Talk:Strawberry Panic!/GA1

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

This article no longer meets the bulk of the GA criteria. The prose is no longer well-written and the article is in need of copyediting and clean up (criteria 1). There are large amounts of unsourced data throughout the article, including most of the Media subsections, and the Sales section. Several of the references are also badly formatted, with almost all of them missing basic key information. This fails GA criteria 2. There is an excessive amount of plot information in the article, with the overly long settings and character descriptions. At the same time, it is completely lacking in production detail. Together, these fail criteria 3 (3b and 3a, respectively). The article has an excessive amount of non-free images that are serving as decoration rather than illustrations supported by critical discussion/analysis, with several images having poor or no sources failing criteria 6.

I have left some relevant tags on the article related to these issues, and I have left notifications with the relevant projects and primary contributers that the article is under a GAR. If there is no sign of the article being corrected so that it can meet these criteria again, it will be delisted as a GA on October 6, 2008. Additional time will be allowed if there is an active effort seen to correct the article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up what I can so far, including the images, references, and I shortened what I could from the plot/setting, but I believe the sections on the Etoile system, Astraea Hill and Schools school be kept for the most part as they are very important to understanding the series' internal structure. I don't agree that the character section is too long, though, since there are 12 main characters in the series, and three small paragraphs summarizing them is not excessive. And while you cite the lack of a production section, I do not see where it could apply, as everything pertaining to the production of the series is noted in the media subsections, including its origins as a reader participation game. Actually, I believe I can write at least a brief section on production, as much of what is in the short stories section talks about the origins, and not the stories themselves.--  十  八  08:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Anyway the setting stuff could be shortened up a bit, maybe brief descriptions with the longer ones moved to the character list since its divided by the schools? Also, any particular reason the anime has as standalone article instead of an episode list? Ditto the short stories? I'm not completely familiar with the work, but it seems like if you merged in the history section from the history section from the short stories article and adding in some missing sourcing, then merged in the reception section from the anime article, this one could get up to not just GA, but FA status. The anime and short stories articles could then be switched to regular lists that could be fluffed out to possible FLs (particularly the anime list, since it seems to already have summaries and lead sourcing). Thoughts? --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're pretty much right. The anime and short stories articles were created back when it was still fashionable to make branch articles on series media, but I think it'd be best creating two lists as you said. Not all the history from the short stories article was merged, though there wasn't much left. The reception in the anime article could be merged here (though most of it's repetitive I think). I'll get on it.--  十  八  00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've reformed the two branch articles into lists, and reformed the article. I removed some redundancy, and some cruft from the setting/schools info, and condensed the school info into the character section, though that's now the longest single section in terms of in-universe detail, but when you consider that it's comprised of six short paragraphs (three for the characters, and three for the schools), it's not too bad. Setting and plot are now about the same length, and the Etoile section is smaller than both of them. There's not much more I can do for now, except copyediting and some more references perhaps.--  十  八  05:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks for tackling all this so quick. Just leave a note when the CE and referencing is done and I'll close this up. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * References is all looking good now. About all I can see left is a need for a copyedit. Some of the phrasing is very awkward reading and overly long. A really good CE I know happens to be taking requests, so I hope you don't mind that I went ahead to see if he can give it a going over? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the editor doesn't change the context of certain things (though I'll fix them if that's the case). As long as the article retains it's GA status, I'm happy. This was the first article I attempted to get up to GA, so I'd like to keep it as one.--  十  八  01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, he's really good. He did Meerkat Manor for me before I took it for FA :D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your hard work on this Juhachi. The copy edit is done and all issues have been addressed so I'm closing this as a keep GA. If you decide to go for an FA with this article, you'll want to get a more thorough copy edit (per the one who did the copy edit for the GA), and probably a peer review to look for any other issues. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)