Talk:Wolf's Rain/GA review

Good Article Review
I am starting the review process with the quick fail criteria, then moving point-by-point through the GA criteria. Any comments or responses are welcome -Âme Errante (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick-fail: ; Did not fail the quick-fail criteria. The Reception section does contain some strong praise, so I'll check those sources mentioned and others to make sure that this is well founded and not soapbox / POV. < Discussed below

Editor's Note: I know that the authors of this article have put a lot of effort into crafting and revising the content, and the fact that I am so nitpicky in my review is not meant to diminish this effort, nor to lead you to believe that this is a bad article. Rather, I think the article is quite well written, balanced, concise, and NPOV. I have been very careful in my review, noting even minor problems, because I believe that I owe you no less; to give the article a quick skim rather than a thorough review would not be fair to the amount of work you have already put in, in my opinion. Just because I have noted a problem below, does not mean that I'll refuse the GA nomination based on this problem. I've tried to state which things are major issues and which are minor problems.


 * 1. Prose: ; For the most part very good, but some major issues remain
 * Overall, the introduction is good. However, I would suggest you reference the reception if you are going to spend so long talking about it later.
 * Woops, fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest linking to an article that explains the concept of OVAs the first time this is introduced.
 * Fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed a number of minor spelling errors throughout the piece... nothing too major, but it does make me wonder how thoroughly the article was checked before it was submitted to GA.
 * It was checked, but as the main editor and main checker, I've probably missed stuff. Unfortunately, the request for a copyedit sat unanswered for months at LoCE. I'll see if I can get a copy editor to give it another going over.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article links to a 'Characters' article as a main article and (presumably) the source for the section on characters (no other reference is provided in this section). Because of this, the related 'Characters' article definitely needs to be cleaned up before Wolf's Rain is considered for GA status.  It doesn't need to be perfect, just address the banners at the top of the page.
 * I disagree. There is no requirement that a subarticle be well done before its main can be a GA. There are plenty of GA's with bad character lists (or worse, lots of character articles). Fixing the character list is on my list of things to do, but I don't think that means it should be required to be done before this can be GA. I'll add the needed references for this section, though. Will that take care of the problem? AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the list of characters, what is basis for using katakana, rather than hiragana, to spell out the names?
 * That is how they are listed on the official website. I've cleaned up the added parenthetical stuff though.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The anime section is nice and factual. It's good to leave the list of episodes to another article, as we already have a plot outline above.  However, I believe that you should do the same with the table listing chapters in the manga section (make it into its own article, or remove it).  The text is mentioned above in 'differences', and the chapter listings can easily be condensed into a paragraph or even a sentence or two.
 * Doing so would violate the MoS. Its only two volumes and not long enough to support having its own article. The way it is now is in keeping with our Anime and manga MoS.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * with the usual Viz banners added to... - What are the 'Viz banners'? Why is this important to this article?  I would suggest deleting this sentence, as it sounds like trivia.  A once-over on the article to remove similar trivial things (i.e. things that don't add to the understanding of the topic Wolf's Rain) would be nice.
 * Sentence removed AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * moderate success, considered a hit - Avoid weasel words. What makes a hit?  Is it lots of viewers, good money for the studio?  Who decides which shows are good and which ones bad?  Don't talk about strong appeal without giving me some facts or an actual measure of appeal.  See Avoid_weasel_words.
 * Removed "moderate success". Fixed "a hit" to use direct quote. "Strong appear" is also a direct quote, but was missing its quote marks. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The following is a very long sentence, and should be revised: "Reviewers of the Region 1 DVD volume containing the four episodes recommended it be left unbought and skipped as a waste of money, though Bandai's release of the episodes was also considered an improvement over the Japanese release of the series which had the recapitulation episodes spread over two DVDs requiring them to be bought to get the new episodes on the same volumes."
 * Fixed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The section on critical reception probably shouldn't be so long. While the wording seems fairly balanced (though by no means perfect) and NPOV, the length of the section suggests UNDUE.  In a nutshell, I don't believe that the reception is more important than the plot in understanding this anime, yet plot is a slightly less lengthy section than reception.
 * That does not mesh with the anime and manga MoS, nor the Wikipedia emphasis on its real-world aspects rather than the plot and in-universe/fictional aspects.
 * In general, the article is organized well, with a good table of contents and good sections. Wikilinks are provided for subjects when they are first introduced, and covers jargon, company names, etc.  One complaint is that the section on 'changes in manga adaptation' feels out of place between plot and characters, which together introduce the series.  I would suggest moving this either below the 'characters' section as its own section (since it references changes in characters in addition to changes in plot), or, more preferable, to the section that deals with the manga.
 * Again, the section is appropriately placed per the anime and manga MoS.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Had to fix one error with tense, but overall article sticks to present tense, and when it uses past tense it is not distracting.


 * 2. Links and References: ; Many issues remain
 * There are no sources for the introduction. It is probably not necessary to source things like plot and episode length, but would be nice to pull some references for licensing/distribution information, the statement about the manga being a retelling, etc.
 * A lead should never need sourcing. Anything in the lead should be sourced within the article, as everything in the lead should be. If there is something in the lead that is not referenced within the article, please let meknow.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you should link to the articles on Paradise and Wolves, as these are generally understood subjects and have specific uses in the anime.
 * Removed...hold overs from before I started working on the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a reference to an article that has nothing to do with Wolf's Rain. This is a big one, considering the potential POV and weasel wording of the associated sentence:  It is considered a major hit amongst manga that are adapted from an anime series.
 * Fixed...added quote from source that does support, and fixed wording. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that at the bottom of the 'reception' section, a quote is summarized and then immediately displayed as a block quote. I would suggest you stick with the summarized sentence and remove the block quote, as you already have a block quote by the same author, from the same website.
 * Done. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the same note, 13 references (1/3 of the total) are from the Anime News Network, and many more are from similar sites that cater to an anime fan-base. This article needs to have a wider range of sources, and specifically some sources that aren't geared towards fans.  As ANN itself states, "The vast majority of visitors to Anime News Network are over the age of 18 and, needless to say, they're all anime fans[...]"
 * There are only a handful of English anime news sites that meet those requirements, ANN, ICv2, and AnimeOnDVD.com being the ones most often used. All three are industry supported and meet all requirements for being a reliable source. There are a few statements that can be referenced from other sites, like the official site, as well, so I've updated those.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 3:Breadth ; After fixes as noted
 * For the most part, this article is concise, and sticks to aspects relevent to the topic.
 * As noted above, there are several instances of trivial information, and a table that should either be relegated to a more in-depth article on the manga or removed. In addition, the section on reception is long compared to other sections in the article, and considering that reception is only somewhat important in understanding the topic.
 * I commend this article for avoiding the 'trivia' and 'cultural references' sections that plague so many similar articles.
 * Thanks :) That are usually one of the first things I ax when I work on series articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 4:NPOV ; problems are minor, but should be addressed
 * Overall, the article is very factual and does not drift into POV material. Very well written.  However, there are a couple of concerns, especially with the 'reception' section, as noted above.  In a nutshell, the article should avoid weasel words, and not give too much bias to certain sources.


 * 5:Stability
 * This article has been stable for the last month, and there don't seem to be any ongoing edits or major changes.


 * 6:Images
 * All images used in this article have fair use rationale or are in the public domain.
 * The article could probably use a couple more images to illustrate the anime, but this is a matter of taste and may not be possible due to copyright issues.

In summary, I am placing the nomination on hold, because I believe that these issues can be met in the week allowed for changes.-Âme Errante (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've withdrawn the GA as the reviewer never came back to answer questions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)