Mandarake has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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. Review: April 26, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Mandarake appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ Morgan695: I'm currently too busy to handle a GA review but I looked through the article and one thing that caught my eye is source #5, which is a matome post on Naver. Matome posts are usually user-generated so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Source #22 is a Geocities website and does not qualify as a reliable source. The store location sections are also 1-3 sentences, and one sentence usually should not stand alone as a paragraph. I would also recommend discussing how much of an impact Mandarake has on the industry, which I can't really tell from the article. lullabying ( talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: No Great Shaker ( talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Morgan695, I see you're still doing quite a lot of work on the article so I'll set this review aside for the time being. I'll continue when you're ready but there's no rush so take your time. I picked up the review as part of the GAN backlog drive and there's still about 250 others to be done. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Morgan695, and sorry for not being available in the last few days. It's surprising how much there is to do even when we're in lockdown and isolated. Anyway, I've reviewed the article and, as you can see, it has ticked all of the boxes above. I'm therefore pleased to promote it to GA. You've put a lot of effort into it and it is an interesting, well-written article. I think the controversy section is a particularly good idea. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Morgan695 ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
Mandarake has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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. Review: April 26, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Mandarake appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 May 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ Morgan695: I'm currently too busy to handle a GA review but I looked through the article and one thing that caught my eye is source #5, which is a matome post on Naver. Matome posts are usually user-generated so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Source #22 is a Geocities website and does not qualify as a reliable source. The store location sections are also 1-3 sentences, and one sentence usually should not stand alone as a paragraph. I would also recommend discussing how much of an impact Mandarake has on the industry, which I can't really tell from the article. lullabying ( talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: No Great Shaker ( talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Morgan695, I see you're still doing quite a lot of work on the article so I'll set this review aside for the time being. I'll continue when you're ready but there's no rush so take your time. I picked up the review as part of the GAN backlog drive and there's still about 250 others to be done. All the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Morgan695, and sorry for not being available in the last few days. It's surprising how much there is to do even when we're in lockdown and isolated. Anyway, I've reviewed the article and, as you can see, it has ticked all of the boxes above. I'm therefore pleased to promote it to GA. You've put a lot of effort into it and it is an interesting, well-written article. I think the controversy section is a particularly good idea. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker ( talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Morgan695 ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC).