Talk:Giant Robo: The Day the Earth Stood Still/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Fails WP:MOS-AM; Infobox is in bad shape and needs cleanup; not following infobox instructions: missing flag/country, should just have first & last release dates, not one per episode, licensors is a mess, etc. Lead has inappropirate name dropping and is confusing in that it says it is based on the manga of the same title, yet link leads to disambig page. Presuming it means Giant Robo: The Day the Earth Burned. If this is based on a manga, why are they separate articles? Seeing no significant differences and should be a single article per the MoS. The plot is too short and only gives a teaser with mild interprative statements. Needs to be a proper plot summary of the main points of the entire work. Characters could easily be merged into plot. Production is a confusing mix of production and media information. Releases and adaptations belong in media. Design should be part of production. Themes should be under plot. Media section is malformed, missing manga info, OVA release info, and video games/audio should be actual sections not just bolded text. WP:LEAD is not a good summary of the article, but a mix of minor summary and unsourced new info. I think it goes without saying, it also needs a serious copy editing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some unsourced statements in most sections. As this includes the thematic sections, by nature this means WP:OR as discerning themes require interpreting the plot. The fansview links are dead (and what made it RS?). Source #33 is not a source, but a comment that needs a source. homemademech.com is not a reliable source. WHat makes mahq.net a reliable source? kungfucinema.com is a dead link. Anime Jump is not a reliable source. What makes animeacademy.com a reliable source?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Production info is all over the place, while reception section is extremely sparse. Also, again, missing info on the manga, and apparently two other adaptations GR: Giant Robo and Giant Robo (tokusatsu).
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Extreme failure of WP:NONFREE with four unnecessary non-free images and an inappropirate use of non-free music. File:Giant Robo - The Animation.jpg could use a better FUR.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article massively fails the GA criteria. It will need a massive overhaul to retain its GA status, which I strongly suspect will not be doable within a week. Some merging is needed, probably a rename to match the full name, and a lot of MoS and sourcing fixes. Expanding the reception will likely be the most difficult due to age. That said, this GAR will remain open until June 15, 2009 to give it a chance. I'll have this page and the article on my watchlist for the duration so please leave any comments/questions below (not above). Good luck! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article massively fails the GA criteria. It will need a massive overhaul to retain its GA status, which I strongly suspect will not be doable within a week. Some merging is needed, probably a rename to match the full name, and a lot of MoS and sourcing fixes. Expanding the reception will likely be the most difficult due to age. That said, this GAR will remain open until June 15, 2009 to give it a chance. I'll have this page and the article on my watchlist for the duration so please leave any comments/questions below (not above). Good luck! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no response to the GAR at all, and not a single edit made to the article, it has been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)