Talk:Elfen Lied/GAR 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Delisted - June 10, 2008

As per my original message[1], Elfen Lied has now been delisted as a GA. The image issue was taken care of, some MoS fixes were done, and I myself fixed the issue with the manga chapter table. However, the majority of the other issues have been left unaddressed. The article has a vast amount of unreferenced statements, failing GA criteria 2. Specifically:

• "Differences between media" is completely unreferenced, making it original synthesis.
• Nothing in the character section is referenced, though it contains statements that appear to be interpretative rather than straight statements of plot summary.
• All of "Diclonius" is unsourced, though again it contains interpretative statements
• "Style and themes" also is mostly unsourced, though it is interpretative and provides analysis the series and its characters
• "Production" is mostly unsourced
• "Anime" has only one sourced statement, though it contains what can be considered "statistics"

Additionally, of the references given, some are not refs at all. Refs 4 & 5 are unreferenced statements that needs references of their own. Ref 19 is a dead link. Ref 21 is a personal blog and fails WP:RS. The plot section is too long, while the manga section is too short. This fails criteria 3. The prose needs work and the article needs a copyediting (from a non-involved editor), failing criteria 1. After these issues are fully and properly addressed, I highly recommend a peer review and then renominating for GA. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you have stated here. As far as a plan of action, I think I'll get to work on the Character list and try bring it back up to par. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "Style and themes" and "Production" are both referenced from at least 3 sources each. I've done copyediting to improve the prose for two weeks. Most of the information in the paragraphs is taken from the sources cited within the sections. Besides, a character summary doesn't really need inline citations. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Character summaries with interprative statements, like the ones in this article, do. 3 sources do not source the ENTIRE section, only a few minor statements. That is a section of pure interpretation and requires sources from reliable sources.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)