Talk:Eyeshield 21/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]This article looks close to ready for GA; it appears complete, and the sourcing seems good. Deb Aoki of About.com may be a bit borderline as a reliable source, but since you attribute her thoughts to her in text, I think it's ok. Thanks again for all your work on it.
I did have a few copyediting questions for you:
- "the extremely team" -- is there a word missing here?
Done - "players "passed an intimidating and powerful sensation"" -- this quotation doesn't really make sense to me. Is this in Japanese or English in the source? If English, I suppose we might leave it; if in Japanese, I think we need to revise it. Done
- " Before the book's launch, Inagaki and Murata, had a round table with Slam Dunk's Takehiko Inoue." -- a round table discussion to promote a book release seems extremely trivial; I'd suggest cutting this sentence. Done
- "that the readers gave up to finish" -- I'm not sure what this means. Done
- "with the first episode having a rating of 7.5" -- is it possible to give some context to this number? Is it on a scale of ten? Does the 7.5 stand for millions of viewers? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've done all your sugestions. Could you check if these points are now enlightened? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that clears up almost all of it. I'm still just a little confused on this sentence: " in another poll of the best Shōnen Jump titles that the readers didn't want to continue reading, Eyeshield 21 ranked twentieth" -- if these are the best titles, why don't readers want to read them any more? It's unclear whether readers think this is the 20th best title, or the 20th worst title. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it is a little confusing to a layman but if you can help me, I would be thanked. This pool intended to show to the people what series are appreciated by the readers but nevertheless they didn't want to continue reading because it becames very long or boring. As you can see in the article this series lasted seven years (and there is much more longer series) and some readers simply "gave up". Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, got it. I think I can clear that up with a word, but revert if you disagree. Will do the checklist in a minute. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it is a little confusing to a layman but if you can help me, I would be thanked. This pool intended to show to the people what series are appreciated by the readers but nevertheless they didn't want to continue reading because it becames very long or boring. As you can see in the article this series lasted seven years (and there is much more longer series) and some readers simply "gave up". Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, that clears up almost all of it. I'm still just a little confused on this sentence: " in another poll of the best Shōnen Jump titles that the readers didn't want to continue reading, Eyeshield 21 ranked twentieth" -- if these are the best titles, why don't readers want to read them any more? It's unclear whether readers think this is the 20th best title, or the 20th worst title. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've done all your sugestions. Could you check if these points are now enlightened? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]| 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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 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). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 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. | Pass as GA |