Planet Ladder has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 29, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles

GA Review[edit]

Although in general the article is well put together, I have failed it's GA nomination for a number of reasons. The main problem with the article is that it is completely in-universe. See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) for some tips on how to write an article based on a work of fiction. Related to this first criticism is that the only sources of information cited are various volumes of the manga itself. Per WP:RS, these sources cannot be considered reliable. However, this criticism is somewhat a misnomer, since it is generally acceptable to cite a piece of media when describing in-universe facts (though if you were to add out-of-universe information, as I've suggested above, they would obviously not be sufficient). In doing so, I would generally try and cite specific in-universe facts (using in-line citations), and quoting whenever possible directly from the media itself. For a few examples of how to do this, see Final Fantasy VII and Dead Like Me. Hopefully these issues can be addressed at some point, and the article renominated for GA-status. If you have any questions or concerns about the article or about this review itself, please let me know and drop me a line on my talk page. Drewcifer (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail[edit]

This article is better than last time, it seems, but still not quite there. It is still overwhelmed with in-universe information. Reign that plot summary and character-description info in. I'd say cut it by at least two-thirds. And see if you can add anything more to the Reception and Production sections. Also, when citing websites, be sure to include the title of the web page. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

Bad link to author website changed. Looking for better Official site. Rozzychan (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail once more[edit]

Sorry to disappoint, but the page is currently missing several standard components for a manga article, which make the page incomplete. Have you looked at the structure of similar Good Articles on manga? That could be quite helpful to you.

Specifically, WP:MOS-MANGA recommends a "Production" and "Media" section. Right now the content that should be in these two is mashed into the manga/promotion section. I suggest splitting them to be in line with other pages. Also, you need to add the publication information for the 7 volumes (English and Japanese). This data is easily obtainable through sources like Amazon, and can be organized using the Template:Graphic novel list. That last one will also throw your in universe/out of universe balance closer to the ideal, so it will be good all around.

Good luck, and good work so far. If you have any additional questions, feel free to stop by my talk page. --erachima talk 10:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass[edit]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Planet Ladder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos! You've written a very nice article :) I've read it and gone through everything completely, and it meets WP:MOS-AM, WP:WAF, and WP:GAC just fine. I'm quick-passing it to GA! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Planet Ladder passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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: Pass

Reviews[edit]

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/tankobon-tower/2004-02-11 Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ISBN[edit]

ISBN 978-4-420-17044-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, the "Japanese ISBN" for No. 05 September 25, 2002, is causing a Checkwiki error #73 "ISBN-13 with wrong checksum". I cannot easily find Japanese ISBNs. Would somebody who has access to No. 05 please correct it? You can test an ISBN by clicking on its link; bad ISBNs produce an error message. Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Planet Ladder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]