GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Taking this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: This should not have been nominated, it is likely suitable for a quickfail because it does not address both the broadness and the focused aspects of the topic. Though I will place this on hold for fixes in the event that it can be improved within the week. When I printed this article out, for some reason it went to 12 printed pages, and that's always sitting in the back of my head. 2 of the pages were blank, owing to a table bug in some software glitch, but the following pages highlight a significant problem. The list of volumes, specifically the extra space for just listing the chapters provided is just plain useless. You could simply state in the summary box that it contains chapters 1-9 and I have always been skeptical of listing the title of each chapter in a volume. I would address that to reduce the whitespace and the amount of scrolling needed to view the simple information. The "extra chapter" or "chapters" portion also would fit into prose better with a description. The Film section is also very sparse and does not even give the casting information or what part of the story is used as its basis. There is no context for its plot, production, cast, reception all of which should be summarized. The radio dramas are a bit sparse, but these details by themselves are acceptable as part of the broad criteria as a niche material, but it would be short for FA level requirements. The chief issue, and the reason alone that I will likely not pass this: the complete lack of the development of the manga. We get one sentence about the artist's social life suffering as a result of the production, but there is no coverage of the overall concept, the characters, sources of inspiration or the themes that the author wanted to explore. This is something readers would expect on the article and given the combined lack of coverage on the development and production of the manga and the film, this may be difficult to fix in a week. If you believe it can be fixed, I can extend it for awhile. Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a second opinion at the GAN talk page. Are you not going to set this article to second opinion status? DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Taking this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
Good Article review progress box
|
Comments: This should not have been nominated, it is likely suitable for a quickfail because it does not address both the broadness and the focused aspects of the topic. Though I will place this on hold for fixes in the event that it can be improved within the week. When I printed this article out, for some reason it went to 12 printed pages, and that's always sitting in the back of my head. 2 of the pages were blank, owing to a table bug in some software glitch, but the following pages highlight a significant problem. The list of volumes, specifically the extra space for just listing the chapters provided is just plain useless. You could simply state in the summary box that it contains chapters 1-9 and I have always been skeptical of listing the title of each chapter in a volume. I would address that to reduce the whitespace and the amount of scrolling needed to view the simple information. The "extra chapter" or "chapters" portion also would fit into prose better with a description. The Film section is also very sparse and does not even give the casting information or what part of the story is used as its basis. There is no context for its plot, production, cast, reception all of which should be summarized. The radio dramas are a bit sparse, but these details by themselves are acceptable as part of the broad criteria as a niche material, but it would be short for FA level requirements. The chief issue, and the reason alone that I will likely not pass this: the complete lack of the development of the manga. We get one sentence about the artist's social life suffering as a result of the production, but there is no coverage of the overall concept, the characters, sources of inspiration or the themes that the author wanted to explore. This is something readers would expect on the article and given the combined lack of coverage on the development and production of the manga and the film, this may be difficult to fix in a week. If you believe it can be fixed, I can extend it for awhile. Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked for a second opinion at the GAN talk page. Are you not going to set this article to second opinion status? DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 07:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)