Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assess/2006

Clow Cards

 * Clow Cards: A-F
 * Clow Cards: G-R
 * Clow Cards: S-Z

Slightly scary how well those Clow Card lists are done...And there's talk over at the GA place that lists shouldn't be Good Articles, so rank is skipped here. I don't think it's FL material yet, but I think it deserves A-class. Following the propossed 3-vote system as discussed before. --SeizureDog 01:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I spent a while there trying to find where these articles were being disputed, til I realized you meant -all- lists. That's kinda odd there'd be Featured Lists but not Good Lists. But not the point here. I support an A-class rank, they're nice pages. -Goldom (t) (Review) 04:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't called List of Clow cards: A-F so they are normal articles right? So where is the lead, you know, the part where context is given? --Squilibob 05:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they are lists.. so maybe a move to indicate that would be in order. The letter breakings are pretty arbitrary, so I can't see any concieveable lead that could be written for each of the pages that wouldn't just be a duplicate. I'd say either move them to list of.., just take them as if they are lists, or if someone really wants to restructure everything (and probably end up with a better article, but dunno if its worth the trouble), they could be sorted into articles by their type (attack cards.. defense cards.. etc), in which case individual leads could be done for each. -Goldom (t) (Review) 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists don't have to have the word "list" in the title. 2005 NFL Draft for example, is a featured list. Altough in this case it probably would be a good idea to rename them. --SeizureDog 06:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I picked those letter cutoffs as they best split the Cards into evenly-sized lists (about 17 each). I'm not sure if separating them by type would make for an even distribution, or result in articles under 30kB.  I think the alphabetical listing is currently best.  It's easy to reference them, and on the main Clow Cards article, the Cards are ordered by their appearance (capture) in the series, to which readers could also relate.  I personally like keeping their names as is, though; they're more concise and fit with the main Clow Cards article.  (Oh, and a support from me if my vote is eligible, heh.)  --Crisu 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. don't all the cards come "under" one of the four elemental cards (wind, fire, earth water)? I'll have to check the book when I get home. Shiroi Hane 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, again, I'm worried of not getting an even distribution, where the "Wind Clow Cards" could be much longer than "Fire Clow Cards." But I guess with discussion below, it'll be one whole article.  But we can add a parameter saying which element it is primarily; that'd be neat.  --Crisu 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the Clow Card articles becoming a featured list, I've noted a little bit of what else would need to be done for featured list status at Talk:Clow_Cards, but haven't gotten a response yet ;) Also, I don't know what the position is for a split-article list becoming a Featured list.  Also, I too believe an A-rank would be appropriate.


