Talk:Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl/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) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Some of the references are not using the proper titles of their sources, particularly the foreign language sources. These should use the actual titles, not "official list of X".
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In the "Anime" section, "The anime follows close to the manga for the first nine episodes. In episode ten, it starts to deviate from the manga and after that, the storyline in the anime has no connection with the manga. The series contains some suggestive references and some mild fan service that was not present in the original manga." needs a citation (citing to the episode alone is not enough as the statement is comparing the two media). References 6 & 7 are incomplete (and malformed; I believe citation is not supposed to be mixed with the individual citation templates, so refs 6 & 7 should be changed to cite journal).template fixed, but still incomplete references; missing title, pages, etc; just citing the magazine itself seems like it might not meet citation requirements - insure if should considered this fixed or not
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * From the "Anime" section, this line "The anime's tagline was: Even though I became a girl, I still love her (女の子になっても、僕は彼女が好きです, Onna no ko ni natte mo, boku wa kanojo ga suki desu?)." is really unnecessary. Taglines aren't included in film, television, etc articles unless they are notable, and nothing that follows this shows it as being notable either. DItto the taglines in the visual novel section.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few quick minor fixes and this one can be kept with no problems. Thanks for tackling most of the problems before I arrived! On hold for seven days, but if any of its contributors are around today, I suspect this one can be finished by the end of the day. :) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few quick minor fixes and this one can be kept with no problems. Thanks for tackling most of the problems before I arrived! On hold for seven days, but if any of its contributors are around today, I suspect this one can be finished by the end of the day. :) --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Those are pretty quick fixes. Because of the holiday weekend here in the States, I won't be able to work on these until Monday, if they aren't gotten to before then.
 * @Juhachi, KrebMarkt: Do either of you know of reviews that specifically address the divergence of anime and manga storylines? I don't, off the top of my head, but I haven't read through them for a bit. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Quasirandom: The anime is not licensed in France so you won't get a comparison from there and the Mania review from a quick re-read don't mention divergence. We must look elsewhere, Juhachi ? --KrebMarkt 17:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to remove it until a cite can be found.--  十  八  00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @KrebMarkt: Oops -- hadn't noticed that. Right -- time to dig up the ANN reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite issue
I have to disagree on using the original, Japanese titles for the website cites. Writing these titles in Japanese isn't going to help anyone, and besides, we should use English since it's on the English Wikipedia. Plus, there's nothing in the MOS that says we have to use the original website titles in the ref cites. Specifically, cite web just states Title of online item under the Title parameter, and that says nothing about whether it should be the "proper" title or not; just that a title needs to be given. In any case, this is the first time anyone has ever brought it up, so I don't think it's something that should detract from this retaining its GA status. The rest of the stuff addressed was dealt with.--  十  八  00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A pretty convincing argument can be made from precedent (i.e., how all our FA/FL articles do it) that the actual page/post title needs to be used. I have seen in a few articles putting the title translation in parentheses after the Japanese title, much like we do (the required) translation for a quote= in a foreign language. Unfortunately, you can't put nihongo in the title= parameter, as this borks the citation templates. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So which policy talk page should this question be brought up -- WT:CITE? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may disagree, but as Quasirandom has already noted, it will get pinged on as a referencing error and the article would never pass FA if you are not using valid titles. Its also been pinged on in other GA reviews.And yes, the template does say "Title of online item" - not "Title of online item, translated into English if using a foreign source". That is why the template has a "trans_title" option, to provide an English translation of a foreign title. Look at the examples. In ALL of them, the actual title is used, not a "cleaned up" one. And in the foreign language example, the original language title is used for the title field and using the "trans_title" option to provide an English translation. So yes, it is something that will detract from the article retaining its GA status as it is not exemplifying best practices. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When did they add trans_title? Never noticed that before. In any case, its existence would be a definitive indication that the intention is to have the original title in title=. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it was added with the switch to using that citation core thing. Before, you just did the original foreign language without a translation. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned in our MoS. I don't want to think of the number of Japanese volume release date & ISBN references that will need to be fixed. --KrebMarkt 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Or in WP:MOS-JP, since that supersedes ours and deals with the mechanics of using the language. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd hope not that many. I'd like to think that most of our editors were already using the original titles in the refs. At least, I haven't seen it as a repeated issues when doing PRs, FLCs, and working with most articles that are in the B classes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that should be it for the ref titles.--  十  八  22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur -- between us, I think we've got them all. @AnmaFinotera: Anything else? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Why do we use archives for the manga Japanese release ? Refs are available with ASCII Media Works I did not do article edit with those refs because i am unsure if keeping old refs with archives was a deliberate choice. --KrebMarkt 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at the time I thought it was a good idea, though I can't remember if that was before or after MW became ASCIIMW. I guess I'll update it.--  十  八  11:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs 6 & 7
There is little hope that things like page no. and title are going to be filled in to these two cites. First of all, I doubt anyone has the copies of these issues to confirm the actual pages the chapters were on, and second, what would you even put in the title field? The chapter title itself? In any case, there is an old archived page of when MediaWorks announced the manga's serialization, but there's no archive for the last issue it appear in, the May 2007 issue. Interestingly enough, the archived page even says this series was started in commemoration of Dengeki Daiohs 10-year anniversary; I hadn't known that before.--  十  八 ' 05:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I've cited serialization to the magazine, I usually put the series title as the title, with chapter name/number if it was given. The core problem though, is from your statement, no one seems to actually be able to confirm those are the right issues of serialization? (which would explain the lack of volume/issue as well :. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I replaced the 6th ref with the archived page I supplied above, which should be sufficient. The second ref does indeed have an issue field, and I supplied a title field of the series' name. Otherwise, I guess I could cite the original 5th manga volume, as Japanese releases tend to have the serialization dates included in their volumes from what I've found. Would a cite of the 5th volume be sufficient?--  十  八  05:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think issue doesn't show up if there is no volume (bug in the template, IMHO, but they say that's how its supposed to work). If you added a backup cite from the fifth volume, I think that would be enough to satisfy GA requirements. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see the "May 2007" in the ref, and that's under the issue parameter. But okay, I replaced the ref.--  十  八  19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for not looking close enough, I just presumed that was in the month/year parameters :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Per above, this article has retained its good article status! Thank you all for the hard work and helping keep this one at GA level! :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)