744:
get it for PR reasons and goodwill. Several interviews reported on sites are in fact based on group interviews where the interviewee sits down with several gathered people and is fired with questions from anyone. Certain sites "leeched" questions asked by others and posted them as their own. Who guarantees that the posted interview was not altered or made up in any way? As for editorial processes, simple grammar and tone checks do not fulfill the "stringent" aspect requested for reliable sources. Furthermore as already stated, the fundamental concern is the author's reliability. Hence, user submissions, with an unknown submitter's background, are out. If you can find recent FACs or wide discussions on RS that approve of such submissions, please let us know. For now, Anime
Boredom is unlikely to get approved as a source in an FAC.
291:"Several" is gone from that sentence, but I'm unconvinced about separate notes. Could we table that for now? You're right about the media section. Sorry for not noting that; I was focusing on your specific mention of the character/plot situation. We will have to iron out our differences about the plot section over the coming days, though my goal is to render it moot. While I'd appreciate a link to that discussion about Anime Boredom, I'd rather let this room make the final call on which of the sources are acceptable. And "should have plenty of coverage in reliable sources" and "has plenty of coverage in reliable sources" are two separate things. :-) I would gladly be proved wrong, though! --
102:
willing to tackle the needed MOS and lead fixes?" The note went unanswered until May 15th, when the original primary contributer who put it in the current format only argued that his format was better. No substantive work was done to bring it inline, nor any discussion on other issues. As I feel more than enough time has been given to do anything at all, I'm now bringing here for formal review. I feel the article fails the following criteria:
237:, so it can be used if nothing else is available. Actually, now that I think about it, I did say I was going to clean up the media list and properly split it into an episode and chapter list. The leads for those include the serialization data, so if you want to concentrate on fixing the other issues, I'll work on those two which will provide the info that can be dropped into the appropriate manga and anime media sections (when they exist)Â :)
702:, etc; these companies don't give interviews to fan sites, which is proof of two things: they're recognized by the anime/manga industry as part of the industry itself (and therefore they're competence on the subject), and they're trusted (that they would not alter the content of a interview, for example). Besides the reviews are indeed checked upon by an editorial department. Overall, I still think the site meets the criteria.
594:, community (fan) sites are frowned upon due to the premise that their information presented is unreliable in the sense that anyone regardless of their expertise can submit their opinion and have it published. To be plainly honest here, common users submitting reviews have no standing equal to writers acknowledged to be experts in the anime industry.
743:
I have been told by certain people that a single "no" is curt (rude), but nothing about the informal "nope", so your point is? Reporting interviews does not give sites reliability. Anyone can accost someone involved in the industry at a convention and request for an interview. Chances are they will
389:
That's more than enough; the site meets the guidelines requirements. In the link provided by AnmaFinotera there was no actual argument against the site: AnmaFinotera didn't know it, and
Sephiroth BCR just said "cut the site". In any case, the site doesn't need to be "notable"; it needs to reliable.
101:
On March 28th, I posted this note to the talk page noting that the article no longer met the FA criteria: "This article really needs a work over to bring it inline with the MOS and with WP:LEAD. It was promoted to FA almost 2 years ago, but if it were back up for FA, it would fail miserably. Anyone
117:
1c: It has some unsourced statements, including interpretative statements; some of the "refs" are not references at all, including 1, 2, 4, 10-15, 24, 27, 28, 30, 43; many of those are personal notes that are also unreferenced. Ref 21 is an IMDB trivia page. Ref 41 is a dead link to a retail site.
358:
have put out quite reviews that seems roughly comparable to ANN's. (Rasmussen alone has about 27 interviews to his name.) I can't tell how selective they are in letting people write reviews, although they seem to let people have pen-names, which costs them a bit in my book. Not sure how much this
250:
in other ways than just the two sections merged into one. It has no media section at all. The Plot section isn't a plot section at all, with the odd sectioning, and characters should be separate. Its lacking a production section, with the information instead spattered throughout the article. Its
620:
But acknowledgement as an expert is the requirement for self-published sources, which is not the case here. In this case it's not about the writer, but whether the review has been checked on or not. If there's an editorial process, then the site is not a fan site, and meets the criteria for this
582:
The simple answer is no, it does not. The text in the page you mentioned is under "Why haven't you posted my review/article?" and states that they are proofed for grammar and tone, not factuality. ("However, not all reviews and articles will be accepted if they don't meet with certain criteria.
