Talk:Jump Square/GA2

GAR - June 3, 2008
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jump Square/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 June 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:


 * Editors who nominated, I believe this article was improperly delisted and you should take the issue to the reassessment page--Finalnight (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was improperly listed, not improperly delisted. An article passed when it shouldn't have can (and should) be quickly delisted. You were wrong to pass and article with so many blatant and glaring issues, which another reviewer had already pointed out. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was my opinion that the issues were sufficiently improved upon after the hold was placed that it passed GA criteria. But I guess I was "beyond wrong", whatever that means.--Finalnight (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issues were not fixed. "Large sections of the article are completely unsourced, including most of the "History" section, the entire "JC SQ. Comics" section, all of the prose sections in "List of serialized manga series", etc etc" that is a HUGE no to a GA listing. I've also pointed out other issues in my review that you claimed were passes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I leave it up to the original nominators/editors to decide where they want to go from here with it.--Finalnight (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this article was and is a hopeless mess. We've made some improvements, but I can't begin to imagine how you look at this thing and think it's good. The prose is largely impossible to understand, and the entire article is heavily focused on indescriminate and irrelevant detail at the expensive of the information that should be there. The sweeping changes we've made have helped get it to a place where we can begin working on it, but this isn't even a B class article. Doceirias (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Man you guys, at least try not to insult me... –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're criticizing the article, not insulting you. We respect the work you've done, even when it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good! thanks, you guys really are great. : ) –  「ＪＵＭＰ ＧＵＲＵ」 @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)