Talk:Sailor Moon/GA1

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

In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 19, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Fails to meet WP:MOS-AM; Story -> Plot and is incomplete, Adaptations -> Media, English Adaptations is inappropriate separate section that should be covered in individual media sections, Music should be part of a production section. Does it comply with WP:LEAD as it is not summarizing the article. References are badly formatted and article as a whole needs a clean up. Prose is not high quality and needs serious copy editing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Massive amounts of unsourced content, and there are several dead links among the references that are in article. Character section contains analysis and assumptions of character motivations without sourcing, which generally makes them WP:OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Completely lacking an actual plot section and has no production information at all. Character section too long and detailed for an article this size. Recommend following talk page "To Do" and get to making that character list and leaving a shorter summary in the main article. Music section excessively focused on changes in lyrics from Japanese to English version and inappropriate quotes lyrics without third-party sourcing discussing the differences.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Reception section is overly focused on anime with almost nothing about manga. Break out of English adaptations into a Sailor Moon (English adaptations) reflects a non-neutral treatment of the topic and an inappropriate POV split.
 * 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):
 * Music snippets are not in compliance with WP:NONFREE; Primarily supported by OR use of primarily material, not significant coverage by third-party sources. Infobox image is not an appropriate image for the topic and should be using the manga cover found further in the article per the AM MoS and project consensus regarding infobox images. Infobox image is also badly sourced and does not accurately support the claim that it is a promotional image. If can be properly source and the FUR better explained, recommend moving to suggested character list split. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have delisted this article from good article status for completely failing to meet the Good Article criteria, as detailed above. From the To Do list on the talk page, it seems likely active editors were already aware it needs much work, and I hope to see this back at Good Article status after its been cleaned up and reimproved. Would recommend a Peer Review before any future GAN to ensure all major issues have been adequately corrected. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have delisted this article from good article status for completely failing to meet the Good Article criteria, as detailed above. From the To Do list on the talk page, it seems likely active editors were already aware it needs much work, and I hope to see this back at Good Article status after its been cleaned up and reimproved. Would recommend a Peer Review before any future GAN to ensure all major issues have been adequately corrected. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)