Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist/GA2

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

This seems to fail several criteria. First of all, it's ostensibly an article on the manga. The lead makes this very clear. However, the article, in fact, appears to attempt to cover everything even remotely connected with Full Metal Alchemist. It does a very poor job at the first animé series, where the point, as I understand it, was to create a different take on the idea; indeed, I pity the person who wants to use Wikipedia to learn about the first anime series, and who, not only won't have any indication the anime series is covered in the article, but won't have the first half of the anime covered beyond "this roughly follows the plot of the manga up to this point..."

There's a reason Wikipedia generally has different articles for books and films. It avoids borderline original research/synthesis attempts to mash two plots together.

I think this fails the following GA criteria:


 * Point 1b requires the article to follow WP:LEAD. This utterly fails WP:LEAD, as the lead doesn't summarise the article in the slightest, instead acting as if it's the lead to an article on the manga alone.
 * Point 2. This has a tag. I'll let the borderline original research issues raised above pass for now.
 * Point 3: This somehow fails both sides: It fails to address major aspects of the broader topic it sets itsself outside the lead, but fails to remain focused on its ostensible topic as well.

I don't see how this can be a GA. This article is a mess. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. Can you be more specific about the lead? DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead is meant to summarise the article. This doesn't do that, it instead serves as an introduction to the manga alone, when the article is more general. I'm also not entirely sure everything in the lead appears later, thus meaning it may require citations.
 * Quite simply, the lead is, if anything, actively misleading as to the article contents. Over half the article is about other Full Metal Alchemist media, but the lead gives no hint of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sections need to be entirely re-written to be useful to readers, a single sentence about the plot of the first anime is wholly insufficent and doesn't meet the broad scope for a GA. Brotherhood (the second series) is also vague, the manga itself is the main focus of this page despite the anime being more well received and notable. Either way this will lead to the organizational dispute. Salvaging this or will be difficult if not impossible without splitting off the contents to their own pages per WP:SS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, there's more than a sentence on the plot of the first anime - it gets a paragraph at the end of the plot summary. Perhaps you meant the second anime? There is a lot missing, though. That said, whilst checking this, I note that OVAs are mentioned as existing, but not discussed as to content and plot, although, admittedly, not all OVAs will have a plot. It seems like they should be discussed, at least a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The plots of the OVAs are where they belong, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. There's no need to add in unnecessary plot summary to this article when a sufficient summary is found on the list article. The same goes for any additional plot from the two anime series; that is partially what the episode lists are for.--  十  八  20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to comment that the article should be weighed against WP:WIAGA and assessed accordingly. If nothing else, if the issue with the lead is dealt with, as outlined in criterion 1(b), and the issue with referencing is dealt with as outlined in criterion 2, then I assume the only other issue would be criterion 3, since criteria 4-6 do not appear to have been called into question. If the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", I don't see why this shouldn't be a GA.
 * The way I see the article now, it certainly does both. The main aspects of the topic deal with its plot, production, different media types, and reception, and it discusses the different media versions without going into unnecessary detail, nor should it. Are there main aspects of the topic that are not currently addressed? WP:SS is already in effect with the various branch articles linked in the plot and media sections so that the topic stays focused. Furthermore, a concise plot summary is used, and a brief overview of its differences with the first anime adaptation is offered, while a more detailed plot summary is already found in the chapter and episode lists; WP:WAF and WP:PLOTSUM would seem to apply.--  十  八  05:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point 3 is a big one. I can't see how it merits either basic comprehensiveness with its wider scope, or focus on the manga. It's not a very good overview article, and leaves out key things I'd expect, such as analysis. I also worry that by glossing over differences in the animé, it may actively mislead as to the anime's plot. Further, the List of episodes is terrible way to present plot, and - as it lacks any other information about the animé, probably violates WP:NOTPLOT Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Episode lists have been used across Wikipedia for ages, and it's standard to give each episode a short summary. And as a list of episodes, obviously the main scope of such an article would be the episode list. To say the episode lists lack any other information is pretty disingenuous when they also include all of the information in their leads about the anime and their airing. An episode list isn't supposed to go into excessive details relating to the production of a series anyway, since it's a list, not a normal article. I would also like to add that much of the series analysis in this article is currently in its reception section.
 * Furthermore, I don't see how the article is "glossing over differences in the anime" as it's meant to only be a brief summary. WP:CMOS, WP:NOVSTY and WP:TVPLOT recommend writing brief summaries that cover the major events without going into unnecessary detail. Like I said, a more detailed summary is also available on the chapter and episode lists, so beefing up this article's plot section would go against CMOS, NOVSTY and TVPLOT regarding concise plot summaries.--  十  八  08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the lead, could you review it again and specify points. It's the lead style I've used for all my articles including Tales of Symphonia, Tales of Graces, and Case Closed. If there is a problem with it, could you show how it is related in Symphonia? DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It mentions some adaptations, but it's still highly misleading about the article's content. That needs to be clear from the first sentence. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's standard to introduce a topic based on what it was originally, so it would go against standard convention to introduce the topic with anything other than "Fullmetal Alchemist is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Hiromu Arakawa." This has been a standard on Wikipedia for as long as I've been here, and examples of which can be found in featured articles. For example, The Adventures of Tintin has an extensive adaptations section, but it still introduces the topic as "a series of comic albums".--  十  八  08:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Adventures of Tintin has a brief summary of the adaptations, linking to articles on the adaptations. It doesn't attempt to replace articles on the adaptations. This article has as roughly as much on the anime as it does on the manga. If the anime material was spun out, and the anime was briefly discussed here, that would be quite a different thing, but when this article is apparently meant to serve as the article on both the manga and the anime, that won't fly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs for each anime in the media section is what I would call a brief summary. WP:SS encourages you to write a brief summary, while more details are spun out into other articles, which is already what this article does with the various list articles. If this article covered more details related to the production of the anime, I might agree, but as of now, I believe you're splitting hairs. The article stays focused on the manga, and offers a summary of its adaptations; how is that in violation of the third criterion in the GA criteria? Criterion 3(a) even has a caveat that states, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." This article essentially has a focus on the manga, while also providing an overview of the broader topic in relation to its adaptations. Furthermore, criterion 3(b) says to not go into "unnecessary detail", which I do not believe this article does. The sections on the anime detail, briefly, who produced them, when they aired in Japan and North America, and also their media releases on DVD and BD. The section on the films is even smaller, and the only other sections that are larger are the two on CDs and video games, both of which do not go into "unnecessary detail" i.e. the films nor the video games go into specific detail relating to their production and/or development. If you end up failing the article because of that, be prepared to defend your side at a community reassessment. I do not believe you are accurately applying the GA criteria.--  十  八  22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You realise there's a second, much larger section on the reception of the anime, right? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, this is meant to have a focus on the manga, but also acts an a general overview for the series. And I wouldn't call one more paragraph than what the manga's reception section has as "much larger" by any stretch of the imagination. If the manga had like a sentence or two of reception, and the rest of the section was on the anime, I might agree, but again, I believe you're splitting hairs and are intentionally trying to find fault in this article when there is none, at least when it comes to the GA criteria.--  十  八  07:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument hinged on there being very little on the anime. "Two paragraphs for each anime in the media section is what I would call a brief summary."
 * But, let's ignore that. You say that the article is meant to focus on the manga, but also provide an overview for the series. It doesn't focus on the manga. And that's the primary problem with this article: It doesn't know what it wants to be. It has the lead of an article that focuses on the manga, and the body of a mediocre overview article, which lacks appropriate spinoff articles. If the article actually focused on the manga, and all but a brief summary of the anime stuff was spun off to its own article, it would be a far better article.
 * Alternatively, the lead could be rewritten to be about the Fullmetal Alchemist franchise, and the manga and anime both given their own articles, thus getting it down to a trim overview.
 * But, as it is now, a user looking for material on the animé won't even realise we have an article on the animé, because the lead actively misleads. And should the reader realise there is material on the animé, there are three different sections on the animé, and none of them are anywhere near each other. That sort of basic failure of organization is a clear failure of WP:WIAGA criterion 1, as it could never be considered well-written. A similar issue, on a small scale, exists for the light novels, which are seperated over two sections, though this is somewhat more forgiveable as the coverage of them is summarised far more - that's not to say that their spinoff article is any good, it both lacks any depth and is terribly written: The plot summary for "Fullmetal Alchemist: The Land of Sand" is rambling as anything, for example. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other issues with writing. For example, the section "Anime reception" is very unclear which anime it's talking about most of the time. There are two very different anime, clarity is necessary. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

