Talk:New Cutie Honey/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Some sales figures could still be helpful here, but it's fine for GA without them.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Episodes needs to be sourced. Being sourced in the list is not good enough. Done
See "Addressing 2B" below. --an odd name 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Sales data here I find wanting.

B. Focused:
Character section is too long. Either split it off into a list or compile it into 1-2 short paragraphs. The plot could also use some minor trimming, but it's not as bad.
See "Addressing 3B" below. --an odd name 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article is close to GA level. Fix the sourcing issue for episode list and do something with the characters and plot and it should be good to go.じんない 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Please give me at least three days; I'll re-structure Plot and Characters—showing you different versions as needed—then the sources. Sales info is non-existent even in the (very rare) Perfect Guides; I've seen only this (in Japanese) fairly comprehensive, non-reliable fansite barely mention (in paragraph 2) that rental figures started well for the first episodes before dropping off for later ones.

See related discussions on the characters at Talk:Cutie Honey The Live, WT:MOS-ANIME, and the last peer review. I'm considering a combined Plot and Characters section with less total details (similar to this guideline) as there's simply not enough info to get a spin-off of the characters to a high quality (or even prove their notability, in my opinion) and I really don't feel like splitting them off again unless there's strong consensus. --an odd name 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing 2B

Does this fix the episode sourcing issue? (I kind-of sort-of lied in that second sentence: I started working (in my sandbox) on the 3B issue first, but finished with the cite issue first. I hope.) --an odd name 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should be good enough.じんない 09:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing 3B

Check this edit. I actually had to add to the first Plot paragraph because there wasn't enough context. --an odd name 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are good enough. The descriptions seem a bit wordy, but not enough to prevent the nomination. You should consider getting it peer reviewed by someone from WP:PRV though as well.じんない 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send it to the reviewers another day, as there are other articles and things I want to attend to. Thanks again for your review! --an odd name 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]