourself. Fox816 (talk)


 * Those aren't even reviews; they're part of the "preview guide" -- they watched the first episode and gave their personal opinions. They're basically "first impressions", and have little value now that the show has fully aired.  Unless you're going to start counting personal blogs, it's very unlikely that you'll find English "reviews from reliable sources" since the show never had an official English release, and unless you're going to refer to the reception in Japan (by considering sales, ratings, popularity on major websites, and the like) there probably isn't much point in having a "Reception" section in the article at all.  A casual look through other Wikipedia anime articles suggests that most don't have Reception sections, and those that do tend to focus on sales figures, awards, and other "news-oriented" content.  Very few post these sorts of impressions, except in cases where there was an official English release of some sort.  So I think the best solution here is just to remove the section, or at least the first paragraph. Relentlessflame (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm....good point. I do believe I missed that part in my reply. They aren't reviews. The section isn't about reviews, it's a reception section and the introduction starts off on how the first episode was received by English critics in ANN. Therefore I apologize for my err in using the word reviews. I should have included commentary or otherwise broadened to reception in general instead of continuing the error by this topic's creator. Back to topic, the content is commentary. Whether or not the reader personally agrees with them is null. Negative reviews are undoubtedly frowned upon and despised by fans (I myself disagree with them, though raunchy I like B Gata) but I have to keep in mind being neutral and edit while acting on personal feelings. This article needs out-of-universe content so anything we can grab our hands on is good. Eliminating content is not the solution. Perhaps a tweaking of the prose is necessary so it doesn't come off so harsh? Fox816 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor neutrality is already in question here; this anime seems to score 7.5+ on most english-speaking sites in which public ratings are collected (MAL, etc), and yet the "reception" section contains 80% negative comments. This reads very much as if predominately negative views have been selected intentionally for some reason. 219.90.186.229 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Anime News Network's most recent review seems positive. I think that's enough to re-establish neutrality. AngusWOOF (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Chika Yamada
The article currently states that Chika called herself a virgin in chapter 176. This much at least is incorrect. When her sister asked her how to have sex "without fail", she simply said that she'd like to help but she doesn't know about that sort of thing. This could mean that she's a virgin, or it could mean that she's never had to worry about such things and, as the one who's always being chased, doesn't know the first thing about making it happen. I've heard that at some point later Chika actually states that she is a virgin, but I don't believe that's the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.230.222 (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Striking out the virgin part. AngusWOOF (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's even simpler than that. Chika's first scene in the manga involves her taking a boy into her room and making the walls shake with what they're doing together. She is consistently shown as having incredible success with boys, and gives Yamada advice on seduction and like in prior chapters. But Yamada's request is "Teach ME how to have sex WITHOUT FAIL!". Chika knows relationships aren't that simple, and that what works for her probably won't work for Yamada. She simply can't give a guaranteed answer and says so. She's not saying she doesn't know how to have sex, she's saying she can't answer that question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:440C:14EE:BC00:ACA0:ECE1:4F61:D007 (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Small Report
So, can someone please remove the "This is the best manga Everr and i wish their was a season 2 and there were so many unanswered questions. " in the beginning of the article? Somehow it is appearing in the article, but when I try to edit it it simply disappears and I can't remove this phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren811 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for catching that! -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

B class assessment
There are dead links and loose single sentences that need to be addressed. Characters are suitably sourced with primary references though primaries should be avoided for voice cast. Try BTVA for English voices and only use it for Japanese as desperate measure. As for how much information should be used on the character, that is usually a line drawn by people. I personally think there is too much. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 04:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * D'oh, the darn article regressed? :( Oh well. I will fix up the voice actors part; there are remnants of the official website that should have their names, otherwise I have to depend on the closing credits from the episodes themselves. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for a B, long long ways from GA though. This is what I observed from a quick check. Ref 10 is using an archive for both source and original page. You are using | deadurl=no for archived websites which are still active right? Funimation Entertainment is now known as Funimation. There are awkward wording in places though and single-sentence paragraphs that need resolving. Some places need to be reworded for accuracy. Ex "Funimation has licensed the series with the subtitle Yamada's First Time, and released the series on January 31, 2012." Released on what? Ref 5 doesn't work either. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed Ref 10: url should point to the original page, archiveurl to the web archive, and deadurl = yes  since the original bgata-hkei.com pages are inactive.  Changed Funimation Entertainment to Funimation, cleaned up verbiage on subtitle, and added DVD / Blu-ray to the series release. Fixed Ref 5. Somehow it redirected to a restricted access area, found the article again on public section, if you need to refer to it again. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC), updated 18:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)