Talk:Believers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Believers has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
For more manga and anime, see The Anime and Manga Portal. Believers is part of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page. Other pages of interest: Manual of Style (Japan) - Article structure (Anime) - Discussion board - Requested topics board
|
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
|
Looking to help? Check out the Anime and manga To-do:
|
|
 |
The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help: SeizureDog (talk • contribs) |
Contents |
[edit] GA Failing
This article is missing a lot, what about cultural impact? I'm sure you can write more about the plot that one paragraph, did it inspire any sequels? Is there no character depth to it? You lack Fair Use Rationales to the images, and not enough references. Also, please note the difference between references and footnotes. Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why I believe this should be a good article
The following points have been made against it by HighwayCello and have responded with my reasoning.
1: Missing cultural impact.
Responce: There hardly was one, or none worth noting.
2: Plot summary not long enough.
Responce: -Plot summary at Planetes is of similar length and is a Good Article.
-See WP:FICTION #4: "the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them."
-The length shouldn't matter for a good article.
3: What about sequels? Was it available outside of Japan? Etc.
Responce: The answer to all of such questions is no. The article doesn't need to go out of its way to say what it is not.
4: Please note the difference between references and footnotes.
Responce: They are included together to cut down on clutter.
5: You lack Fair Use Rationales to the images.
Responce: Fixed.
6: Not enough references.
Responce: This article is short due to the massive lack of information on the subject. The few references given are all that could be found with hours of searching. This article is as broad in coverage as it can possiblely be at the given time and should, IMO, be considered a good article. --SeizureDog 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review: Barely Fail: June 7, 2006
Personally, and this is my first GA review, I think the article is almost there, but not quite. Some minor edits and I think it would qualify. Point-by-point:
- It is well written
- I think the prose is well written; not jerky or disconnected, and it seems to follow the MoS as far as I can tell.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- Here I have some minor points.
- Firstly, I am a big believer in inline citations, which is what is preferred by WP:WIAGA, although this alone would not cause me to reject it.
- Another minor point is the non-use of wiki citation templates such as {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} found in Category:Citation templates. I think using these are important.
- Lastly, I agree that notes and references should be separate. Compare what I did with the article Actuary. Even if each category only has a few entries, I believe they are disticnt enough to require separate sections.
- Here I have some minor points.
- It is broad in its coverage
- This is somewhat difficult for me to judge, I am completly ignorant of manga. Compared to an article such as Berserk (manga), it is sparse, but the content in question may not lend itself to any more expansion. Reading the article by itself, it seems to cover the salient points of the series. If there were any videos made or spin-off's, that would be appropriate to add, but I must defer to people with more expertise in the field.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- I see no issues at all.
- It is stable
- It is a relatively recent article, but I see no reason why it shouldn't, especially if the content is sufficently broad (see above).
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- It does, and they are tagged, so that is a plus.
Overall, I think addressing the citations and ensuring that the content is sufficently complete would push this into Good Article status. -- Avi 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Response You're really confusing me here. You're telling me I should have done things that I already did.
- I did use in-line citations.
- Wiki "Cite" using <ref>...</ref> and <references/> is a footnote form, not inline. -- Avi
- I used both {{cite web}} and {{Comic book reference}}
- I can't seperate them when I choose to do in-line citations. I guess I can use an * though...
- What I do is use {{note_label}} and {{ref_harvard}} for references and the cite template for notes, but I see your point. -- Avi
- This should not be compared to any other manga article. Most of those articles are based on popular titles with plenty of information. This is more of an underground thing with freaking no information. It's nearly impossible to source. As you can tell, I had to go to a French website for an actual review. --SeizureDog 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Which is why I said I could not judge whether ot was complete or not, and will rely on your, or another expert's, opinion. -- Avi
- I just found another review for Believers...in Japanese. I suppose I can try to force in a critical responce section. --SeizureDog 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- My responses interspersed with yours in italics above. -- Avi 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Pass
- I'm not sure if I am supposed to do this, but I made some cosmetic changes, nothing substantive, including linking the asterisk to your note about spelling. I think it should suffice.
-
- Sugoi ^_^ Thanks. I didn't know about that asterisk trick, I applied it to the daggers as well for good measure. And I'm sure it's fine. The important thing is to bring the articles quality up. Thanks for bearing with me :) --SeizureDog 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dou itashimashite :) -- Avi 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rename the page Believers (manga)?
Perhaps the page should be renamed for disambiguation reasons? -- Avi 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, this article used to be called Believers (manga) (which now redirects to this article) and this page (Believers) was for the B5 episode. It was decided to move the B5 episode to Believers (Babylon 5) and Believers (manga) to here, since a series is of more significance than a single episode. There were no objects at the time, and it would seem counterproductive to move it back. Also, there are (from what I can tell) these two articles are the only ones that need to be called "Believers", so it would be kind of a waste to have a disambig page with two links.
- It's obviously not very clear, but I already talked to the user about this on his talk page some time ago. It really is a bit surprising how few articles carry the name of "Believer(s)". The only other article I found was an obscure Christian rock band.--SeizureDog 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
