Talk:A Town Where You Live/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Taking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Checklist

Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disambig links:OK
Reference check: OK

Comments: This article is written well, but it has a few issues that really prevent me from passing it at this time. The character section is lengthy, a bit longer than I'd like, because it reiterates what is already given in the very brief plot section. I think the plot should be expanded to several times what it is now as a result. Yuzuki Eba's section misses the details on the breakup as noted in the plot. Some minor prose issues remain, please do a quick copyedit because I didn't want to go through every issue when it doesn't hit the broad or focused aspects, but "It was premiered in Weekly Shōnen Magazine issue 26, 2008." is poor grammar. The real issue is the lack of development details, I saw only one real sentence about the author's development and that was "Seo stated he wanted to create a love story set in his hometown as the inspiration to the series and that some of his characters were inspired by his friends." This is not adequate for a work that spans 25 volumes and is still in publication. The anime section is also lacking in development and production details, instead focusing on the release. The separate article on the list of episodes should be merged into this article and the details on the manga, minus the titles for each chapter in the volume, should also be integrated into this article and the details become part of the new plot description. Placing on hold for fixes or debate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realize the protagonists rehash the plot cause I didn't know what to put for them. I cut down Haruto the minimal. I'll have to think more about Yuzuki.
It's an episodic series and covers all significant events up to date. I don't feel the need to puff up the plot which is covered in greater detail in the volume list.
So I have to go import a bunch of materials for production information, which may not be useful or exist in that volume, for GA? I feel that fits more with FA than GA. Similar to the other GA, I will concede to the other ones conclusion.
As for the episode list, I can straight up merge it right now but they'd be lacking summaries.
For the chapter list, that's 30kb. I could merge it, but it would look weird since it would take up most of the article. As for removing the titles, that's debatable. I have no strong feelings either way towards the titles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's keep the articles separate. I haven't gotten a quick check on this article, but I did pass the other - so I will defer to my extra set of eyes as soon as I can get a comment on it. As you are well-aware, I'm picky and a bit precise, but I do mean well and I have really high standards that do cross over the GA line. I've been working on bringing up my own past GA because I find faults with them since I've become a better editor. I'm sure I am doing it to you to. I don't mean to cause any frustration, but I just like consulting someone who is well-versed in these matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. Those were sound subjects which were once brought up before. I was willingly to accept to whatever the SO's consensus was anyways. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, while I am waiting, I found an actual issue you can fix. Take a look at the Japanese Wikipedia's coverage. It contains the break down for the OAV and the Anime - including its staff and DVD release information. And the Universal Music CD releases. Do this and I'll pass it because that way two issues won't be lacking and I couldn't dig up much at http://www.kiminoirumachi.com/news/ though it is helpful for your release sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took the director/writer/composer and introduced them in the lead sentence for both animations. The music releases were the theme songs which I have added on. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass this now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]