❌

The more I look into this, the worse it looks. Here's a summary of the issues:

The organization of this article is a mess. WP:LEAD is ignored completely; the lead does not reflect the article's content in the least; noone would ever expect that this was the only article on Wikipedia where the first anime's reception was covered, for example (And, whilst GA may not look at the overall structure of groups of articles, suffice to say: the article tree around Fullmetal Alchemist is appalling; instead of actually attempting to discuss any spinoff, it's just bad, half-hearted lists of incomplete plot summaries.) Trying to follow any thread in this article is made very difficult due to poor structure. For example, discussion of the animé takes place over four different sections ("Differences in the first anime adaptation", "Production", "Anime series", "Anime reception", and, particularly in "Anime reception", does a terrible job specifying which animé is being discussed. If the article is meant to be on the manga, all but a paragraph or two on the animé should be spun off to Fullmetal Alchemist (anime); and that article should have a for template at the top directing people to the article on the second anime. It is insane to try to cover the anime in full in the article on the manga. Alternatively, if an overview article is preferred, both the manga and anime should be spun off, and this article trimmed down into a concise overview. As it is, the structure is terrible, it's confusing, and nowhere near GA level.
 * Criterion 1, Well-written:

More simply, it's just not very well-written. Impenetratble sentences like "As the plot continued, however, she felt some characters were maturing and decided to change some scenes, resulting in some sketches of the faces of the characters being improvised." or weird sentence structures such as "as commented by Viz to avoid references to Christianity." abound. A complete copyedit is necessary.

