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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some sales figures could still be helpful here, but it's fine for GA without them.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Episodes needs to be sourced. Being sourced in the list is not good enough. Done

   See " Addressing 2B" below. -- an odd name 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Sales data here I find wanting.

   B. Focused:

   Character section is too long. Either split it off into a list or compile it into 1-2 short paragraphs. The plot could also use some minor trimming, but it's not as bad.

   See " Addressing 3B" below. -- an odd name 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article is close to GA level. Fix the sourcing issue for episode list and do something with the characters and plot and it should be good to go. じん ない 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your review. Please give me at least three days; I'll re-structure Plot and Characters—showing you different versions as needed—then the sources. Sales info is non-existent even in the (very rare) Perfect Guides; I've seen only this (in Japanese) fairly comprehensive, non- reliable fansite barely mention (in paragraph 2) that rental figures started well for the first episodes before dropping off for later ones.

See related discussions on the characters at Talk:Cutie Honey The Live, WT:MOS-ANIME, and the last peer review. I'm considering a combined Plot and Characters section with less total details (similar to this guideline) as there's simply not enough info to get a spin-off of the characters to a high quality (or even prove their notability, in my opinion) and I really don't feel like splitting them off again unless there's strong consensus. -- an odd name 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Addressing 2B

Does this fix the episode sourcing issue? (I kind-of sort-of lied in that second sentence: I started working (in my sandbox) on the 3B issue first, but finished with the cite issue first. I hope.) -- an odd name 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

That should be good enough. じん ない 09:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Addressing 3B

Check this edit. I actually had to add to the first Plot paragraph because there wasn't enough context. -- an odd name 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The changes are good enough. The descriptions seem a bit wordy, but not enough to prevent the nomination. You should consider getting it peer reviewed by someone from WP:PRV though as well. じん ない 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll send it to the reviewers another day, as there are other articles and things I want to attend to. Thanks again for your review! -- an odd name 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply