Talk:Chi (Chobits)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rationalobserver (talk · contribs) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

 * I would expect two or three paragraphs in the lead of an article that is more than 3,500 words. So, break this one up into two or three.
 * ✅ Most of the article is about Chi's role in the series, would you suggest a short summary of that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just make sure that the lead properly summarizes all the sections in the article. If you've done that, you should have more than one paragraph. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I expended upon the lead covering what I feel are all the sections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Chi's creators, CLAMP, said it would be much easier if computers could speak to you when they had errors.
 * This seems a bit disconnected to the lead's narrative. It needs a topic or transitional sentence so that it's place in the lead makes sense.
 * ✅ I added a lead in sentence that goes along with what is in the concept section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Chi is voiced by Rie Tanaka in the anime and Georgette Rose in its English counterpart.[1][2] 
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, these cites are not needed or preferred, as this info ought to be sourced in the body of the article.
 * ✅ I plan on fixing this when I write the major anime manga differences section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * References moved to new section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * a fictional character in the manga series Chobits
 * Will the casual reader know what a "manga series" is?
 * ✅ I added a wiki-link to both manga and anime. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Concept

 * (a character from CLAMP's shared universe work Angelic Layer[3]), 
 * Link CLAMP once in the lead and again at its first mention in the article.
 * ✅ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this section is doing a great job at explaining what Chobits are; e.g., some of the stuff about computer errors is confusing.
 * I will expand what Chobit's are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the problem, there are two parts to the section, one that talks about Chi's character and the other that talks about her concept in the series. I have reworded the section. Do you have any suggestions or does it look ok? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look when I have more time, but right now I'm in the middle of a home improvement project with my hubby, and I'm just checking in during breaks. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Discovery

 *  chapter one of the manga and episode one of the anime
 * I think you should briefly explain what a manga is.
 * I could try to do that here although I do not want to distract from the main topic. I added a wikilink to manga in the lead for those unfamiliar. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Type of persocom

 * In the anime ...In the manga
 * This is a little confusing, but admittedly I have no background knowledge of anima or manga. Are you weaving two slightly different plot lines into one?
 * ✅ In both the manga (Book form) and anime (tv show form) the storyline is different from the overview of Chi I added in the major differences. For the anime information in this and the "Elda" section I can spin off into a separate section while deleting some of the minor "In the anime" info elsewhere in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed In the anime ...In the manga from this section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * New section complete, please add a new section here for feedback. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out when I have more time. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * but she claims that this is not the same persocom as herself
 * Reword this so it's less redundant.
 * ✅ changed to; "Hideki shows the image to Chi, but she claims that the persocom in the picture is not her". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Employment

 * In the manga series, Hideki gets aroused at the idea of Chi taking the job of a model, but controls himself and says no, thinking of a way to find Chi a job.
 * Reword the last part.
 * "Hideki gets aroused at the idea of Chi taking the job of a model, but controls himself and says no to her. He then thinks of a way to find Chi a job" this good? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Is this trying to say that she wanted him sexually, but he refused her advances, or he was aroused at the idea, but thought better for her sake? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead in says she is "completely unaware" of what the job she was looking at. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's part of why I think it might be confusing. Try to make it clear that why he had to "control himself". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "delusional" might be the right word here to use then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hideki had noticed Yumi acting strange and a seemingly string dislike for persocoms.
 * Reword this also.
 * Does "Hideki had noticed Yumi acting strangely with what seemed like a dislike for persocoms." work out? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hideki notices Yumi however, and chases after her catching up to her.
 * Some of the prose reads as ESL, which is okay, but it's difficult for me to copyedit or give suggestions when there is so much re-writing that needs to be done here.
 * I have fixed that sentence to read: "Hideki notices Yumi however, and chases after her, eventually catching up", any others that need to be done just say so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made this edit to address this. Please revert if you disagree. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ looks good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Kidnap

 * At this moment Hideki and Shinbo appear and Freya vanishes, causing Chi to collapse.
 * Why did this cause Chi to collapse?
 * ✅ Chi collapses from the energy used when Freya took over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Person Just for Me

 * Dita explains to him that for the good of all persocoms, Chi must be destroyed.
 * Why? Has this been made clear?
 * ✅ I explained the reasoning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Freya explains how she came to inhabit Chi's body ...
 * This paragraph is quite confusing. Maybe it's my lack of background knowledge, but this lost me completely.
 * There is a back-round for this story that can be found under Freya's character, I added a wiki-link. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Elda

 * Again, the manga versus anime distinctin is getting confusing. I'm just thinking out loud here, but consider if it would be better to stick to either the manga or anime storyline, then have one section that details the differences in the one no focused on. Does that make sense?
 * ✅ See "Type of persocom" for my reply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the new section, tell me what you think in a new section here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In other media
Looks okay

Reception

 * Reviews regarding Chi's character have been mostly positive, with almost all calling the main character cute
 * I assume they said more than she was "cute", so expand this if possible.
 * ✅ I omitted "with almost all calling the main character cute" as to let the reader judge for themselves rather than pointing out specific examples. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "In addition, Chi and her outfits are plain cute"[64]
 * I wouldn't mention that two reviews called her or her outfits cute unless combined into one sentence.
 * ✅ I omitted the last bit here, CLAMP would count as a primary source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * is not only clever but also very cute."
 * Now we have one general comment about her being cute and two specific. These points should be condensed or omitted as redundant.
 * I got rid of the one that seemed like an add on to the sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion
Regarding the GA criteria, I think the article is verifiable, neutral, stable, and well-illustrated, but the prose is not that great in some places. It's decent overall, and parts are pretty good, but it needs a thorough copyedit to fix some awkward constructions and what appear to be ESL issues. I made a few edits to this effect, but others are needed. I'm not sure how much time I'll have this weekend, but I'll try to contribute some more when I can. The coverage seems broad, but, because I have no background in the topic area, I might be a poor judge of that. I'm also concerned about a few sections that seem confusing, but maybe after a second reading I'll realize those issues were my own. Hope this helps. I'll keep an eye on your progress. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A minor comment by Gabriel Yuji
I don't mean to pry into 's review but I've seen it and I think the "Role in the series" is just too big. I mean, it's a 88-chapter series and has more prose than other A&M GAs. For example, Himura Kenshin has Rurouni Kenshin's 255 chapters summarized into four paragraphs and there are three paragraphs for 108 chapters of Fullmetal Alchemist in Edward Elric. You can choose any article from WP:A&M/Q and none of them are so excessively detailed. And as far as I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, WP:MOS-AM is. And it reads: "Information about the character ... should not be mistakable for a biography." "This will generally not have subsections, unless the character differs significantly enough in its various media appearances that subsections can help distinguish them." But this one has several in-universe subsections and thus seems like a biography... It's only my opinion, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is both an anime and manga version of the events regarding Chi that differ, the first bit covers the events surrounding Chi in the manga while the second half focuses more on her anime role. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made an alternate, tell me if this one looks okay. I have not added anything new but rather stitched together shorter summary for both appearances. Link: User:Knowledgekid87/Chi (Chobits). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another difference is the amount of characters in the series, for Chobits the majority of the series focuses on Chi and Hideki and the events surrounding them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it seems far better. I would need to read it carefully to give a full opinion, though. Anyway, let's await for a third opinion... if it were from someone who have read/seen the series it would be even greater. Should we ask it at WP:A&M? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, as it is I own the manga and anime here. I would love to get this article up to GA as I feel it is close (The content is there) but needs some adjustments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The relative balance, or due weight, of any given section is not a factor for GA. It certainly is for FA, but this objection isn't anything that would prevent the article's promotion to GA status. Nonetheless, if a particular section is too long, it ought to be trimmed and balanced according to the reliable source's treatment of the subject. I'll re-read the article tomorrow and follow-up with the review. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can trim off excess detail if needed. What I want was an article promoted to GA that the average reader can understand without having to go into things that would be too in universe to understand. As I said, both the anime and manga focus on Chi and Hideki, unlike the other examples where there are more characters and more in depth parallel plot lines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hm, Rationalobserver, but it has to comply with WP:WAF: "The spinout article should concisely provide details of the topic or topics covered in the work – just because the spinout article is given more space to grow does not mean that excessive plot summaries or fictional character biographies are appropriate." And it has to stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. However, we can certainly reach consensus here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:GA?, which says: "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles." Rationalobserver (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, I've just cited the criteria 1b and 3b... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't pass it for 3b and 6b. It should be a summary instead of a play by play, there are lots of trivia events noted. Lots of images don't add further depth and seem to be used as decoration. Examples of recent GA character articles (Mello, Syaoran, Kira Yamato, Alphonse Elric). DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Again a summarized version is at User:Knowledgekid87/Chi (Chobits). If I were to take any more away the reader would not understand the in universe detail. I disagree on the use of images, without them to depict Chi in the manga it just looks like a wall of text. Remember there are users who have never seen or heard about the anime/manga series or what it even is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

