# Talk:Your and My Secret

Should the name be Your and My Secret (lowercase a in and)? --Squilibob 10:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Amazon.com link shows "Your & My Secret" but that probably doesn't mean anything over at Wikipedia. --Bxj (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Your and My Secret/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Taking this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Disambig links: OK
Reference check: OK
Comments: This should not have been nominated, it is likely suitable for a quickfail because it does not address both the broadness and the focused aspects of the topic. Though I will place this on hold for fixes in the event that it can be improved within the week.  When I printed this article out, for some reason it went to 12 printed pages, and that's always sitting in the back of my head. 2 of the pages were blank, owing to a table bug in some software glitch, but the following pages highlight a significant problem. The list of volumes, specifically the extra space for just listing the chapters provided is just plain useless. You could simply state in the summary box that it contains chapters 1-9 and I have always been skeptical of listing the title of each chapter in a volume. I would address that to reduce the whitespace and the amount of scrolling needed to view the simple information. The "extra chapter" or "chapters" portion also would fit into prose better with a description. The Film section is also very sparse and does not even give the casting information or what part of the story is used as its basis. There is no context for its plot, production, cast, reception all of which should be summarized. The radio dramas are a bit sparse, but these details by themselves are acceptable as part of the broad criteria as a niche material, but it would be short for FA level requirements. The chief issue, and the reason alone that I will likely not pass this: the complete lack of the development of the manga. We get one sentence about the artist's social life suffering as a result of the production, but there is no coverage of the overall concept, the characters, sources of inspiration or the themes that the author wanted to explore. This is something readers would expect on the article and given the combined lack of coverage on the development and production of the manga and the film, this may be difficult to fix in a week. If you believe it can be fixed, I can extend it for awhile. Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't add development when it doesn't exist. This can be argued whether development is basic coverage or comprehensive coverage and outside GA's scope. If we can't agree here, I'll take a second opinion for the development argument and I will accept whatever the SO says. Development sections of small time foreign video games are usually a history of reveals anyways.
I don't know why there are blank pages. I will think about the chapter list organization but that shouldn't be affecting GA criteria.
I let the character list handle the cast part for the film. I didn't consider adding a plot since I thought it was rehash but I'll do so in a bit. Reception doesn't exist, not enough sales to rank on Oricon and was direct to DVD so no box office.
DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Relax, don't get so defensive. The extra space is a Wikipedia matter, but those are more FA things. Though I am really rather concerned by the statement, "Development sections of small time foreign video games are usually a history of reveals anyways." There have been 9 volumes of manga, three radio dramas and a live-action film. I don't think anything missing the entire development portion on its main material or a secondary production as a live-action film is in the same ball-park. Wikipedia is not Angelo-centric, but I really must protest on the grounds that only one sentence about the author's social-life suffering is all we get for development. I take "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" to mean its development and production - the creation of the work, the thought behind the work, the themes and meaning put into the production. I really think that its entire omission alone should prevent it from becoming a GA. I could live with some parts suffering or being short, it is not necessary to be comprehensive, but it is a striking omission that falls far short of the "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." part of the assessment.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's not in the volumes notes, it's in the fan/art/guide books or interviews. Volume notes consist of the author's everyday life or cat fascination. Fan/art/guide books aren't released for small, unpopular series like these. There are no interviews relating to this series from the author. Development for the manga just doesn't exist. I'm not being Anglo-centric. There is that guide book for the film which may have some production information, for the film, but my opinion is that this would be beyond the scope of GA. We can go back to my second opinion suggestion about development, I will concede to whatever decision they make. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I still do not understand why the claim "it doesn't exist" is suitable to allow for its omission at a GA criteria. It is missing ample amounts on the development, themes and film's details. There is at least 7 different omissions and that is a problem for meeting both the broad and focused aspects. The criteron note is: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." So I suppose whether or not at least five "major facts or details" is acceptable. I suggest a second opinion as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a second opinion at the GAN talk page. Are you not going to set this article to second opinion status? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I got a second opinion... which requires me to defer, while not published on here, I do have to agree that the essay about public availability of sources is a standard - used reasonably - but I can't hold it up over that alone. Mostly because the GA can omit details, especially when there is no reliable sources or coverage of those details, this won't work at FA, but I have to bow to that assessment. As a result, I've passed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)