Talk:Jump Square/GA1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jump Square/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for good article status. Feel free to leave any critiques here.--Finalnight (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I've made up a list of things to do:
 * Thank you for your help Finalnight. I need to finish up a few lists like the "Explosive series" list of one-shots. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Finish the list of fan art.
 * Add the Japanese text for Dr. Haido's Experiment Note.
 * Add the Japanese names for the last few Jump SQ.II (Second) one-shots.
 * Add the Japanese text for SQ.II's one-shot manga-ka.
 * Add more references.
 * Ummm.... add more references!
 * Scan pictures of the issues for the issue list.
 * Add a few more references.
 * Change the name of this article to "Jump SQ." instead of "Jump Square".
 * References!!
 * Get a ton of references, and make this article a GA rating!!
 * Scan a photo of Jump SQ.II (Second) and post it by it's category.

Have any comments?.... besides overflowing the page with references?! –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC) I actually don't see anything else we can do, I'm thinking really hard. Do you have ny ideas? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion 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 May 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: fail
 * 2. Factually accurate?: pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: pass
 * 5. Article stability? pass
 * 6. Images?: fail

The list sections towards the end need to be made more readable or reduced. Also, some lists such as the issues list, should be removed or moved to a separate article to reduce article length and clutter. Some more pictures should be added as well.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.--Finalnight (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned regarding Finalnight's review above and disagree with some of their assertions. First, images are not a requirement for GA-status, but the one image that is included does have a fair use rationale, so it does not fail criteria #6.  There are a multitude of other issues with this article, however.  The main problem I see with this article is its poor prose and incorrect formatting.  None of the refs are formatted properly (per WP:CITE), and although non-English references are acceptable if no English ones exist, I doubt that some of the websites provided verify WP:V.  I suggest using citation templates to correctly format the refs, as well.  I see that the lead section does not adhere to WP:LEAD in that it is not a summary of the entire article, the trivia section goes against WP:TRIVIA, there are far too many lists and not enough prose, several small, random sections that provide little context, external links are used in places instead of citations, most of the "History" section is unreferenced... and so on.  Where's the critical reception information, for example?  How well does it sell?  What is with the "News" section?  It's not in English, so I have no idea what it's referring to.  Etc, etc.


 * In short, I don't think this article is even close to GA-class; I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn for now so further work can be completed. Honestly, a large amount of work needs to be done in order for it to pass.  If you have any questions, let me know.  María ( habla  con migo ) 18:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is helping me, do you know how stressfull this is?! I want to get it a GA-review... but not by myself! I thought you were going to help me too, but you're putting all this pressure on me in 7 days? It's not fair at all! –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know how stressful nominating articles for GAC can be. The 7-day holding period is common and is usually more than enough time for main contributors to improve the article; however, if more time is needed, reviewers typically extend it.  I personally know nothing of the subject matter and am therefore not qualified to help write this article, but if you need assistance, perhaps you can ask at WikiProject Anime and manga and/or WikiProject Comics, two projects that this article falls under.  Don't stress out about it; if the article does not pass, there's always next time. María ( habla  con migo ) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I literally felt sick to my stomach *.*, I though I was going to go crazy... Anyone please, help.... –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I am gald that the image thing is fine. My computer doesn't work with downloading images. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other concerns, however. As I stated in my comment above, criteria 1, 2, and 3 have not been met and should be addressed sufficiently in order for the article to pass.  I believe that the previous reviewer was hasty and did not take into account the article's brevity on important aspects of the subject matter as well as its sub par prose/formatting and lack of reliable sourcing.  Again, a lot of work is needed.  María ( habla  con migo ) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from the project - I'd say the biggest problem with the article, as I think I mentioned a few months ago, is that it fails to distinguish between valuable information and non-notable trivia. Just to start with, kill the trivia section and the list of fanart completely. Neither of these has any business being here. The contest winners section is also dubious; most winners of these contests do not go on to become notable. If an artist becomes successful, the fact that they won a contest like this is notable; but the detailed results of every round are not. As a list of practical things to do
 * Figure out which sections are vital, and which are not
 * Delete the non-notable sections
 * Expand the leads for the vital sections to explain why those sections are notable
 * In general, turn it into an article rather than an indiscriminate collection of every fact available to you. Doceirias (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify one point - when describing the contents of the magazine, discussing the fanart section is certainly a good idea; but including the list of artists is not. Doceirias (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for joining in Doceirias! –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I erased all that stuff you just said needed to be deleted Doceirias. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't limited to seven days, that is just the default starting time period, I actually held off reviewing it for 3 weeks after you nominated if you remember.--Finalnight (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ...sorry, Finalnight... I feel like a jerk. I didn't know that GA reviewer can't help on the article... –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think the commercials list/section should be cut down or removed, it doesn't add much to the article in substance.--Finalnight (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of deletes
Anyone who has something on the page that should be corrected or deleted list below: (–  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Like I mentioned earlier (maybe you missed it?) it is worth mentioning some of the sections you've already deleted - just not including the list. The fact that there is a fanart section in every issue is worth mentioning; the list of artists is not.
 * Likewise, all the descriptions you have here are worth keeping, but several of the lists you have after them are probably not.