and – Will you please offer some contributions to the article to correct the things you disagree with? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. But as I said, I'd have to read it more carefully. Even the summarized version has problems... For the first paragraph I would only left: "When Chi is first introduced, she is found abandoned and is taken by Hideki to his apartment. She is a persocom (abbreviated from "personal computer") and at first the only word that she is able to say is "chi"—and Hideki names her after it." Maybe I'd left too: "She is initially fearful that Hideki will discard her because of this, but he reassures her that he would never throw her away". Although, it's not the appropriate guideline,WP:FILMCOPY is helpful. Is it necessary to know that she was found in "a pile of trash as [Hideki] makes his way home from work"? "in a very unusual place"? "moral objections"? Remember that "The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience—it's to explain the story." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're quoting an essay, but the GAC state: "Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria; at the time of assessment, they may or may not meet featured article criteria." Rationalobserver (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The trash bit goes along with how she got there, that is explained later in the article. The very unusual place goes along with the theme of the series which is loving someone for them and the sex bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know... can you be a litlle less narrow-minded with the criteria? I've opened this discussion as separate topic exactly to do enter in conflict with the main GA review. However, you should remind that WAF is criteria, and I've already cited it. Now, we're trying to discuss another point... (And to your consideration the essay is directly cited from WAF...) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rational if it is a huge concern you can look at the shortened summary I stitched together under my user-page, the spelling for the most part should remain intact and I added very little. I would say WP:OTHERSTUFF as every article and series is different and unless you have knowledge on some of these series you would not understand them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not a big problem with the verson from your userpage. It's far better. But why don't you add it to mainspace? There are only minor problems that we can handle later... The final decision is on Rationalobserver's hand, anyway. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And how her history can be way too longer than the series's plot? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Chobits hasn't been touched. I will work on this more tomorrow, I need a break. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is how I would summarize a chunk of the article from what I've read here. With this, I'm out of here. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with that summary is that it is inaccurate mainly on two points, the thing isn't a "time bomb". Further, Chi and Freya don't have synthetic intelligence as explained. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Replaced Synthetic Int noun. As for the metaphorical time bomb, it was better than saying "program that will activate at some unspecified time". This was what I've understood from the article. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 19:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I saw the request on the Wikiproject Anime page, and I agree that the current plot is a smidge too long. I think Knowledgekid87's work trimming down the plot should definitely be recognized as an excellent step in the right direction. :) Personally, I tend to lean more in favor of short summaries, so I like DragonZero's summary, in that it puts the events of the manga in a clear fashion, with a few additions:
 * I prefer substituting "program which will activate at an unspecified time" for "timebomb", because "timebomb" makes me think quite literally of a bomb. :(
 * The rings are not contraband, but more symbolic of Chi becoming more "human-like" from what I remember.
 * I would substitute "humane" with "human-like". Chi's never portrayed as cruel or inhumane, but rather incredibly naive. Maybe "At first, Chi's behavior is naive and child-like, and she has difficulties in communicating with Hideki; however, she gradually becomes accustomed to daily life with him."
 * I would substitute "lifeless doll" with something else. Again she's incredibly naive and unaccustomed to the world, not "lifeless".
 * I would add the extremely unusual location (in the fictional world) of Chi's reset switch and "Hideki states that he loves Chi regardless of the fact that he can never engage in sexual intercourse with her without rebooting her systems, erasing everything that makes her a unique individual." (from the current version) Both are major plot points, and the second was more specifically the requirement for deactivating the program, as Ichiro wanted someone to love Chi for herself and not her body. (As I remember).
 * Not related to the summary, but you may find this ANN review useful in that it discusses Chi and her relationship with Hideki in detail.