232:
In another recent conversation, I think a PR in prep for FLC, it was agreed that Anime Bordom did not meet RS. And I don't think "the best there is" would work for what those items reference. Excel Saga should have plenty of coverage in reliable sources that should negate need to use those less
260:
For ref 31, I'd make the sentence more specific (I believe "several" is a general no no in prose), and then ref each instance individually. This is what was done in some others that have topped the charts. Google Books bring up a few possible hits, and it does appear in the Anime
Encyclopedia
205:
2c. Will look into this generally. On the specific point of note 31, I'm not sure how to "improve" it. Wouldn't eight separate footnote-call-outs in one sentence would be a bit excessive, especially when the underlying point is not under dispute? Still, advice is solicited and
182:
1c. Specific thoughts to follow at a later time. It would be immediately helpful in focusing efforts, though, if citation-needed tags were applied as desired. Also, the worst offending notes will be removed, although I think the Anime
Boredom and Digitally Obsessed survive
201:
is that what would normally be two separate sections are merged under one H2 tag. I'm inclined to agree that it needs condensing; perhaps even transferring to the section's introduction a few details from each of the first three subsections and deleting what remains of
143:
3: at times it fails this, current discussion on going over excessive non-free images; also disagreement on whether infobox image is appropriate, or if it should be using the first volume instead of the selected volume preferred by the uploading editor "for aesthetic
345:
Thanks! I've looked into Anime
Boredom, and they seem to have scored about thirty interviews with industry types (exclusively anglophone industry-types, as far as I can tell, though); they've been operating for about four years, and three of the main reviewers
109:
1b: It is missing some of the very basic information required for anime/manga articles, like the manga serialization and publication information, and anime airing and release information (some of this appears to have been shoved off to
136:
at all; structure is jumbled and confusing, jumping from place to place, with the plot badly mixed with interpretative statements. I attempted to fix the MoS issues but couldn't because of the odd sections and mixed up content within
689:
I expect you know that "nope" has a noticeable condescending tone. Anyway, a reliable author is not the same as an expert. We're talking about people who have interviewed representatives from anime/manga companies such as
583:
Please make sure your work is over 400 words (preferably much more) with minimal spelling and grammatical errors. Reviews and articles that belittle other authors work will be ignored...save your criticism for the forum!")
863:
It pretty much has remained untouched since the 11th, except for a category change and adding one channel aired. None of the comments above were implemented, nor any other major work done to address any of the issues. --
188:
568:
Wait, Anime
Boredom does state in their help page they do the required process of screening and checking articles before publishing them. So the site does meet the fact-checking asked by the policy.
415:
The main criteria, which current FACs judge sources on, is the editorial process of the site/media concerned. Hence certain factors would help in establishing reliability of a site, such as:
655:). Furthermore, having a lite editorial process does not mean a site is not a fan site; checking for grammar and tone does not make the submitter a reliable author (nor the site reliable).
814:
543:
903:
881:
787:
372:
338:
300:
278:
223:
828:
753:
714:
664:
630:
603:
577:
557:
399:
775:
318:
795:
168:
857:
805:
As printed sources, they counter systematic bias towards online sources and are more likely to fare better at being reliable sources in FACs.
390:
This is important because having some notability, that is to be cite or quoted in other sites or sources, doesn't mean the site is reliable.
21:
251:
something I originally intended to try and fix, but I just couldn't sort out the contents in the individual sections well enough to do it.
438:
Anime
Boredom qualifies in none of these areas. That said, here is a list of sites that should qualify as RS for their information on
534:
to find out if a certain site might be judged reliable. She is usually the one the FACs turn to on evaluating reliable sources.
44:
179:
1b. Fair point about the serialization data. I'm just not sure where to find it, which of course is not your problem. :)
877:
843:
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c) and just about everything else.
334:
274:
164:
34:
17:
74:
705:
Also, I was thinking we should continue this discussion elsewhere. It's starting to get a bit disruptive here.
