Talk:Battle Angel Alita: Mars Chronicle/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: SunriseInBrooklyn (talk · contribs) 18:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Starting with the sources.
- What makes the following reliable sources? These are not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources.
- aiptcomics.com -- I had a look around the website and can't find anything about them -- is it a one-man operation, or is it run by an editorial team?
fandompost.com -- again I can't find anything out about them.- animeuknews.com -- their about page says they're run by fans.
I'll pause the review till these are resolved, since the article might have to change if any of these are removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie im working on it. I have looking it on the anime and manga resources for that manga if I can. If not, then I'll remove it. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 15:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK -- I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that we need to be able to show that they are. You could try posting at the anime and manga WikiProject talk page to see if anyone can help there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I read the discussion so far and I see thefandompost.com is reliable so I've struck that above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- For APIT Comics, it covers a variety of topics including anime and manga, but its reliability as a source for the wikiproject depends on the consistency, verifiability and authoritativeness. Ultimately, while AIPT Comics covers a wide range of topics including anime and manga, individual articles or sections within the site may vary in reliability. It's essential to assess each specific piece of content on its own merits rather than relying solely on the site's reputation as a whole.For Anime UK News, it can be evaluated as a reliable source for specific topics within that project. It's beneficial to review individual articles or sections within Anime UK News to gauge their suitability for citation on Wikipedia. Engaging in discussions within WikiProject Anime and manga can help establish consensus on the use of Anime UK News as a source, aligning with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 16:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mostly agree, but here we're trying to establish the reliability of some specific pages so we either need to come up with general support for the reliability of the site as a whole, which we could do for example by showing that it is treated as a reliable source by other high quality sources, or by showing that it has an editorial team and an editorial policy that indicates it has fact-checking or has other indications of journalistic quality; or else we have to prove the reliability of the individual pages you've cited. That's harder -- we would have to show that the individual authors of those pages, if they are credited at all, are respected in the industry and can be treated as reliable sources themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- If focusing on specific pages or articles within Anime UK News, we would need to demonstrate the credibility of the individual authors or contributors. This could involve showing that these authors are respected within the industry or have a track record of providing reliable information. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 04:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but your answer just says what we need to do. In this GA review you actually need to do it, not just describe how it might be done. What is the evidence that these two sources are reliable for the uses to which you've put them? If it's not possible to show they're reliable, they would have to be removed from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would check if those two sources have backgrounds or credentials in anime and manga criticism, journalism, or related fields but in yoour response. Otherwise I find another source. If not, we can remove it. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI Mike Christie, according to GPTzero, there is a 98% chance this reply is AI generated. The nominator is apparently a native English speaker, which makes their choice to communicate using LLMs rather odd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have never heard of GPTzero and I do not use AI generated. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 16:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but your answer just says what we need to do. In this GA review you actually need to do it, not just describe how it might be done. What is the evidence that these two sources are reliable for the uses to which you've put them? If it's not possible to show they're reliable, they would have to be removed from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- If focusing on specific pages or articles within Anime UK News, we would need to demonstrate the credibility of the individual authors or contributors. This could involve showing that these authors are respected within the industry or have a track record of providing reliable information. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 04:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mostly agree, but here we're trying to establish the reliability of some specific pages so we either need to come up with general support for the reliability of the site as a whole, which we could do for example by showing that it is treated as a reliable source by other high quality sources, or by showing that it has an editorial team and an editorial policy that indicates it has fact-checking or has other indications of journalistic quality; or else we have to prove the reliability of the individual pages you've cited. That's harder -- we would have to show that the individual authors of those pages, if they are credited at all, are respected in the industry and can be treated as reliable sources themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- For APIT Comics, it covers a variety of topics including anime and manga, but its reliability as a source for the wikiproject depends on the consistency, verifiability and authoritativeness. Ultimately, while AIPT Comics covers a wide range of topics including anime and manga, individual articles or sections within the site may vary in reliability. It's essential to assess each specific piece of content on its own merits rather than relying solely on the site's reputation as a whole.For Anime UK News, it can be evaluated as a reliable source for specific topics within that project. It's beneficial to review individual articles or sections within Anime UK News to gauge their suitability for citation on Wikipedia. Engaging in discussions within WikiProject Anime and manga can help establish consensus on the use of Anime UK News as a source, aligning with Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sourcing Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 16:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I read the discussion so far and I see thefandompost.com is reliable so I've struck that above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK -- I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that we need to be able to show that they are. You could try posting at the anime and manga WikiProject talk page to see if anyone can help there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: it turns out that SiB is topic banned from initiating a GA request. Have you put enough time into this that we should consider going forward, so as not to waste your time spent to date? Or have you spent minimal time, and it's best to cut bait now? This is a subject of an ANI thread (I pinged you there). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per this I might as well leave the review text for other editors to see, rather than deleting the review page, but I don't see any point in continuing the review so I'm going to fail this. Thank you to you and Airship for spotting this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)