Talk:Darker than Black: Shikkoku no Hana/GA1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Takipoint123 (talk · contribs) 05:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Note: I used Google Translate to check non-English sources, which may be incorrect.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Pass. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio checked. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Pass. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Pass. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Pass. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
|
I will take up the review for this article.--Takipoint123 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have placed the article on hold, and it will be placed on hold for a week for improvements.--Takipoint123 (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Revised everything from plot section.
- JournalduJapon seems to be careful with such article about the handling of reviews and copyrighted information.
- Oricon sadly did not release information about the first volume of the manga involving sales.
- The chapter titles are rough translations from Japanese scans. I'll remove them if you want it.Tintor2 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tintor2: I have looked at your improvements and added additional suggestions.--Takipoint123 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Takipoint123: Thanks for being patient with my issues. I tried revising more per your comments but could you pinpoint at least through a tag or hidden message which part of the article has that sentence that should be removed? Can't find it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tintor2: Sorry for being unclear with the location of the improvements, but it seems like they've been resolved. I've made a few revisions to the article, including a change in the plot and the volume list.
- I think the article should be tidied up to be a GA, although I do feel a bit wary about its coverage. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The author barely talked about the series sadly so I can't anything about its creation.Tintor2 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tintor2: That's sad, and I'm not the cruel reviewer to require information that doesn't exist :) . I think the coverage should be fine in that case as the related articles to this topic seems to be good quality articles. Great work, and I'll pass the review but before that wait a few days just to make sure someone else can leave comments if they would like. Takipoint123 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The author barely talked about the series sadly so I can't anything about its creation.Tintor2 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tintor2: All significant issues have been resolved as listed above, and the original review could be found at here. The article is passed, and great work! --Takipoint123 (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)