Wikipedia:Peer review/School Rumble/archive1

School Rumble

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have it checked over for content, for any editing (any copyediting you can do would be appreciated), to see if I can get help shrinking the reception section without removing anything vital (perhaps also splitting it up more) and I want some feedback on whether the remaining items marked with need could be removed without harming the article and/or in the case of titles would be better moved to List of School Rumble episodes.

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dandy Sephy

• I've only skimmed the page as I'm only 10eps in and don't want to spoil anything. The first thing that caught my eye was the references in the lead and plot. Neither of these sections need referencing, and so they should be moved to the article body if possible (or removed if already present elsewhere in the article). Theres also a typo in some of your AnimeonDvd sources - Anime/mange :P Again, i've not read the reception section in case of spoilage, but looking at the refs for that section, are comments from every volume necessary? Unless they are discussing vital issues/praises, would it not be better to provide a summary of the entire series (such as first and last volume comments, maybe middle of the series comments if different enough)? 48 review references is definately excessive, but it's difficult to see at a glance if they are justifiable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time reviewing this article. As for plot, controversial statements, which probably will be challenged do generally need to be cited. If you think some are not, please let me know which and why. As for the lead section, moving references only applies to items not listed later in the article.

As for the volume releases, a lot are from different people. In order to not violate WP:NPOV all relevant reviews should be posted. If you can see a way to reduce this while keeping that let me know.陣内_Jinnai 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Every GA I recall seeing seen has no refs in the plot section, in the way that an episode list doesn't need referencing for it's summary's. It's not like claiming media releases, the work is it's ow source. Anything in the lead should be mentioned later in the article, so there should be no new information introduced that requires a reference - The guidebooks and light novels that are being referenced should be mentioned in the media section but aren't. As for the reception, I'm, not concerned about the number of sites offering views, but more the use of 6+reviews from each different reviewer. Do the opinions really change that much from volume to volume that can't be summarized better? For one sentance I spotted you've got 6 references! Also I've noticed a lot of citations mid sentence, they should all go at the end of the sentence. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Popotan has several items not listed later on in the article which are still necessary for referencing, such as why the title was named. Same for Sasuke Uchiha for merchandising. I think your misrepresenting what WP:LEAD#Citations says, ie that it is not a catch all to remove sources for statements nor does it state everything in there must be talked about later (FE: in Popotan there is no reason or section to talk about the title. That is best described in the lead and for Sasuke, with only one merchadise mentioned it would be merged back into the lead having 1-2 sentance sections is highly discouraged for such articles and there is no other proper place for it). That said, I am probably going to extract the novels and guidebooks and put them in a "related media section".

As for the reviews in general they do. Most of the reviewers slowly begin to like the series more as they go along.陣内_Jinnai 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the novels and guidebooks to a new section. That should solve your problem with the refs in the lead, but I'm not retracting my disagreements with the general principal; it's just with that new section there is no need for any refs in the lead and section is long enough that it shouldn't need to be re-merged.

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Nice article. Some examples you could check of these comments are the FA Tokyo Mew Mew or the GA Fullmetal Alchemist:

• The lead could use a little mention of the manga's plot per WP:Lead.
  • Thanks. I'll do did that. Let me know if you think more is needed.
• I agree with Dandysephy that the lead does not need refs.
  • Those items references are not mentioned later in the article as any section for them would be quite small. There isn't enough "related media" for School Rumble not covered elsewhere (merging music or video games into related media is generally not done).
• The second paragraph seems a little overdetailed, titles from the light novels could be moved to a light novels section (which it should be created)
  • There is no reception. All I'd be doing is spouting out the same thing I am there. Although maybe adding light novels + the fanbooks in a "related media" section might work. Thoughts?
    • A reception section is not needed. If such media has not appeared in North America or Europe it would be hard to have reception.
      • So...should the light novels and guidebooks be put into their own section?
        • Yep.Tintor2 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Done.
• If you are planning for GA, "The series takes place where the original left off" would need to be removed until it can be sourced
  • Yea, I'll either have to find a scantalation with page numbers or a press release or something. Before it goes to GAN everything will be cited or removed.
• The impact section is a bit short. The content could be moved to the anime.
  • It was originally like that, but the anime section was getting way to long and unweildy. It's already trying to cope with 2 seasons and an OVA. I do admit it is rather short, but there hasn't been much else for impact. If that can be cleaned up, then it might be better.
• The music section is overreferenced. As I checked if some are removed, the article is still well-referenced.
  • Please mention which refs you think could be removed.
    • In the part it is talked about Drama CD, the refs of the discset is enough since the site commonly explains the products.
      • This section has been fixed and expanded.
• Concept and creation could be merged with Production and development since those sections are not very long like the ones from other series like Death Note (although its otherstuff).
  • Maybe. I am going to look for more release info on some of the Japanese pages. I probably do it though if not much more comes up.
    • Combined the 2 sections. While I can get more release information, I doubt without a second interview from Kobayashi I'll get creation information.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• The characters section should be removed and the link to the characters list needs to be to moved to plot since both sections talk about the same.
  • ?? This is news to me. WP:MOS-AM does allow for it. Although, yea I think you might be right here since the plot revolves so much around character interactions. Although some of the info should be merged then if that's the case.
    • I've merged those 2 sections together.
• Gamefaqs is not a reliable source since all its content is user edited. Try using GameSpot or other sites.
  • Wrong. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. For their data page, GameFaqs is reliable. Only their data page. If you want to dispute that, you can, but I believe you'll have an uphill battle as that information can only be sumbitted by company officials.
• Some refs are lacking publisher.
  • Can you please list them?
    • 76-77, from 53 to 65.
    • *53-65 should be taken care of. All of them should be taken care of now.
  • I've made some comments. For some of the issues, most notably GameFaqs for the way its refenced, I flatly disagree with you. Most of them could use clarification.陣内_Jinnai 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tintor2 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC) A little more comments:

• The plot is using various refs which is not necessary in this types of sections.
• The plot could also show how the series ends.
• There are many refs from ign (137-142). With only four writers it could use one reference per reviewer.
• Some of refs 108-113 could be removed using "generally" instead being specific.

Note: Reviewers are requested not to subdivide the review using level-2 or level-3 headings, which disrupt the page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

KrebMarkt Can't help much ;) Video game possible ref: one Another one one more --KrebMarkt 06:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another batch mixed game/merchandising: merchandising merchandising again PSP bandai --KrebMarkt 06:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Last and very last batch if you can't do it with all those refs then....

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --KrebMarkt 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

merchandise refs are more for character pages. Still its useful for there.陣内_Jinnai 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from squilibob

Wow, it's been over 2 years since the last peer review. You've done plenty of work to the article, I did a copyedit. There are a couple of lines in a row that seem out of place and are like trivia in their current position in the article:

To commemorate the ending of the series with the final chapter of School Rumble Z, Jin Kobayashi drew a poster for the event. has nothing to do with neither "concept" nor "creation"

Before reading the manga, Ami Koshimizu, the seiyū for Tenma, initially attempted to interview for the role of Yakumo. This isn't appropriate for the first line of "Production and development". The first line should be more specific to the heading.

There's minor problems with grammar and spelling and there's redundant writing "in addition" and "also" should be used sparingly. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a and WP:WTA need to be applied properly. Other than that, the article seems ok. Good work. --Squilibob (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I combined the 2 sections mentioned above. I can't think of a general sentence for the section though as its kind of different elements.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)