Talk:Lolicon/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as this article has been nominated for reassessment with this edit by User:Malkinann. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead does not fully summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD.
 * There are a number of isolated sentences and paragraphs throughout. Would be better consolidated.
 * The anime and manga box would be better moved to the top and the sample image lower down.
 * The article is reasonably well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Three dead links were repaired, two others remain dead and are not archived.
 * One reference is tagged as being an unreliable source.
 * There are a number of un-addressed citation needed tags.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There are two un-addressed expansion tags.
 * 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:
 * This article does not currently meet the GA criteria, I will put it on hold for seven days and contact the major contributors. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, there is serious disagreement here so I have no choice but to delist. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article does not currently meet the GA criteria, I will put it on hold for seven days and contact the major contributors. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, there is serious disagreement here so I have no choice but to delist. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've addressed all the issues other than rewriting the lead. I'll see about doing that later. I also disagree regarding the image. It works better at the top as it immediately gives an example of the topic. It's fine the way it is. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem about the image, not a GA criterion. The lead does need to fully summarise the article however. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a little with the lead. Any further suggestions on information to include there? I think I've hit all the highlights. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I note the comments by User:Timothy Perper on the talk page concerning the incomplete state of this article, which i tend to share. Would you care to comment on this? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Timothy Perper is rarely satisfied with any article unless he writes it completely by himself, and he gets upset at anyone who doesn't write things how he thinks they should be written, so I tend to discount (to some degree) his input in issues like this. Yes, this article isn't absolutely complete, but no article will ever be absolutely complete. There will always be additional information which can be used to flesh-out an article. However, I think this article sufficiently covers the topic as it is, and any additional information will basically be gravy. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 07:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Nihonjoe thinks I'm a perfectionist, but an article as out-of-date and incomplete as this one is an easy target. I do NOT want to rewrite it (as I've said before). But this article needs some work. But thanks for the back-handed compliment, Nihonjoe! Timothy Perper (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can anyone find any more information on the "Breaking The Mold" article attributed to the Sydney Morning Herald? I doubt the spelling of mould is accurate, and  http://archives.smh.com.au/ can't seem to locate any article of that title in that year.  --Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Try googling "Breaking the mould" plus "lolicon." That will give a bunch of hits that might help. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this website http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/lolicon_1/ but don't know anything more -- it's only a citation without details. If you can't find it in the Sydney Morning Herald's archives, I'd be inclined to assume somebody made a mistake. Maybe a search for the putative author "Ben Hills" would turn up something. Over to you, Malkinann. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Tim - the archival site only goes up to February 1995, but all the rest is archived here: http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/ - which has a fulltext copy of the article available. Not sure if the link will persist, but I added information to the citation so that it can be found more easily if the link expires. --Malkinann (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- but I got only a blank page when I went to the website you gave. Can you check it? Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, the main page isn't working. here's the direct link to the story, and here's the search page.  Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Lousy nuisance. #$%^&. But OK, I found it. We got the same URL: Way to go, Malkinann -- this is a good catch! But, next question -- do we need a 1995 newspaper article reference here? I have no strong opinion one way or the other. BTW, thanks for changing Frederick to Frederik for Schodt's name. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some more mistakes in spelling Schodt's first name, but TBH I'm not sure how to fix them; they're in a reflist somewhere I wasn't able to find (without doubt, ignorance on my part, so maybe someone who knows more than me can fix it). Timothy Perper (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A reference Here is a brief but academic discussion of lolicon manga:
 * Lam, Fan-Yi. 2010. Comic market: How the world's biggest amateur comic fair shaped Japanese dōjinshi culture.
 * Mechademia: An Annual Forum for Anime, Manga, and the Fan Arts, Volume 5, pp. 232-248. See section: "Lolicon Boom" pp. 236-237.
 * Timothy Perper (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence: "The use of the term "Lolita complex" in Japan began in the early 1970s with the translation of Russell Trainer's The Lolita Complex." Either remove it, or reference the main assertion about when and why the term "lolita complex" was first used in Japan. Adding a reference to Trainer won't help. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This entire paragraph:
 * Public sentiment against sexual cartoon depictions of minors was revived in 2005 when a convicted sex offender, who was arrested for the murder of a seven-year-old girl in Nara, was suspected as a lolicon.[41] Despite media speculation, it was found that the murderer, Kaoru Kobayashi, seldom had interest in manga, games or dolls.[45] He claimed, however, that he had become interested in small girls after watching an animated pornographic video as a high school student.[46] He was sentenced to death by hanging.
 * At best, trivia. What does "was suspected" mean? By whom? Were they right? I recommend removing this piece of history; it is not "encyclopedic." Timothy Perper (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Trivia" -- gruesome, but trivia. The references cited a merely one sentence assertions without details. They might or might not be true, and IMO are not reliable by themselves. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked some of my manga and anime colleagues about serious work on lolicon, and here's part of an answer from a librarian colleague.

"The two papers I can think of that may be relevant are are 'Cultural change and gender identity trends in the 1970s and 1980's' (Kimio Ito, International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 1:1, 1992), for a good introduction and historical overview, and Setsu Shigematsu's "Sex, fantasy and fetish in Japanese comics" (in John Lent's 'Themes and issues in Asian cartooning', 1999). But to the best of my knowledge, there really is nothing like a close reading or analysis of a specific lolicon text out there - at least not yet."

He then added "Zank, Dinah (2010). Kawaii vs. rorikon: The reinvention of the term Lolita in modern Japanese manga. In Comics as a Nexus of Cultures (Jefferson, NC: McFarland)."

Timothy Perper (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)