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

Reviewer: Whiteguru ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Presenting a book sans slabs of text and excerpts is challenging. Well done, here.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Yes, links, citations to references are accurate and appropriate.

1. a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

Follows MOS; all references are reliable sources; (for a Japanese novella, well done)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

Yes, suitably broad in coverage.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

NPOV is presented.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

7 editors for 43 edits, 7278 page views for 60 days. A stable article is encountered.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

Image is a book cover; qualifies as fair use for non-free images. Accepted.

1. Overall:

A neat, informative presentation of Japanese novella, topic of Psychological horror, magical realism, surrealism. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 07:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

 Passed