Talk:Mai Shiranui/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
While some quotation is acceptable, I feel that the reception goes a little too far in what it uses. I would be a lot more satisfied with that section in particular if it used quoting sparingly.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes SpoonyOne a reliable source? This question for myfigurecollection, toymania, Classic Gaming, Complex, CraveOnline, GameFront, TechCrunch, FMH, and Wild Gunmen. Additionally, deviantart cannot be used as a reference.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The bouncing breasts image, while potentially useful, uses a poor rationale, that implies something that is not shown in the article (at least if it is, I did not see it). The comic image caption does not illustrate to me what it is, and actually discusses things that are not related to the comic besides discussing something featured in it. The comic image itself does not provide a strong rationale for why it is featured, either.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
While it has promise, the reception section needs to be fixed, many of the sources are of questionable reliability, and the image captions and rationales need improvement. I'll give you about a week to fix these things up a bit before I give it another look over (and of course, I will check in for your comments on mine). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice it before. --Niemti (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SpoonyOne, Classic Gaming, Complex, CraveOnline, GameFront, TechCrunch, FHM (not "FMH"). ~~(But Wild Gunmen is just a blog.)~~ It calls itself a magazine, and appears to even have a printed edition (and address), but I'm not sure about it (especially since I don't see ads on it, even as they're asking for ads) - there's a case for it but it's not very strong. MyFigureCollection.net is just for toys, not news or opinions, and ~~I don't see "toymania" anywhere~~ replaced with official website, even turned out there was a second CG figure. The deviantART account is really Warren's official website (such times are now). There s The comic illustration is for to the issue of the absence of Mai in KOFXII (the game, because she is in the comic) and the critical reactions to it, which is all in the caption. Also, the "Article" link above (at the top) links to Richard O'Connor (politician). --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that last note, copypasted over to trip the bot but I messed up on doing it. Wizardman 05:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that having an article does not entail that the sources are reliable; it only indicates that the sources are discussed by reliable sources. Anyway, I'm fairly swamped right now, and as much as I hate to have to do it, I'm going to have to fail the article. I would have loved to provide some assistance if I had the time, but as it stands, there is simply too much work to be done in the GA period. Sources need heavy tweaking, quotations are very excessive and don't feel like they are a part of the article, and from what I've seen, some copyediting problems that I wouldn't be much help with. I suggest that you try to fix up the other GAs you have as much as you can, wait until your other GAs have finished their reviews, and place this one - and only this one - at Peer Review. While it is certainly no crime to do many nominations or reviews for your content, you are stretching yourself far too thin; having to focus on fixing problems in so many articles at once is simply too much for anyone to handle without taking a lot of time to do. If you work on only a couple at a time, it will be easier to work on them, and easier for editors to work with you to help the copyediting problems. I hope that you take my advice in stride; we haven't had any problems editing together, and it'd be a shame to have any now. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And whatever makes them unreliable for the stuff they say here (mostly voicing their own reception opinions)? --Niemti (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to reliability, it's important to establish it; as such, it's up to the person proposing a source as a reliable one, as opposed to the person objecting to a source to prove that they are unreliable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what can be unreliable about a personal opinion about a fictional character (coming from a major source)? --Niemti (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a fairly strict set of guidelines set up to prevent unreliable sources from being used. The reliable sources page will explain what a source must accomplish to be reliable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: how can a major publication's own opinion about a fictional character be ever possibly considered "unreliable" by anyone? --Niemti (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what makes Spoony's opinion more reliable for inclusion than mine? What sets him apart from the billions of people who could theoretically have opinions about a subject on Wikipedia? Being big and being a reliable source are two entirely different things. Spoony is, until demonstrated otherwise, not reliable for his opinion on Mai Shiranui because there is no appropriate argument to say that his opinion is that of an expert or professional in the field. Reliable sources must show that what they write has editorial oversight, among other things. The sources must prove that they can be used on Wikipedia. I have a blog - not a terribly big one, but it's got a fair amount of traffic - so what is stopping me from being a reliable source, to say that Mai Shiranui is a good/bad/ugly character? WP:RS. We need to have quality standards for who is used as sources in articles, is all. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know you don't have a vlog popular/notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. (And so are "the billions of people who could theoretically have opinions about a subject on Wikipedia".) You could rather argue he might be unreliable because he turned out to be in fact batshit insane which is why they kicked him out (or so I heard and never cared enough to verify it). In fact I also added Anita at the end, even as I personally think she's very unreliable (but this is only my opinion). --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity and reliability are two different things I'm afraid. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what can be unreliable about an opinion? Like, a possibilty that somebody lied about their opinion or what? --Niemti (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't reliable experts on the subject of video games. It doesn't matter what they say, unless they are considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, they cannot be used. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm pretty one doesn't need to be a certified "reliable expert on the subject of video games" to rate boobs. In fact, I think men's magazines are perfectly qualified to rate boobs, and possibly more than "reliable experts on the subject of video games". --Niemti (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to keep saying the same thing. Standards exist to prevent low quality sources being used on Wikipedia. The fact is, the only qualifying value for, say, Spoony, is that he is popular. Popularity, and even having your own Wikipedia article, are elements that show that he is a person that people know. Just because he is presenting his opinion does not make it acceptable to use it on Wikipedia. Every single source used on Wikipedia must assert that it is a quality source that should be used, even if it is only for that source's opinions. If we let Spoony get a free pass for popularity, a qualifier that is sketchy to be using, people will say "this source is popular, just like Spoony, so let's use it!" We must have standards. If you feel that Spoony's opinion should be acceptable to display on Wikipedia, then you must make a proposal at the Video Games WikiProject's reliable sources page. That's all there is to it. As this discussion is going in circles, I won't be responding any further, and I hope that you do take my advice and focus on fewer articles and bring up Spoony and other questionable sources on the page that I linked to. As it stands, the sources make it impossible for this article to become a Good article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not even standing for Spoony all that much. He got kicked out from TGWG for literally going crazy, or so they say. What are "other questionable sources" here allegedly unqualified to rate boobs, and most importantely - why? --Niemti (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...okay. --Niemti (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]