Talk:Blood-C/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 04:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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):

   There are a few minor errors here and there (mangaka should not be capitalized, Nana Mizuki isn't wikilinked on the first mention in the production section), but these are relatively minor issues and don't greatly affect the overall quality of the article.

I've addressed the issues you pointed out.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All statements are sourced (which isn't actually necessary since this isn't a BLP, but good work nonetheless), no plagiarism.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Quite comprehensive. However, there's a glaring concern here: do you have any information about Japanese reception for the series? How was the series received in Japan? Did it win any awards or citations? How were the disk sales, as well as sales for the print adaptations?

I did my best here, but there's no Japanese commentary on the series. I've looked. Judging by the sales of the first DVD volume and lack of findable sales for the following five, I think it wasn't that popular in its home country.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@ProtoDrake: This is almost ready to be passed, just add information about Japanese reception and this should be good to go.

@Narutolovehinata5: I've addressed all the issues you mentioned that I could. As to JP reception, I've seriously looked and can't find anything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Sorry for the late reply, real-life stuff caught up with me. In any case, if there's little coverage that can be found about Japanese reception, for reasons beyond your control, then so be it. Given the circumstances, and the fact that the article is well-written otherwise and meets the GA criteria, I'm happy to announce that this GAN has passed. The article is well-written and is full of interesting facts, so I suggest that you nominate the article for a DYK hook; you can read more information at WP:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)