It has a citation needed tag; there seems to be no rush to fix this. I'm also not entirely convinced every sentence in the lead appears later, but it's hard to be sure on that.
 * Criterion 2, Verifiability:

Going more in-depth, several references are to the various branches of Amazon.com, and one is to this page on About.com, which is, at the very least, a dubious source.

Finally, the plot summary section seems dubious from the view of original research, since it makes statements about the anime following the manga up to a certain point, then diverging, which seems like it should need a citation.

If this is meant to be an article on the manga, this is not a very good article on the manga. One would expect to find at least a bit of critical analysis in a good article on the manga, a bit of discussion of themes, and so on. Perhaps it would seem a bit more in depth if it didn't have all the other material in.
 * Criterion 3a, It addresses the main points of the topic:

If this is meant to be an overview article, it fails to present itself as such. The lead fails to set up the structure of the article, so, while main points may be there, they aren't particularly accessible by users.

WP:SS is in the GA criteria, so let's review against. It fails to use appropriate spinoff articles, instead somehow making horribly inappropriate subarticles: A list of episodes of the anime is not a substitute for an article on the anime when it means you have to leave lengthy reception section on the anime, amongst others, standing completely inappropriately in the manga article. A sane spinoff would let you move most of the anime discussion to the article on the anime, giving a good, tight overview article on the manga.
 * Criterion 3b, it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).:

This article fails far too comprehensively to be fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised it hasn't been a week or I wasn't even told about it. Furthermore, the discussion hasn't even reached an agreement.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did post about this on the relevant Wikiproject; I apologise if I missed a major contributor.
 * As I understand it, if the GAN is unlikely to finish in a week, it's considered better to fail it, and let it be renominated after the problems are fixed. This isn't meant to stop discussion, I just don't think that this can be brought into agreement within any reasonable timescale.
 * I am, of course, quite willing to be proven wrong - I recently reverted a failure of a GA, because, whilst the problems seemed like they would take quite some time, quick and very good work by the nominator surprised me by fixing it. However, little relevant editing is happening. The lead is shorter and tighter, but it's still a lead for a fundamentally different article. And that's the only change that has been made. I don't think the Citation Needed tag is particularly hard to fix if you have any resources, but it's not been fixed. And I got the strong feeling that noone was even interested in discussing solutions to the Criterion 3 problems, instead denying there were any. (I do think there are solutions, but they need people willing to put in some work to either turn this into a franchise article, or to tighten it up to focus on the manga, moving material as needed to subarticles (probably reworkings of the existing subarticles, renamed to reflect a more appropriate scope. For example, there's no reason why the list of episodes of the anime couldn't have the anime production, reception and such moved to it, an introduction added, the plot summaries tweaked to tell the story a bit more coherently - and then be renamed to Fullmetal Alchemist (first anime). This would let this article become a lot tighter and focused, since it wouldn't need to cover everything about the anime; it could just briefly touch on relevant parts). But I don't get the impression that any will exists to even try. Further, the more I dig, the more problems I find. I checked the references, and found highly questionable sources (Amazon). I reread the sentences, and find several that are highly unclear, etc, etc, etc. This article appears to be very far from GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

From the very beginning this GA re-assessment is a waste of time because what you wanted from the start is a discussion whatever to spin-out or not anime adaptations related articles. Personally, i don't care the result of a such discussion as consensus change or evolve. What i find back-handed is using this GA re-assessment as a proxy to criticize how are done or used to be done in wp:anime which echo the discussion in WP:VPP. I very willing to handling the keys of wp:anime to those who know better and can do better but be warned wp:anime is very much like a two fronts trench warfare being caught between those who think anime/manga is crap generator in Wikipedia (even unworthy of mainpage) and extreme fans whose logic can be summarized to "more article = better coverage". --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would help if the reviewer were more clear with his criticism rather than just generalizing. The fact that the anime's reception is bigger than the manga's makes a lot of sense once you realize there are two animes and only one manga. In fact, thanks to my previous contributions to the project I understood we write more about anime reception than manga reception because anime reviews focus on many things (presentation, animation, design, plot, voice acting, dub vs original cast, music, etc) while manga reviews aren't that big (art, organization, plot). Maybe it would be better asking for a third opinion because I don't know what to edit based on what the reviewer says and it some things are against common guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm presuming everyone's seen the community reassessment, Good_article_reassessment/Fullmetal_Alchemist/1, by now. I don't intend to fight on two fronts, so will be responding to commentary there. Since there's general agreement there this doesn't rise to the standards of a GA, however... Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)