The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 27 February 2010 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on a recently licensed Japanese manga series. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article but may warrant further improvements by a larger group of reviewers to meet the brilliant prose criterion. Thanks in advance for your comments. Arsonal ( talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Support - As the GA reviewer for this article I can confirm that it meets all the style and layout requirements of WP:MOS-AM. This is well researched and fully referenced. Images all have the proper rationale attached to them. Article doesn't appear excessively bogged down in minor details, but has an appropriate length to cover the topic properly. Only one thing sticks out here, is the red links in the intro and music sections, as well as one in the references, otherwise this looks like a FA to me. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Source comments One left for editors.What makes these reliable?
RB88 ( T) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Pardon the last minute additions and revisions. The 3 newly found references (one from the Mainichi Shimbun and two from the Yomiuri Shimbun) should not be of any doubt whether they meet the guidelines on reliable sources. They also provide more domestic coverage of the subject. Arsonal ( talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:05, 27 February 2010 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured article criteria of a comprehensive and well-researched article on a recently licensed Japanese manga series. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed to gather further input on its content. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article but may warrant further improvements by a larger group of reviewers to meet the brilliant prose criterion. Thanks in advance for your comments. Arsonal ( talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Support - As the GA reviewer for this article I can confirm that it meets all the style and layout requirements of WP:MOS-AM. This is well researched and fully referenced. Images all have the proper rationale attached to them. Article doesn't appear excessively bogged down in minor details, but has an appropriate length to cover the topic properly. Only one thing sticks out here, is the red links in the intro and music sections, as well as one in the references, otherwise this looks like a FA to me. -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Source comments One left for editors.What makes these reliable?
RB88 ( T) 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Pardon the last minute additions and revisions. The 3 newly found references (one from the Mainichi Shimbun and two from the Yomiuri Shimbun) should not be of any doubt whether they meet the guidelines on reliable sources. They also provide more domestic coverage of the subject. Arsonal ( talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply