Talk:Elfen Lied/GAR 1

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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. æt ə rnal ðrAعon 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the information of a whole paragraph was referenced from a single site, how do we work it out? æt ə rnal ðrAعon 10:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which paragraph is referenced from a single site? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them in the "Style and themes" section. Finally, we're getting along. æt ə rnal ðrAعon 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a paragraph is referenced from a single source, the source should be at the end of the paragraph. If the same source is used for a whole section, it should appear at the end of each paragraph. Any direct quotes should also have the source noted immediately after. One thing to be cautious of, though, particularly in a section like themes, is to not use a single source for all of it, because then one could argue it was only one person's opinion. If other reliable sources also note the same themes and styles, that would be good to source to multiples. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]