 * And that's my lengthy opinion. I hope it helps. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It helps but with all the comments I feel that this will not pass even if I do improve upon it, right now it looks to be in an "Unstable" state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it seems unstable. And as Rapunzel said, it's on the right direction. You have a week and many people trying to help. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wil cut down the summery size then later today, I want to preserve some references so it is not WP:OR. I agree there are some excess things that can be trimmed but the summary above by Dragon still isn't 100% accurate on what happens in the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cut down the summary more, four paragraphs explain her role in the anime and in the manga. These are two different pieces of media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If Dragon's version is not 100% accurate why can't you take it and make corrections/additions so that it will be completely correct? Rapunzel (who apparently know the series) agreed though added a few additions. Can't you try to find a common point between yours, Dragon's and Rapunzel's perspective. Maybe (I've seen his edits) is interested on helping? Ultimately if you can't agree with a 3 or 4 paragraphs version, can you at least merge Elda with the main appearances section? Chi and Elda are the same "person" right? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried, I have tweaked with it and looked at the end result. The result is that the article is unbalanced, we have a lead the size of the summary of Chi with the top and bottom halves, I also have the references present. I will continue to work with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cut the article almost in half size wise, does it look any better? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is!! It's just that I don't know the series so I can't say if anything is that important to be removed. But while Rapunzel agreed with Dragon's version, you don't. So we'll probably need a third person who is versed on the series... Maybe it be Angus? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rapunzel agreed with Dragon's version but added corrections. Even with the corrections things such as "In order to stop the program time bomb, Chi and Freya allow Chitose Hibiya to deactivate them" that wasn't the cause, the cause was Freya telling Chitose that they were "failed experiments" which if placed in has to be explained. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that the information given summarizes all of the key points without going into un-needed detail (Given the current version if you see anything else let me know), in order to explain one thing you need to explain it with another. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the anime, so I don't know what happened there, but I don't remember Chi and Freya being called failed experiments in the manga. I was under the impression that the summary was for the manga. Oops. I' d also like to add that while I prefer shorter summaries, I don't want to force my preferences on others. (Reflecting on it, I can see how Dragon's summary might be seen as very bare boned. Actually, I would be very happy with a plot summary a bit more fleshed out that Dragon's, but not so much that it's basically a play-by-play.) I think Chi's prior life (?) as Elda is worth noting as well in the plot. Reading about a backstory in the concept section, where I associate "real-world" things is a bit jarring. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will look at it later today, wow this section is getting long, goodnight everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well after placing the plot info from the concept section into the manga section I hope the final result is to everyone's liking as a compermise, it isn't "bare boned" but isn't a play by play either. Since starting this review I have cut the article's size almost in half and took out a-lot of excess detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think everyone here is doing a great job of collaborating! I'll take a closer look this coming Friday. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay and thanks! =) I am happy with the result and that so many offered to help here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone that helped to keep a harmonious discussion here and improved the article! From Knowledgekid87's perspective, I may be [or not, and I'm just assuming it wrong] the one who started a long/complicated/dull discussion that delayed the GA and make it a bit harder... However, don't take it wrong, I was only hoping the best and trying to make it closer to the WAF criteria. Anyway, I think we reached a middle ground and it's all over now. We have just to wait Rationalobserver re-read it and hopefully for a new GA in under A&M. Greetings, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Second image doesn't satisfy "8: Contextual significance" in NFCC. Its reasoning is to show the character, which already has a picture in the infobox, so that violates 3a. Basically "Why is the use of this piece of non-free content essential to the reader's understanding of the article?". Looking back at the GA, it doesn't look like an image review was done. Aside from that, the summary is still going play by play at the ending and there is still an excess. Then it also brings into the question why revelations are being revealed by chapter/episode chronological order instead history order, since it's a character's biography and not an plot summary of an article or a chapter/episode list. While the summary part could still be passed by a GA reviewer's discretion, the image review should not. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Chi is depicted in two different types of media so there will be variations of her appearance due to copyright reasons. One of the bigger differences for example is In the manga her hair color is silver/white and not blonde (depicted in the anime). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Close – passed
There has been lots of improvement here this week. I applaud the editors for working together here to bring this article up to where it needs to be. I re-read the article this morning, and aside from some moderately jarring language it looks pretty good to me. Overall it's well-written, verifiable, neutral and relatively stable, in that no edit wars are occurring. I agree that the second image probably needs work, so I'm going to remove it until the use rational is improved. I recommend a peer review before bring this to FAC, but in the meantime I'm passing this GAN! Congrats! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thank you everyone for your input. I don't think im going to try to go for FA, at least not yet as there is only so much out of universe information about Chi out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)