Talk:Sailor Moon/GA2

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

Let's start this off with the really obvious problem: There are literally a dozen citation needed tags. Further, the sources used include a GameFAQs search (not an RS, surely?), a twitter account (dubious, though it may, in fact, be alright if an official company or creator one), a Dave Barry article - used as if he wasn't a humourist who's schick included intentional misunderstanding, a Blogspot blog (multiple pages), and, finally, I can't find any evidence http://www.themarysue.com/ isn't a mere fansite.

I don't think it's worth reviewing this article beyond sourcing whilst the sourcing is such a major problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll give this one more day, then I'm going to fail it for lack of interest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam Cuerden. Thank you for taking the time to GAR review this article. :) I'll see what I can find to address your concern of sourcing, but it might take more than a day... Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Shall we say the 18th? Then we can do a standard GA review, and see if there's any other issues; if it's going to take extremely long, it's probably best to just demote and put it back through GAC later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's looking better, but I think some information was removed to get there, (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it feels rather weak on the relationship between the manga and anime now), but even at an initial check, there's still a citation needed tag, it still uses a GameFAQ search as a citation.
 * You did a lot of work on this, and you deserve praise for that. But I don't want to be too lenient, because, well, it's Sailor Moon. It was one of the big forces in breaking America open to anime, amongst other things, and, as such, it's a bit too iconic to not get right.
 * The GAN backlog might be an issue. I'd like to try to get some fresh eyes, but if it sets there more than a week or two, feel free to ask me on my talk page, and I'll review.
 * All that said, I'm going to wait for your response before closing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I'm not the original editor who got this up to GA ages ago, and so I've realized that I don't really know enough about it to properly cover it right now without some serious research. I was a bit too hopeful, I think. :) It deserves far, far more than I'm able to give it, and I really doubt I would be able to being it back up to GA status in a week, by myself. I know that there are far more problems with it than with just the GameFAQs cite... And it's unfair to you to take up anymore of your time for something that cannot be realistically done within the time needed for a GAR. But, thank you for your time spent. It's appreciated greatly. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will have to commit to working on this more myself, but I'm sorry it just isn't fair to have numerous tags up and missing sections of content on a GA. For the time being I am going to advise removing this from GA status. More has to be given to the production, which is about the manga and not the anime production. I think we are missing information on both the artbooks and completely misses out on the popular novel series, including the English ones. Mere omission of an entire medium is able to take out a GA, much less one with more than half a dozen books. The live action section doesn't even adequate coverage, just a generalization "...follows the original manga than the anime at first, but in later episodes it proceeds into a significantly different storyline from either, with original characters and new plot developments." All in all, its missing too much - even at the topic level, much less actually get into other aspects of its enduring legacy, themes and analysis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Have the issues been fixed? If not, I recommend closing this review and delisting the article, it's been weeks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I got horrifically busy for a bit there, and simply forgot about this. Delisted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)