Talk:Love Hina/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Quickfail criteria

 * 1) Reliable sources: ✅
 * 2) NPOV: ✅
 * 3) Cleanup templates: ✅
 * 4) Edit wars: ✅
 * 5) Current event: N/A

Appears to pass quick fail criteria. On to the real review. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Written
✅ Prose is clear, no grammar or spelling errors detected. As far as I can tell, this is by-the-book as far as layout and style. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Factually Accurate
I had a slight problem here:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; --The plot section appears to be entirely unreferenced.  Though I could speculate that it was taken from the source work, there's nothing here that explains where the information came from.
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and  --Almost everything else is referenced, so I would presume that it was left unreferenced on purpose
 * (c) it contains no original research. --Doesn't appear to have any OR

Placing on hold -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ I placed this on hold because none of the plot section was referenced. I was aware at that time of other GA anime articles that did not cite sources for the plot section. Also with WP:V I know that only material that is likely to be challenged needs to be cited. I still think that the section should be referenced and I still think that GA criteria at least prefers this, if not requires it. I'm going to go by the letter of WP:V and pass the article on this criteria. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Broad in Coverage
✅ This article stays on topic. Keeps in-universe details in perspective and keeps a real-world frame of reference. It also addresses all the main topics required by the manual of style. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral
✅ I didn't see any POV issues. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Stable
✅ As discovered in the quickfail test, this appears to just be steadily improved. No radical changes or edit wars. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated
✅ Has images. Both images are appropriately captioned and tagged with a fair-use rationale. Both are relevant to the topic. Asthetically, I don't like how that image sits below the infobox, but technically everything is correct and the image is appropriate. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
On hold - I would hate to fail this review just on a technicality; but almost every GA has referenced its plot section. Criteria #2a requires that it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;.

I'm placing this review on hold for up to a week. Please let me know on my talkpage when this has been fixed and I will complete the review. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 08:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding references in plot section, a quick scan of Anime GA's show that many/most of them don't use references in the plot section or may only use them when comparing the anime to the manga, as the plot is expected to come from the primary source itself. Examples inlcude Full Metal Alchemist, Earl Cain, Lupin III + Azumanga Daioh (both of which retained GA status only few months ago). Gin Tama passed very recently and only has one reference in the plot section and it's not about the plot itself but more the episodic/arc nature. The question is, do you feel the plot statements are disputable?  Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the examples you listed before I put it on hold. By the letter of WP:V, this part is not likely to be challenged and probably wont be an issue.  However, by the good article criteria, it does appear that you need footnotes or at least some sort of reference for this section.  It just seems unlike a Good article to have unreferenced material, no matter how unlikely it is to be challenged.  I have no experience with the work itself, so I'm not in a position to say wether or not it's accurate.  It seems stable enough.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 12:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Kraftlos, your assertion is incorrect. Plot summaries do not require in-line citations, as the work itself is the source. This is per widely accepted Wikipedia consensus, and applies to film articles, television articles, book articles, chapter/episode lists, and anime/manga articles. Tokyo Mew Mew is a featured article, passed this year, and you will note its plot section is unreferenced. The good article criteria do not surpass the FA criteria, which again does not require an in-line citation on plots. Secondary sources are only needed with regards to plot where there is actual interpretation of the plot, and not pure summary, which is what this article contains. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto what AnmaFinotera said. The use of inline citations for plot summaries is conditional and usually up to the article contributor(s). They are not needed for sentences which generally summarize the plot. It is, however, probably recommended for statements which may require additional interpretation for readers of the work. Quotes would also require such citations. I didn't find anything would be challenged in any other review. Arsonal (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be careful not to conflate explicit consensus with "what we usually do". Has this topic been addressed in detail?  I haven't been able to find anything.  I'm going to pass this anyway, but I'm curious.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries do not require referencing as per WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All I read there is "All included information needs to be verifiable and derive from and be supported by reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources" It can't get much clearer than that.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen other GA articles with unreferenced plots (Tokyo Mew Mew is FA without a referenced plot) if you are going to reference it though I suggest referencing the manga as the source. I have read the manga and seen the anime though and there are notable diffrences in the two. The plot hits upon all the major things in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we already established that there were GA articles that didn't cite the plot section. I agree that it's not required.  However, I would strongly urge referencing the work itself between now and FA.  It just looks better and leaves less room for uninformed editors to bloat this section.  When it's unreferenced, it seems really subjective.
 * As this was the only sticking point and the article is solid on all other counts. I'm going to pass it.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pass - Appears to meet all GA Criteria. Keep up the good work! -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)