Talk:Aim for the Ace!/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will complete this review within a day or two. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"Later, Shueisha collected the chapters and published them in 18 tankōbon volumes" - is Shueisha the publisher? Would be worth mentioning who they are to unfamiliar readers (like myself)

Yeah. "its first chapter was published by Shueisha in the Japanese magazine Margaret in January 1973." Isn't this sentence enough to clarify it? If not, do you have a more specific suggestion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would thinking that the lead could summarise the article better. For instance the last paragraph could contain more content from the "Reception and legacy" section. It could expand a little from "It is considered a classic by anime and manga critics" - what did critics really think about it?

This part summarize the only three English-language critics which I could find (which is the last paragraph of "Reception"). As a summary, I've tried to give readers somewhat a consensus of them. What would you include? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It was directed by Osamu Dezaki and lasted 26 episodes" - were all the episodes directed by Osamu Dezaki?

He is the credited as the general director. Individual episodes have not its directors specified. How should I put it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like "Osamu Dezaki served as the general director of all 26 episodes", or leave it alone? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"it was broadcast by Nippon Television from April 10, 1978, and March 31, 1979" - should this be it was broadcast by Nippon Television from April 10, 1978 to March 31, 1979 or am I wrong?

Yep. My bad. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider renaming the Games section to Video games, if it does not include any pre-1980s games

I'd prefer it to. In the last review by Zanimum, however, he pointed out that pachinko games are not video games.

"The anime was considered a hit on Japanese television and though aimed toward girls" - curious, what age group might this be?

schoolgirls, per Clements. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

The toolserver has noticed a few vaporized links. I'll leave the examples below:

These two links (not sure if they're in the article at all) [1], [2] redirect to a main page

Archived with WebCite. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with these three links the toolserver picked, up; [3], [4], [5], dead, but it's strange because I don't know if these are in the article

All archived with Internet Archive. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But other than that, I spot nothing wrong with the referencing, it all has the correct date/publisher/author format

On hold

This was interesting to read. It looks like this could be a worthy GA, so I'll put this on hold for at least seven days until everything has been addressed. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review, Jaguar. I would like that you take a look at the article after my changes and my commentaries here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for your fast response, I'm happy with the way this article is written and I think it's safe to say that this meets the criteria now. Well done ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]