 * First, a quick structure point - having the list of titles in Sq II separated from the actual description of the magazine is a big confusing. I'm also not sure how there are series in what I thought was an Akamaru Jump style one off deal. (Really no clue here, so the description probably needs to actually explain things better.)
 * This whole thing on the series list with the diamonds and bold seems like information that would be better handled on the pages for those individual series; the diamonds, in particular, are highly irregular and seem to be mostly rather trivial information.
 * How is the series list organized? Alphabetical order, order they started, what?
 * Shosetsu - this leader is needs to explain the actual importance rather than worry about the technicalities of the naming. Needs to assume a reader isn't already familiar with the line.
 * Plays - were these at the end of 2007, or are they upcoming? I'm thinking this is one where we cover the topic but snip the list.
 * I can't parse the tameshi yomi section at all, and I know exactly what those things are. Rewrite from the perspective of someone who doesn't know what any of the things referenced are.
 * Commercials - we don't need to list these. Discussion of the commercials in general as part of a section on the magazines strong web presence - a good way to reorganize that section of the article, perhaps - is definitely worth doing. But that list will just keep expanding, and provides little useful information.
 * Same with the post card books; the existence of the books is notable, the list of postcards in each is not.
 * I'm also going to recommend killing the list of issues entirely. I don't think there's much notable information there.
 * Feeling like I'm basically recommending you gut the article, but rather than a collection of trivia, I think the article would be better off focusing on what makes this particular magazine notable, and how Shueisha is experimenting with new ways of marketing it, new ways of involving fans in the magazine, and generally trying to make the magazine itself as relevant as the tankobon. Might be hard to source, though, but this could at least be way to restructure the article, and group the difference sections. Doceirias (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, although I think the Commercials section should be a keep. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The commercials section, yeah, but what about the list of commercials has any relevance after they've been taken down? Doceirias (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? They were not taken down, they're still being made. The BEAST ATTACK one was for the sixth issue, on the pages that tell about the new issue a new Promotion Movie is on the screen. That's how it works, every new issue. If you're thinking about the Promotion Movie page, I though they took it down too.. but you can still see a link at the bottom of a pages like this:, –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I'm still not sure what useful information the list provides, however. Doceirias (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization suggestion
I've been thinking about this a bit, and feel free to pick it apart; it is a little unorthodox. With the lead adjusted to reflect this, and suggest that the web promotion/fan service aspects are unusual/notable. Make sense? Doceirias (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * History
 * List of titles
 * List of short stories
 * Web site - web serials, commercials, how they're using the internet to promote the magazine
 * Fan service - how they're engage fans, with the fanart corner, postcard books, anything like that
 * Spin-offs; Sq II
 * Sounds like a good idea, the website part is needed alot. Anyone? any more suggestions? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's put the stage plays in the fan section. What's the Jump Sq. contents section? Looks like a lost fragment.
 * Why would we put SQ. Stage in the fan section? It's made by professional Japanese actors not fans. I'm going to work on SQ. contents, that's the hardest thing for me. Most of the contents use a lot of Kanji, which I do not have on my computer nor' have Japanese to type. Do you have Japanese on your computer? Maybe you could help me, I'm going to write about all of the extra contents in Jump SQ. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd kick out the fan service, the only fan sevice I can think of is Reader's SQ and Illustration Square. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's done for fans. The idea I had was that the plays, the illustrations, the postcards, all this misc. spin off stuff is done to involve fans, to make it about more than just reading the manga. I do have Japanese, and I'd like to help, but I really don't have time; I'm working weekends right now, and basically just swinging by on breaks. That's why I've only been mentioning stuff here instead of making the changes myself. Doceirias (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I get it, for my work, I create logos for companies and stuff like that. I get the whole fan thing now. Anybody any more suggestions? –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where i'm screwed is the fact that Reader's SQ. can both be in fan service and SQ. contents. :( –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get it. I tried to find Luck Stealer & Dragonaut -The Resonance- vol. 1, but they didn't have it. –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

--Finalnight (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: