GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (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). | Ref 39 is dead. Replace |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | citation needed added |
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. | Infobox image needs a caption stating stating if it is from Part I or II. Add description on image page in fair use rationale. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | The articles needs a through copyedit and more clarity in the life summary. Also give more context to explain jargon like chakra. Include more manga as well as anime, video games related information, as suggested in 3a. |
So you say that adding in-universe information will make the article better? I still don't see how would adding details like "Naruto makes all his clones launch each other in one attack, or that the Rasengan can only be made with Naruto's clones" be important to the general reader. If I were to follow other stuff, how GAs Samus Aran, Lara Croft and Cloud Strife avoid using these types of subsections. You also pointed few sentences that I was going to try fixing, but did the nomination automatically fail due to the lack of in-universe sections? Tintor2 ( talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
All the points in section 1a have been addressed, except for the following (quotes taken from this version):
It seems reasonably clear and concise to me, but I've read the article a bunch of times now. Someone else may want to give it a quick speed read just to make sure I'm not imagining it. Cheers. Braincricket ( talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 3 December 2011 (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). | Ref 39 is dead. Replace |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | citation needed added |
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. | Infobox image needs a caption stating stating if it is from Part I or II. Add description on image page in fair use rationale. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | The articles needs a through copyedit and more clarity in the life summary. Also give more context to explain jargon like chakra. Include more manga as well as anime, video games related information, as suggested in 3a. |
So you say that adding in-universe information will make the article better? I still don't see how would adding details like "Naruto makes all his clones launch each other in one attack, or that the Rasengan can only be made with Naruto's clones" be important to the general reader. If I were to follow other stuff, how GAs Samus Aran, Lara Croft and Cloud Strife avoid using these types of subsections. You also pointed few sentences that I was going to try fixing, but did the nomination automatically fail due to the lack of in-universe sections? Tintor2 ( talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
All the points in section 1a have been addressed, except for the following (quotes taken from this version):
It seems reasonably clear and concise to me, but I've read the article a bunch of times now. Someone else may want to give it a quick speed read just to make sure I'm not imagining it. Cheers. Braincricket ( talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)