Talk:Charlotte (TV series)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 18, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
 * 4) Copyvio Detector shows no problems with copyvio anywhere in the article -- EXCELLENT JOB HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, NICE !!!
 * 5) The article has a very good structural presentation and layout.
 * 6) The writing quality of the article overall is actually quite good.
 * 7) P.A.Works' production was praised its beautiful animation sequences and expressive cinematography. -- I think you are missing a word somewhere in this sentence.
 * 8) A few sentences are a bit long with overusage of commas smattered throughout. Not a lot, just a few, but try to break these up into 2 smaller sentences in a few places, to improve conciseness and increase overall succinct writing style.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout with good use of in-line citations. Checklinks Tool shows no problems with hyperlinks. I spot checked several sources in English but I'm going to have to assume good faith on the quality of the sources in Japanese language. No issues here.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Article does indeed cover major aspects of the topic -- no issues here.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Great job of balance on neutral presentation in the article, and also especially the lede intro sect. No issues here.
 * 5. Stable? I'm seeing some recent disputes in the article edit history between users:, , and . I'm not seeing much back-and-forth discussion, at all, on the article talk page to show whether these issues were successfully discussed politely, then resolved amicably to the resolution of all parties involved, or not. Yes, the majority of the edit disruption looks like it was about 2 weeks ago. But it is a concern and instability is one thing that could (Unfortunately), result in a fail of this article for GA -- and the parties to the dispute should understand that by edit-warring with zero talk page discussion -- even IF the article is already high in quality in all the other criteria -- they are risking a fail for its GA status. Need to hear more explanation about this, by these parties, below, please.
 * 6. Images?: One image, infobox image, fair use, excellent fair use rationale on image page, no issues here.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability issues
Hello, and thanks for the review. First I'll just point out that I fixed that sentence in the lead that was missing the word 'for' between praised and its. And as for paying it forward, I recently did two GA reviews: Talk:Blackwyche/GA1 and Talk:Cookie (video game)/GA1. Anyway, I can see the real issue here is with the stability of the article. First, let me point out that was blocked indefinitely a couple days ago for some unrelated issue, so they won't be participating in this review. The recent, very minor disputes, between me, Versus001 and were largely kept to the edit summaries in this article's history, and didn't extend to the talk page because I feel both parties were satisfied with the arguments given in the edit summaries. At any rate, Versus001 is now gone, and I consider what happened with Infinite0694 to be resolved at this point (I conceded to his argument), which had to do with the venerability of a wikilink.

I'll also add that much of the disruption a couple weeks ago was in response to the end of the anime series, and after I posted on the talk page the section Talk:Charlotte (anime), that issue has not come up since. I reached out to the talk page in order to start a discussion regarding those characters, but unfortunately, no one else chose to comment. Although I'm not sure that the issue with the characters I outlined on the talk page will crop up again, there haven't been any edits related to that issue (such as re-adding characters) since this edit by an IP on September 30.--  十  八  01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good, would like to hear from about that. And please use the talk page instead of edit summaries in that manner, in the future. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I also tried to reduce some of the run on sentences as best I could with this edit.--  十  八  04:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look a bit better, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, recently etc:
 * I think it may safely be said that this article came to an amicable settlement if this revision is okay.
 * More comment
 * I want to make a few recommendations about this article as the person who helped JAWP's "Charlotte" become a good article. It is just a comment, so it's okay to have a carefree attitude to my advice. First, when I compare difference between ENWP's "Production" section and JAWP's "プロダクション" section, I reckon there is a paucity of amount of information needed for a better understanding of this work on this article, but this matter may be improved with translating from the corresponding article in JAWP. Second, in the "Reception" section, I think that it is better for this article to add a graph with explanation to visualize the distribution of echo like this. Thanks, -- Infinite0694 (Talk) 05:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the production on this article still needs some work, but at this moment, I believe it is sufficient at least for a GA level. As for that Twitter stuff on the Japanese article, I don't believe the number of tweets on a topic constitute some form of reception. At the very least, putting that stuff in the Japanese article seems to me that you're implying the number of tweets over a certain period of time is a representation of the anime's reception, but to me, that's largely up to interpretation. I realize that that section only gives the statistics, and I suppose you're letting the reader make their own conclusions, but the implication here is that those tweet numbers have some bearing on how the anime was received. It might, but I'd rather there was a reliable source that said so first before adding something like that into an article.--  十  八  06:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer
Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) --  十  八  07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It appears all (not-blocked) users are in agreement that the article is stable at present, so that's good for me.
 * 2) Please update if you've done any more work with improving concise writing and succinct sentences.
 * 3) Let me know if you've had a chance to look at the instructions from my suggestion number 3, above, and if you've thought over the suggestion -- which is optional only -- as something to consider for yourself -- as a way to pay it forward ?
 * For 2: I could take another look at it if needed, but not any more at this moment in time.
 * For 3: About two weeks before I nominated this article at GAN, I reviewed two articles: Talk:Blackwyche/GA1 and Talk:Cookie (video game)/GA1.
 * Thanks very much, will post further, below. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA
My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to recommendations from GA Reviewer. Good job ! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Boy! Someone do write it quick. Looking forward to the Anime article. FindMeLost (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)