Talk:Earl Cain/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review, checking quick fail criteria. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

✓ Pass no problems there. Extremepro (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Lead: ✓ Pass
   • Plot: ✓ Pass
   • Production: ✓ Pass
   • Manga: ✓ Pass
   • Drama CDs: It is a bit short compared to other sections. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
   • Reception:✓ Pass

   b (MoS):

   • Ok. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   a (references):

   • The article appears to be well referenced. However, Reference 16 has "COMICS" in all caps. Consider "赤い羊の刻印 (2) (花とゆめComics―伯爵カインシリーズ)". Also (コミック) (comics) is redundant at the end of the Amazon title.
   • Personal choice: wikilink Reference 45: --> Manga: The Complete Guide

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • I'm not sure if reference 23, ICv2 is a reliable source. Correct me if I'm wrong.

   c (OR):

   • No problems here. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is suitably broad in scope

   b (focused):

   • The article remains focused. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Article adheres to WP:NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • The article appears stable, obviously new material is added. No evidence of edit-warring. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   • The article only has one image apart from the one in the infobox. More pictures are needed. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • All images used have appropriate captions . Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
   • All non-free images used have a fair use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Reference 16's name does not meet WP:MOSTITLE. I shall place the article on hold whilst the above concerns are addressed. Extremepro (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Extremepro. Thank you for taking the time to look over this article. I have made the changes you suggested, except for adding another image. If Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured article, only needs one picture outside of the infobox, then I don't see why Earl Cain would need more than one picture outside of the infobox. :) (By the way, ICv2 is on the list of reliable sources[1]. It's listed right before Popculture Shock.com) However, you say on your user page that you have edited significantly to this article before it was nominated and point two under number 1 in How to review an article states that reviewers who have contributed significantly to the article cannot review it. I'm not criticizing your review, which brought up some good points about the article. Despite your good intentions, the review may be unintentionally biased, because you have worked on it. Again, thank you for taking the time to review this article. :) I'm going to take this to the WP:GAN talkpage and see if anybody over there can resolve this. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article and I'm not criticizing your review. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CarpetCrawler's review

This article looks great, but I do have some concerns.

- Wikify "Kaori Yuki" in the lead.

- "However, Cain falls in love with a amnesiac fortuneteller named Meridiana; when Cain sets out to dig up Meridiana's supposed grave, Emeline follows him and is killed by Jack the Ripper, a hired murderer for Delilah who then uses the fresh organs and blood of the victims for its experiments" Could you maybe shorten this a little bit? It's a bit long and confusing when you read it out loud.

- "After discovering Emeline's death, Cain confronts the Ripper in his lair, bringing along Meridiana." How did Emeline die?

- Also, what kind of mysteries are being solved? Are they murder mysteries?

- I feel that the "Plot" section, as well as its subsection, "Godchild", is a little lengthy. I also got confused at some points, and had to re-read some things. Is there any way to trim it a little bit?

- Could you expand the "Drama CDs" section? Maybe you could expand on information, add basic plot info, and such?

Until my concerns have been addressed, I will place this article on hold. Please leave me a message on my talkpage if you have addressed the concerns, or if you have any questions. Good luck! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Carpet Crawler and thank you for taking the time to review this article. :)

1.  Done
2.  Done
3. She's killed by Jack the Ripper.
4. They're murder mysteries.  Done
5. The manga itself is confusing. No lie. :) Specifically, which points do you get confused at? (I'll do my best to fix the confusing points!)
6. Do you mean like adding track listings?

Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to know that it's a murder mytery manga! Are the murders as creative as in Detective Conan? :) And about the confuision, just in general I got confused. I think the problem is all of the names are used repeatedly, when "he" or "she" could also work. It looks like a LOT happens in such a short span... And about the last point... I had meant that maybe you could expand that section, as it looked a little stubby. No need to do track listings, just maybe some slight expansion? And your other corrections have been noted. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 08:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Having never read Detective Conan, I can't compare the two. :) (But it sounds similar to Earl Cain, minus the crazy abusive father) Fixed the problem with the names and will add more to the drama CD section tomorrow. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan. I guess Goodraise has taken over this review, so I will let them take over. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded drama CD section. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, all of my concerns have been addressed. The bottom discussion about realiable sources is confusing to read, so I have no clue what the consensus is about the sources. If those bottom concerns have been addressed, I will be happy to pass this article. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 09:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the sources were all reliable. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will pass this article. Great job! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 02:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes the following sources reliable? Courtney Kraft. "The Cain Saga". GraphicNovelReporter.com. Retrieved 2 April 2009. Robin Brenner. "GODCHILD, Volume 1". Teenreads.com. Retrieved 4 April 2009. Courtney Kraft. "Godchild, Volumes 1-8". Graphic Novel Reporter.com. Retrieved 4 April 2009. Stricken previous three. Accepted as reliable sources for statements of opinion as they claim to have an editorial staff.[2][3] Publisher of the references should be changed to "The Book Report". Goodraise 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Leroy Douresseaux (13 May 2007). "The Cain Saga: Volume 1". ComicBookBin. Retrieved 17 April 2009. Stricken previous one. Accepted as reliable source for statements of opinion as they claim to have an editorial staff and because of several other statements on their about page and its various sub-pages. Publisher of the reference should be changed to "Coolstreak Cartoons". Goodraise 20:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC) "On the Shojo Beat: Godchild, Nana, and S.A." Popcultureshock.com. 13 November 2007. Retrieved 30 March 2009. Stricken previous one. Accepted as reliable source for statements of opinion because it claims to have editorial staff and to have "worked on numerous print and web-based publications".[4] Publisher of the reference should be changed to "PopCultureShock". Goodraise 20:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Lori Henderson. "Comics Village - Godchild Volume 7". Comics Village.com. Retrieved 30 March 2009. Stricken previous one. Accepted with reservation as reliable source for statements of opinion after this comment. Goodraise 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) A few of these sites are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC) So? Goodraise 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) There are some links to discussion in which they were marked as reliable.Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I don't recall ever having found anything useful in the archives of WT:ANIME. Be my guest and look through those discussions to see if you can find a valid rational for reliability. Goodraise 02:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Here an explanation of comicbookkin here a discussion about two.Tintor2 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) I plead guilty to have asked WP:RS/N to validate those sites. For Comics village, i get interested in it as a source when i found some of their reviews mentioned in the Dark Horse website [5][6]. --KrebMarkt 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC) If I was publishing manga and someone gave it a good review, I would certainly link to that review. Digital Manga Publishing for example links to this blog. I'm sorry, but that's no sign of reliability. If http://www.comicsvillage.com/ has an "about" page, I'm yet to find it. The statement on their front page, "Warning! This site has a pretty hands off editorial approach.", is not exactly confidence inspiring either. Goodraise 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Hi. WP:RS/N said that the other two, (Teenreads.com and Graphicnovelreporter.com) could be used for opinion only (aka reviews).[7] :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Off-topic comment: RS/N turned down active anime, I guess they overlooked that page & beside we had validate it as RS within the project here and it is even present in our project list of online resources --KrebMarkt 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) What people need to realize is that a Wikipedian's statement that "I think it's reliable." counts for nothing. Nothing. Links to WT:ANIME, WP:RS/N, or WP:ANIME's cute little RSs list can't back up any claim of reliability. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. IMHO, for that list to become useful, it should provide links such as the one you just provided, because that's how the question "What makes the following sources reliable?" should be answered, with a solid claim of reliability (preferably backed up by a reliable, third-party source) to the face of the reviewer who had the audacity to doubt that you (as the nominator) did not check your sources. :) Goodraise 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)