Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Appears to pass quick fail criteria. On to the real review. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass Prose is clear, no grammar or spelling errors detected. As far as I can tell, this is by-the-book as far as layout and style. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I had a slight problem here:
Placing on hold -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass I placed this on hold because none of the plot section was referenced. I was aware at that time of other GA anime articles that did not cite sources for the plot section. Also with WP:V I know that only material that is likely to be challenged needs to be cited. I still think that the section should be referenced and I still think that GA criteria at least prefers this, if not requires it. I'm going to go by the letter of WP:V and pass the article on this criteria. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass This article stays on topic. Keeps in-universe details in perspective and keeps a real-world frame of reference. It also addresses all the main topics required by the manual of style. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass I didn't see any POV issues. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass As discovered in the quickfail test, this appears to just be steadily improved. No radical changes or edit wars. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass Has images. Both images are appropriately captioned and tagged with a fair-use rationale. Both are relevant to the topic. Asthetically, I don't like how that image sits below the infobox, but technically everything is correct and the image is appropriate. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
On hold - I would hate to fail this review just on a technicality; but almost every GA has referenced its plot section. Criteria #2a requires that it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;.
I'm placing this review on hold for up to a week. Please let me know on my talkpage when this has been fixed and I will complete the review. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen other GA articles with unreferenced plots (Tokyo Mew Mew is FA without a referenced plot) if you are going to reference it though I suggest referencing the manga as the source. I have read the manga and seen the anime though and there are notable diffrences in the two. The plot hits upon all the major things in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Pass - Appears to meet all GA Criteria. Keep up the good work! --
Kraftlos (
Talk |
Contrib)
05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Appears to pass quick fail criteria. On to the real review. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass Prose is clear, no grammar or spelling errors detected. As far as I can tell, this is by-the-book as far as layout and style. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I had a slight problem here:
Placing on hold -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass I placed this on hold because none of the plot section was referenced. I was aware at that time of other GA anime articles that did not cite sources for the plot section. Also with WP:V I know that only material that is likely to be challenged needs to be cited. I still think that the section should be referenced and I still think that GA criteria at least prefers this, if not requires it. I'm going to go by the letter of WP:V and pass the article on this criteria. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass This article stays on topic. Keeps in-universe details in perspective and keeps a real-world frame of reference. It also addresses all the main topics required by the manual of style. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass I didn't see any POV issues. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass As discovered in the quickfail test, this appears to just be steadily improved. No radical changes or edit wars. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
✓ Pass Has images. Both images are appropriately captioned and tagged with a fair-use rationale. Both are relevant to the topic. Asthetically, I don't like how that image sits below the infobox, but technically everything is correct and the image is appropriate. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
On hold - I would hate to fail this review just on a technicality; but almost every GA has referenced its plot section. Criteria #2a requires that it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;.
I'm placing this review on hold for up to a week. Please let me know on my talkpage when this has been fixed and I will complete the review. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 08:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen other GA articles with unreferenced plots (Tokyo Mew Mew is FA without a referenced plot) if you are going to reference it though I suggest referencing the manga as the source. I have read the manga and seen the anime though and there are notable diffrences in the two. The plot hits upon all the major things in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Pass - Appears to meet all GA Criteria. Keep up the good work! --
Kraftlos (
Talk |
Contrib)
05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)