Talk:Baccano!/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs) 13:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
This Review is an impartial examination of this Article's eligibility for GA Status. I believe that to attain GA status, the Article must pass at minimum 4 out of the six categories against which it will be tested. In each section, I will set out the applicable rules, followed by my findings and conclusion.

The Rules surrounding this Criterion
The Criteria for this Section make reference to the Manual of Style (MoS). For the sake of clarity and efficiency, I will only quote the Criteria rather than the relevant sections of the Manual of Style.

The Rules state: " (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"

Findings
It is my general belief that the article is written in Plain English. Whilst the Manual of Style suggests that jargon should not be used, it is my belief that this Article should count as an exemption, as the subject matter relies heavily on specific jargon. Where jargon is used, links are provided to other articles so that definitions may be obtained.

The spelling and grammar of the article are good. The lead section however seems to be overly-long, with some elements (such as the first book of the series being released, or the dubbing into English by a certain broadcaster) being better suited to a "history" section.

The line "the series has been well received by readers" could count as an instance of WP:WEASEL. This is because there are no sources cited within the article to substantiate the claim that the series has been well received.

There are no lists incorporated, so the list incorporation rules do not apply.

Conclusion
Notwithstanding the possible issues over weasel words and the length of the lead section, I believe this Criterion has been met. In this criterion, the article has passed.

The Rules applicable to this Section
The Rules state:

"

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] and (c) it contains no original research."

Findings
Notwithstanding the lack of source attribution in the lead section, on the whole, the Article has good source-attribution. However, it is disappointing that for a work of this size, bearing in mind the apparent size and popularity of the series, there are only fifty sources - an entire section of the article (the plot section) has no source attribution whatsoever. Second, the first source appears at the very end of the first paragraph of the third section. As a rule of thumb, every assertion must have its own source. This has not been followed.

Because of the lack of sources, the locations without sources could be attacked as examples of Original Research, in contravention of WP:NOR, as set out in the manual of style.

Conclusion
Owing to the lack of sources for a work of this size and the amount of required information, and the possible instances of Original Research, this article has not satisfactorily demonstrated its verifiability and accuracy. This article must therefore fail this category.

The Rules regarding this section
The Rules state:

"

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

Findings
The Article addresses the main aspects of the topic, and it also examines detail of the topic as would be considered necessary. However, a detailed "blow-by-blow" account of the plot would not be required.

Conclusion
Notwithstanding the unnecessary length of the plot section, I believe that this article has - in general - fulfilled the requirements set out above. This article passes this criterion.

The Rules
The Rules state the following:

"it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each."

Findings
This article cannot meet this Guideline. This is because there is no reference to any negative criticism. The article states that the series has received "universal acclaim" and then lists four examples of such acclaim. This is not a representative sample of all opinion on the series. Where possible, negative criticism should be shown. Where the claim regarding "universal acclaim" is true, then, where possible, industry-leaders or well-respected reviewers in the relevant field should be quoted, with citations attributed under Criterion 2 above.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, the article - in my opinion - has failed the Criteria.

The Rules
The Rules state:

"it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute."

The findings
Most edits made to the Article are general maintenance. There is no history of previous edit warring. The talk page reflects this as well.

Conclusion
This article successfully passes this criteria. It has not been destabalised.

Rules
The Rules state:

"Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."

Findings
The article is not very illustrated, with two images. Each image has a suitable caption. As far as copyright is concerned, there are relevant licencing statements and declarations.

Conclusion
Notwithstanding the sparse use of images, I believe that the article has passed this criteria.

Overall Conclusion
Notwithstanding the concern over the areas I highlighted in this review, this article has successfully passed the minimum four criteria requried to become a good article. It should therefore be listed as a good article. To improve the article, I suggest that editors consider and/or implement the suggestions and concerns I expressed.