 * (Oh, and Clow Cards shouldn't be confused as an element such as Pokémon cards or something like that. They are treated much more as living characters in the Cardcaptor Sakura story-line, and they're not really used to "battle" or anything like that ) -- Ned Scott 07:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a the articles should be merged though. North American birds would still be longer than the fuller merged article and it's featured.--SeizureDog 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I turned those three into A-class, but I feel that they should all be merged into one article titled "List of Clow Cards" (are you sure it should be capitalized even?) ASAP. --SeizureDog 07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the size warning issue is not always an issue, with section-able editing and modern web browsers. Many articles ignore it when it makes sense.   A single list would be good, I think -- Ned Scott 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, why is it not removed from the system? I read somewhere recently that under 50k was still preferrable; the original combined article was pretty large and still expanding. Shiroi Hane 12:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I split it originally, because I was annoyed to see it in the To Do list under 'size warning.' But I'm a broadband user, so merging into one list is fine with me; I just thought it was the greater standard to have large things split.  --Crisu 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think caps are correct, as it is a name. -Goldom (t) (Review) 08:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, "Clow" is obviously, but I was less sure about the "Cards". TokyoPop capitalizes them both on their page so it seems that it's correct. --SeizureDog 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Going with Ned's comment, because they are treated as living characters in the storyline, "Clow Cards" (their collective name) would be considered a proper noun. And in all of my writings about them, I've referred to them shorthand as "the Cards," with a capital C. --Crisu 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact if they are living or not has absolutely no bearing as to if it's a proper noun.--SeizureDog 17:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree A-Class should be for articles. Create a new category for well-writen lists. (Or nominate it for featured list; though it might not make it.)  --Kunzite 03:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That means a list is stuck at B-class though until it makes FA class, and there's a HUGE difference between a B and FA class list. And even if we had an "A-Class list" category it would still be ranked in with the other A-Class articles so I don't see what the point is. --SeizureDog 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the whole article vs list thing again. I don't see anything at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment that would exclude lists on any level. If a list does not apply, then it wouldn't apply to the whole grading scheme. And Clow Cards is an article, but presented as a list. It's not just a literal list of items with no description. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, just FORGET what they say ok? The main assessment project is for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 dealy, and I'd say there's virtually no chance of almost any of our articles (aside from maybe the main anime and manga articles if we can ever clean them up) of being important enough to make it to a CD. So their little standards don't really even matter as they are for something else entirely. --SeizureDog 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok.. I was proposing that. Let's forget what they say and come up with out OWN categories for Animanga. This was developed by good folks at the chemistry project.  Our articles, being mostly fiction based, have different sourcing.  We can easily come up with a similar system that rates our articles within Wikipedia's article standards system. So why try?  Let's come up with standards that fit OUR articles and not try to showhorn them into someone else's... --Kunzite 18:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--SeizureDog 04:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Disgaea: Hour of Darkness
Disgaea: Hour of Darkness: Failed a FA review, I think it could be a B class but I'm sure that those trying to make it a FA would disagree :) --Squilibob 01:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You realize that's just the video game right? The anime is Makai Senki Disgaea.--SeizureDog 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm talking about the video game article. --Squilibob 04:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the anime Wikiproject though. Hell, it doesn't even have an tag. Why are you bringing it up as a nomination if we can't do anything with it?--SeizureDog 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem has been solved: WP:CVG has a ratings tag now, and I gave Disgaea a B before even seeing this page. Nifboy 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

History of anime
History of anime is already listed as an A-Class on Version 1.0 Editorial Team/List of A-Class articles. --Squilibob 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it is listed as a failed GA candidate. However, the reason for it's failure was no references, which... is incorrect, the article had references at the time of "failure" and still does.  The editor who failed it did not say anything more than "Please add references".  I notice other GA failed articles have reasons that are a bit more helpful, such as, needing in-line references.  This could be what the editor was talking about, but I don't know. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They meant inline references. i.e. Planetes The references section is just a list of books and articles on the subject. It does not say which fact came from which source.  --Kunzite 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that should be a reason for failure for GA though. FA, yes, GA, no. --SeizureDog 03:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, What is a good article? #2b states "the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory" -- Ned Scott 03:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Excel Saga
Excel Saga is currently under peer review, and as a result of excellent comments it has greatly improved. It still needs a little work—market data, a few more DVD and manga reviews, and some stylistic touching up—but I think it meets the assessment criteria for A-level.--Monocrat 04:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Supported. Changed to A. (in case anyone is wondering, the third vote is only needed to break ties)--SeizureDog 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Excel Saga media
List of Excel Saga media: I intend to add brief summaries of the manga volumes before submitting it to FLC, but I think the article warrants A-status.--Monocrat 02:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a few minor changes - for one thing, the boxes describing the DVD bonus features don't have a column title or anything anywhere saying what these boxes are listing. (It's pretty clear it is the features, but it should still be said). Also, the box set claims it does not contain the goodies that come with the individual discs, but except for the example given in that sentence, the other discs don't say what they come with. If those are fixed, I'd support. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I just looked at the citation on that sentence, and I couldn't see anywhere on that page it said that it didn't come with those things, or anything about them at all - not sure why its being cited there. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the wrong link. Thanks! Also, it's noted in the lead that the features are in the table. I'm unsure of a visually appealing way to code "Extras" into the table. Thoughts are welcome. As for the merchandise, I simply don't know what all of them are, as neither ADV nor Amazon seem to include them in the product descriptions. --Monocrat 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one would do it either. I guess it is sufficient as-is. I was also just about to mention there was another collection missing off the list, but I see it's already been added. (On a non-article related note, why why why do companies keep re-releasing the same thing with less extra features/items each time? It gets really annoying.) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They do it to scope up people who were put off by the price too young earlier. :) Can I take this as your withdrawal of objection to A-status?--Monocrat 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind it if they also still published the version with the bonuses, but it always gets discontinued... um, yeah, I guess it's a pretty decent list now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)