Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cyborg Kuro-chan/1

Cyborg Kuro-chan

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Not Listed - This GAR was a quick-failed GAN. The GAR has been up for a month and the article clearly did not meet criteria 1a and 2. There were 4 votes to not list and none to list. One reviewer suggested holding off while a full review was finished, but there has been no activity or meaningful discussion in over 2 weeks. Aaron north  (T/C) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Completing nomination for community reassessment on behalf of the nominator who did not agree with my quick-fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not list. Poorly written; poorly sourced; overuse of poorly motivated fair use images. Ucucha 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not list poorly written; largely unreferenced, and what is, contain only bare links. Reception section does not focus on reviews and sales/watchership, but rather on spin-off merchandise. Clearly short of the GA criteria. Arsenikk (talk)  08:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is any objection I will close this tomorrow as upholding the quick fail. No reasons have been brought forward here for why this article meets GA criteria.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to give it a longer review. The article has significantly improved since before the nominator was involved and the nominator clearly believed that I have done all that I can so far to improve this article. I think it is a good piece of work. Could you please review it, and if it is, please pass it. If it is not, what can I do to improve it? - since I added in the bones of an episode list he has been working on adding synopses. Because of this, I believe it is inappropriate to close this review prematurely.  For clear English, romanised or translated episode titles should be provided, and the whole article needs a copyedit.  The lead needs expanding, for writing about fiction, more reviews should be used in the reception section - the Planete BD reviews and the Manga-News.com reviews would be a good start.  I've found that in general, watchership details of anime are difficult to come by.  The fair use pictures have been reduced.   --Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Above comments suggest that peer review would be appropriate, not an extended review here, which I note the GAN nominator has not responded to. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the nominator been invited to comment here? He may not realise that he may. --Malkinann (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - User_talk:Railer-man - and he acknowledges that the article has failed GA, and is no longer contesting the fail. If you withdraw your objection then this GAR can be closed. I am now going to France and will have very limited internet access for 12 days, so I won't be closing it.  SilkTork  *YES! 06:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline - I'd like this article to recieve a longer review based on the GA criteria, not on the quick-fail criteria. The nomination was by someone new to the GA process, which according to WP:RGA should warrant a full review. The initial review and the reviews by Ucucha and Arsenikk above are out of date.  --Malkinann (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The character list could use a cast listing for the anime. --Malkinann (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Do Not List - The prose isn't great, but the article was very poorly cited. A quick-fail was not an unreasonable decision, but if we have a reviewer willing to give a full GA review, I guess I'm fine with keeping this GAR open for a week after the review is finished. I am skeptical that this will ultimately pass. Aaron north  (T/C) 19:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-open reassessment: While it is hard to find sources for the current epidsode list, I am doing my best. Other Kuro-chan pages on Wikipedia in various languages feature info on episode dates and other character information. Railer-man (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)