428:
bigwig corporate support (large media firms tend to have editorial processes in place for their acquisitions)
836:
548:
The DVDTalk and the Read About Comics are new to me. Thanks for them and for the clarification, Jappalang!--
508:
792:
by Fred Patten (pp. 82–84)—Printed mention on the series fans (at biddings, nominations of Best character)
502:
431:
the authors are acknowledged (by reliable sources) as industry experts, or have shown their expertise
691:
111:
176:
1a. I'll copy-edit as time permits. Two years have passed, so I should be less close to the text.
449:
899:
871:
496:
328:
268:
158:
511:
on DVD Talk—A site which has been featured on several media and is part of a large corporation
479:
519:
on DVD Verdict—A site which has its review process and reviewer profiles open to the public
462:
8:
810:
749:
660:
599:
539:
853:
824:
710:
626:
573:
553:
453:
395:
368:
296:
219:
67:
516:
892:
865:
457:
322:
262:
152:
351:
247:
198:
133:
86:
469:
82:
61:
347:
806:
745:
656:
595:
535:
492:
126:
355:
184:
849:
820:
706:
622:
569:
549:
531:
486:
391:
364:
292:
215:
90:
57:
476:—long-lived entertainment site with professional staff and editorial process
233:
reliable ones. For the serialization data, however, Anime News
Network is a
652:
587:
360:
234:
119:
94:
819:
Thanks again, Jappalang! The
Telotte text should be particularly useful.--
520:
699:
591:
197:
2b. The only real difference between this and the structure suggested by
780:
by Ellen Datlow, Kelly Link, Gavin Grant (pp. cvi–cvii)—book mention of
483:
209:
4. If anything, there's too much character material. See response to 2b.
129:
and doesn't follow the general construction of anime/manga series leads
68:
584:
512:
140:
2c: Not all refs properly formatted, and ref 31 combines 8 refs in one
800:
by J. P. Telotte (p. 133)—Watanabe's creation and take of the anime
695:
522:
653:"This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors"
106:
1a: It is not well written, with tone and prose issues throughout
43:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
777:
The Year's Best
Fantasy and Horror: Eighteenth Annual Collection
789:
Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews
772:
The following should be excellent additions to the article.
425:
page stating the process of screening and checking articles
848:
Lots of early comments. Not sure what the status is now.
473:
319:
Knowledge:Peer review/List of Naruto characters/archive1
317:
Here ya go, took me a bit to remember where it was LOL
194:
2a. I'll look into this once the body is taken care of.
505:
at AnimeonDVD—site acknowledged by industry as experts
187:, though I suppose that's for this room to decide. Is
482:—Review site by Greg McElhatton, an industry expert
911:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
122:, including Anime Boredum and Digitally Obsessed.
114:, which is an inappropriate per project consensus
47:). No further edits should be made to this page.
797:The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader
261:(possibly other anime/manga books as well). --
651:Nope. Who writes the article matters as well (
917:No further edits should be made to this page.
33:The following is an archived discussion of a
456:—Long established site that is part of
147:4: Seems to have excessive plot summary
14:
132:2b: badly fails this; does not follow
45:Knowledge talk:Featured article review
27:
246:Also, the article does not follow
28:
929:
485:whose publications qualify under
118:Several other references are non-
18:Knowledge:Featured article review
586:In general in accordance with
422:professional (i.e. paid) staff
13:
1:
460:(the company that publishes
7:
621:particular kind of source.
493:Excel Saga on Sci-Fi Weekly
10:
934:
530:You might wish to contact
904:14:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
882:16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
858:15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
829:01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
815:01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
754:23:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
715:18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
665:07:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
631:07:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
604:06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
578:06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
558:05:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
544:05:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
400:04:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
373:04:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
339:03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
301:03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
279:02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
224:02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
191:still relevant precedent?
169:00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
914:Please do not modify it.
692:Seven Seas Entertainment
112:List of Excel Saga media
40:Please do not modify it.
35:featured article review
784:merchandise (Menchi!)
517:Excel Saga judgement
463:Protoculture Addicts
363:, but there it is.--
60:12:55, 26 July 2008
891:, no improvement.
450:Index of Excel Saga
189:the "best there is"
509:Excel Saga reviews
503:Excel Saga reviews
454:Anime News Network
348:Joseph (Joe) Woods
480:Read About Comics
470:Excel Saga comics
458:Protoculture Inc.
