Talk:The Heart of Thomas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be taking this up for review. I haven't done a GA review in a while so my reviewing skills may still be a little rusty, but I'll try to finish this by the end of the week or so. For now I haven't seen any obvious article issues and I haven't detected any close paraphrasing, though I still need to compare to other sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll be checking some of the article criteria right now. If one of the icons is still showing as the yellow one, it means I haven't completed it yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Right now the lede section is a little incomplete, as it doesn't really say anything about the manga's development, production, and publication. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the lede to include this info.

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Given that almost all of the sources are offline, I am assuming good faith here, although a copyvio check using Earwigs didn't raise any red flags. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
This is just optional, but I would suggest adding one more image to the article if you can: perhaps a picture of the manga's main cast (if one exists), as the cover image in the infobox in my opinion doesn't really give a good idea of what the characters look like (especially for a very old series like this where readers may be more familiar with more recent manga designs). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art already depicts the three primary characters (despite being the title character, Thomas is deceased for the majority of the series) and is representative of the art style of the series, so I'm not sure a cast image would be necessary or pass NFCC.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A well-written article that's almost ready to be passed. I think the only notable issue is the apparent incompleteness of the lede, and once that is resolved this should be good to go. As this is my first review in a while and I'm still not very confident in my GA reviewing skills, I'll also ask for a second opinion on prose wordings, but on my end I don't see any real issues. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Response above. Morgan695 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Just following up on this. Morgan695 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more-or-less good to go, I'm just waiting for the user I asked (Tintor2) for their thoughts on the review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems well to me. I would suggest adding a source to the characters not ridiculously detailed but something simple like I did with Hamatora#Characters (Although Hamatora does need to be trimmed though). Maybe a third party source is enough or if the official website has brief details of the cast like this promotion of Bungo Stray Dogs.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I don't think it's necessary. Per MOS:PLOT, descriptions of plot/characters don't require citations, as the cited work is assumed to be the work itself. Citations would be needed if the descriptions referenced material that is external to the work itself (e.g. List of Sesame Street Muppets), but that's not the case here. Morgan695 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then if I were the reviewer, I'll pass it. Just wondered about any nitpick a FA reviewer would give. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Narutolovehinata5, this is ready for your final review. Morgan695 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! I've been a bit busy over the past few days, but I've been taking a second look at the article. I'll finish the review by later today. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, but this should be good to go now. Congrats. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]