Talk:Otome wa Boku ni Koishiteru/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The article fails WP:AVOID in several places, including development. Abreviations are used in the text that are not explained beforehand for items that could have multiple uses, such as PS2. The article also needs a serious copyediting. I'm not the best, but even I can spot several problems:

The article uses sentences like "The story centers around a feminine male high school student named Mizuho Miyanokouji," which can confuse the reader as the usual word is effeminite.

I gather that the term "effeminate" is not as neutral as describing the character as a "feminine male", and the reviewers of the series generally prefer not to use the term either. --Malkinann (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effeminacy is linked from Femininity article for Feminity in men therefore it sounds like the most approrpiate one as that article covers mostly femininity in women which does not seem appropriate.陣内 _Jinnai 22:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Effeminate" is loaded language, which WP:AVOID says we should avoid. Chris Beveridge and Erica Friedman noted that at times the series almost forgets the character is male, preferring instead to set him up as a paragon of femininity. --Malkinann (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then please cite that in the lead. I think this may be one of the few cases to ignore the "no citations" in WP:LEAD.陣内 _Jinnai 02:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly were you thinking of? I've put a mention of Mizuho's depiction in the List of Otome wa Boku ni Koishiteru characters. --Malkinann (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you mention the word effeminite is loaded while at the same time calling someone a "feminine male" will likely be seen as such by the average person who comes to read this article. WP:LEADCITE does not exempt contriversial statemwents in the lead from not being sourced and this by far thethe most contriversial statement, saying he's a "feminine male" without saying he's "effeminite."陣内 _Jinnai 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the character a "feminine male" is much more neutral than the loaded term "effeminate". Why is this controversial? --Malkinann (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're claiming they are a "feminine male" without being "effeminate" themselves. That is a judgment call on the character. That's why it requires a citation. The other way to deal with this is to desribe directly in sentence why he is a that. See WP:AVOID#Words that label. Right now that sentence isn't doing that.陣内 _Jinnai 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Effeminate" is a loaded term which we should be avoiding in order to present the character neutrally. However, seeing as you are objecting to the more neutral description of a "feminine male" and I don't think I can quite squish a discussion of Mizuho's presentation into the lead, how about I change it to "an androgynous male"? It still shows Mizuho as being a liminal character in one word, which is still less value-laden than "effeminate". --Malkinann (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better, although if it's merely the length that worries you, you can use footnotes.陣内 _Jinnai 04:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The visual novel was first released [...] for the PC as two CD-ROMs. - Was it released in 2 installments or in one on 2 CDs? The use of "as" makes it unclear.
These novels contained erotic content only suitable for adults. - Could be shortened to "These novels contain erotic content.
Do not need to use .com after a website like Mania.com

This is far from complete. The plot section could also be cleaned up somewhat as it contains a 5 paragraphs. Most notably that last paragraph is quite short by comparison to the rest.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
i cited the 2 spots that could use references. However there is a lot of speculative statements throughout the entire article, especially gameplay, plot and development that aren't backed up by any source or are possible controversial claims requiring independent reliable sources. Some of this can be fixed with wording, but some of it, like "[...]as is typically found in the visual novel[..]" cannot and is not really necessary.
The information on "Christian undertones", unless there is direct Christian references like a chapel, that needs to be cited by either the creative staff or another independant source. I know this crops up a lot in Japanese media, but it would be WP:SYNTH to say that.

Could you please tag problematic statements with {{or}}? It would help to know which statements are regarded as speculative or controversial. --Malkinann (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added OR tags. The ones added compare and contrast or use subjective reasoning to come to a conclusion which is WP:SYNTH. Either it needs to be cited more precisely where that is mentioned in-game or in the manual or from a reliable 3rd-party source.陣内 _Jinnai 22:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The items seem possible to fix within a week. I do not know how well the copyediting will go as I know that is an issue, but we'll see.

I tried fixing up the article by removing some OR statements, and adding a source to one in development; I re-read the whole article and fixed what I thought needed fixing. Further, I might add that the GA criteria states "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" and "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation". I do not think the prose isn't clear in what is being conveyed, at least not anymore, and the prose need not be brilliant.--十八 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing on MoS as the only problem their was WP:AVOID. I'll look at it in more detail later. I'm busy atm.陣内 _Jinnai 22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced or removed your OR concerns in the character section, but I was confused as to why you put the OR tag at the end of paragraph 2, since there was already a cite there from the visual fan book.--十八 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a very controversial claim about a specific character, comparing and contrasting here and as such a general reference to the book was imo not good enough. A more clear reference to where it is stated in the book, ie page numbers, is needed.陣内 _Jinnai 02:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the last bit about her being gentle; is that sufficient?--十八 05:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, although you should try to find that info in the future.陣内 _Jinnai 05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the problems are addressed. I am not sure about the prose, but I don't think it is enough to warrant not passing as it seems clear to me.陣内 _Jinnai 05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]