359:buys in terms of
75:Review commentary
925:
916:
896:
868:
325:
265:
155:
52:The article was
42:
933:
932:
928:
927:
926:
924:
923:
922:
921:
912:
894:
866:
839:
837:FARC commentary
352:David Rasmussen
323:
263:
153:
77:
72:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
931:
920:
919:
907:
906:
885:
884:
846:
845:
838:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
803:
802:
801:
793:
785:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
703:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
563:
562:
561:
560:
527:
526:
525:
524:
514:
506:
500:
490:
477:
467:
444:
443:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
426:
423:
417:
416:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
343:
342:
341:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
284:
283:
282:
281:
255:
254:
253:
252:
241:
240:
239:
238:
227:
226:
212:
211:
210:
207:
203:
195:
192:
180:
177:
149:
148:
145:
141:
138:
130:
123:
115:
107:
99:
98:
76:
73:
71:
66:
65:
50:
49:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
930:
918:
915:
909:
908:
905:
901:
897:
890:
887:
886:
883:
879:
876:
873:
869:
862:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
844:
841:
840:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
799:
798:
794:
791:
790:
786:
783:
779:
778:
774:
773:
771:
770:
755:
751:
747:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
716:
712:
708:
704:
701:
697:
693:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
528:
523:
521:
518:
515:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
494:
491:
488:
484:
481:
478:
475:
471:
468:
465:
464:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
436:
430:
427:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
414:
411:
410:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
353:
349:
344:
340:
336:
333:
330:
326:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
280:
276:
273:
270:
266:
259:
258:
257:
256:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
181:
178:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
166:
163:
160:
156:
146:
142:
139:
135:
131:
128:
124:
121:
116:
113:
108:
105:
104:
103:
97:
96:
92:
91:User:Monocrat
88:
84:
79:
78:
70:
64:
62:
59:
58:User:Marskell
55:
48:
46:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
913:
910:
888:
874:
867:AnmaFinotera
847:
842:
796:
788:
781:
776:
489:in this case
461:
439:
412:
331:
324:AnmaFinotera
271:
264:AnmaFinotera
161:
154:AnmaFinotera
150:
100:
95:User:Grm wnr
80:
53:
51:
39:
32:
356:John Huxley
782:Excel Saga
499:'s website
440:Excel Saga
125:2a: fails
81:Notified:
69:Excel Saga
22:Excel Saga
807:Jappalang
746:Jappalang
657:Jappalang
596:Jappalang
536:Jappalang
248:WP:MOS-AM
199:WP:MOS-AM
185:WP:V#Self
134:WP:MOS-AM
87:WP:COMEDY
878:contribs
850:Marskell
821:Monocrat
707:Kazu-kun
696:Tokyopop
623:Kazu-kun
570:Kazu-kun
550:Monocrat
532:Ealdgyth
413:Comments
392:Kazu-kun
365:Monocrat
335:contribs
293:Monocrat
275:contribs
216:Monocrat
206:welcome.
165:contribs
144:reasons"
120:reliable
83:WP:Anime
20: |
895:Georgia
127:WP:LEAD
54:removed
889:Remove
497:SCI FI
487:WP:SPS
893:Sandy
588:WP:RS
361:WP:RS
321:. --
235:WP:RS
202:them.
137:each.
16:<
900:Talk
872:talk
854:talk
825:talk
811:talk
750:talk
711:talk
661:talk
627:talk
600:talk
592:WP:V
590:and
574:talk
554:talk
540:talk
396:talk
369:talk
329:talk
297:talk
269:talk
220:talk
159:talk
700:ADV
474:IGN
472:on
452:on
151:--
56:by
902:)
880:)
856:)
827:)
813:)
752:)
713:)
698:,
694:,
663:)
629:)
602:)
576:)
556:)
542:)
398:)
371:)
354:,
350:,
337:)
299:)
277:)
222:)
214:--
167:)
93:,
89:,
85:,
63:.
37:.
898:(
875:·
870:(
852:(
823:(
809:(
748:(
709:(
659:(
625:(
598:(
572:(
552:(
538:(
495:—
466:)
442:.
394:(
367:(
332:·
327:(
295:(
272:·
267:(
218:(
162:·
157:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.