Jump to content

Talk:Ten no Hate Made – Poland Hishi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ten no Hate Made – Poland Hishi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All comments and suggestions addressed
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All concerns and suggestions addressed - minor outstanding note about proseline, but that is not a GA-level issue.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    No issues here
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    No issues
    C. It contains no original research:
    Source review is a pass per spotchecks below
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig's tool is clear and spotchecks reveal no issues
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I think this article does what it can with sparse source material
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No extraneous material
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Spotchecks suggest all POVs are being fairly represented
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No issues with stability
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images are appropriately licensed as far as I can tell. Effort has been made to ensure illustration.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • Not strictly a requirement, but the plot summary is a little brief: can it be beefed up a little?
  • I appreciate you are working within the limitations of the source material, but a few summary sentences are vague: "related to other titles by Ikeda"; how?
    • I expanded on this, having located a source that makes this connection (which, admitedly was a bit ORish without a source, although it can also be said to be a case of WP:COMMONSENSE). That said, I am afraid there is not that much to write outside the fact that they simply share similar setting/characters/time period - everything else would go into real OR (as the sources do not talk about similarities aside from said superficial and obvious connections). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good - can you add a briefer version to the lead?
        •  Done
  • Similarly, the Japanese publication history; the first of those is a newspaper, and the rest publishing houses, yes? So I presume it was serialized on first publication, and collected thereafter; but it would be nice to have any available detail.
  • What does the "imprint" actually signify, in the infobox? especially if the manga was serialized in the newspaper?
  • I adjusted the infobox to say 3 volumes, in line with the summary, noting in case this isn't accurate.
  • It would be useful to have a gloss for Japonica Polonica Fantastica
    • Sorry, what is gloss? Description? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the sense of a brief explanation: wikt:gloss#Noun_2.
        • I see. I believe that if an article has a blue link, or a red link with interlanguage link template, gloss is not needed (I believe this is explained somewhere in the MOS; I cannot locate an exact guideline here but that's the gist I get from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking). If you are familiar with a relevant policy, please link it, but I very, very rarely see such defined "gloss" (or at least that's what I subjectively feel, and I base this also on other GAs I've written where such an issue was not raised by the reviewers). I've added mini-gloss by adding words newspaper and magazine to two titles you asked; but I think it is not necessary for other cases mentioned here, as the context makes it clear that those are organizations/people that reader can click through and read about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't want to get into the weeds with the MOS, because in any case only a handful of MOS sections are GA requirements. I'm mostly resting on the clarity section of GAC1. In my view, where the basic identity of the linked topic is clear to the non-technical reader, a gloss isn't needed, but where it isn't, it's extremely helpful. You already do this in several places - for instance, I think it's pretty clear that "review on the Polish portal Manga Tanuki" is much clearer than "review on Manga Tanuki". Similarly, I believe "Polish Manga publisher Japonica Polonica Fantastica", or even "Poland's first Manga publisher, Japonica Polonica Fantastica" would aid the reader considerably. This is especially true for Henriette de Vauban, who doesn't have an English article. The EBIB Bulletin is perhaps less essential, because it's clearly a magazine, and which society is publishing it is perhaps less critical. I'm not going to compel you on this - I will not fail a GAN over the lack of one or two glosses - but I would strongly recommend it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Vanamonde93 I roughly agree; I've added Polish manga publisher - it certainly can't hurt. The problem with pl:Henriette de Vauban is that very little is know by her (or, at least, her pl wiki article sucks, and I haven't had the time or will to work on it). If you read it (which is one-two clicks with modern browsers, with their build in MTs), you'll see we have nothing to work with - she was Poniatowski's lover and that's it, all of this is covered by 'romance'. Frankly, I am not sure she is even notable - if she is, the pitiful stub at pl wiki is, well, pitiful, but no source I've seen so far while researching this manga touched upon her. And while Józef Poniatowski is an interesting figure, I've never gotten around to improving his bio. I'll ping two editors interested in Polish history, who worked on JP's article, in case any would like to offer further insights on her: @Orczar @Merangs Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Piotrus: & @Vanamonde93: – thanks for the ping. Although I am well aware of Poniatowski's lifetime military achievements, his private endeavours remain rather obscure to me with a few exceptions. Speaking frankly, I had absolutely no idea who Henriette de Vauban was nor did I know anything about her contributions. It is interesting that the Polish-language article mentions her as a notable persona within aristocratic circles of Warsaw but I think that might be an overstatement. In fact, when checking book sources online, I found a few in the English language but very little on her in Polish; or at least in 21st-century sources. If you do require any translations from the old Polish texts on Google Books then please let me know. Merangs (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fair, and while I think a gloss for de Vauban - and for Kościuszko, per below - would be nice, I don't think I need hold the GAR up over them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion only: the first three sentences of "In Japan" are oddly ordered, to me: I would put the sentences about Ikeda together.
  • "due to its Polish themes" - should this be "Polish setting"?
  • It would be nice to have a date anchor in the lead for the setting; not all readers will know the time period being referenced
  • Could please gloss Rzeczpospolita and Biuletyn EBIB?
  • Similarly, Henriette de Vauban and Tadeusz Kościuszko?
  • You sometimes refer to the main character as Price Jozef, and sometimes as Poniatowski - I'd lean toward the latter, but even if you go the other way be consistent in which you use.
  • I'm not conversant with our conventions on quoting translations - is it even necessary? since you're generally translating idiomatically rather than literally - I assume - couldn't you simply paraphrase?
  • There's some WP:PROSELINE creeping into the reception. Again this isn't a GA fail issue as such, but if you could vary it a little it would read a lot nicer.
  • Spotchecking Ref 6, I found I cannot access all of it but the snippet that I can see has some interesting background on Ineda - any expansion would be nice.
  • Again entirely optional, but there's some short paragraphs at the end of analysis: it would be nice to group this material a bit more, thematically if possible. The sentence about Włodarczyk's views could go with the paragraph on historical changes, for instance - and material about the value of illustrating history could be gathered. This is not a GA requirement.

Spotchecks

[edit]

Noting that I am relying on machine translation, as most sources are not in English.

  • Ref 7 checks out at each instance
  • Machine translation is struggling with Ref 15, anime.com.pl; what I'm looking at looks like a discussion forum, and doesn't mention a 2008 publication; can you help me out?
    • Fair. This ref does not seem necessary considering the other ref states this was published in a single volume edition in 2008. The only value of this ref is that it suggests that the volume was published in 2009 while dated to 2008, but I agree it is not very clear or reliable, so I'll remove it; no other source mentions 2009 and our article did not do it, either. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 checks out
  • Ref 23 checks out: any reason it's cited before the period?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japanese sources

[edit]

In case anyone wonders: I've asked several times on ja wiki if there are any Japanese sources that could be used, but nobody replied. Effectively, if there are Japanese sources (reviews, etc.) I am unable to even confirm they exist, since I am not fluent in Japanese. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANN encyclopedia

[edit]

This article cites the Anime News Network encyclopedia twice, which is considered to be unreliable since it, unlike the rest of the site, is user-edited (see WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK). Any sources to it should be replaced. Link20XX (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 544 past nominations.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm not sure what's meant by "legally published", it makes it seem like manga was banned in Poland but that doesn't seem to be the case. From the article it seems to be the first manga published with the author's permission. I would consider a simpler hook (perhaps eliminating the "first" claim) because it doesn't add interest that one of the first publications in a genre generates more popularity for it. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ten_no_Hate_Made_–_Poland_Hishi&oldid=1272360182"