Talk:Jiraiya (Naruto)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing this. Review might take up to a week depending on my schedule and other factors, but here are some suggestions. First, is there any Japanese commentary on Jiraya? Second, is there any discussion on his character by his voice actors? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Hi and thank you for providing the review. Unfortunately, I did not manage to find Japanese commentary on Jiraiya. However, Tintor2 and I managed to find interviews with Jiraiya's English voice actor. I added the information I found in them to the "Creation and conception" section as a separate paragraph. Flowerpiep (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep[reply]

Noted, I'll do the rest of the review over the next few days, but so far the article looks good. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
Some of the sources, such as the Active Anime and Shueisha links, are dead. These need to be resolved.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
As noted above, there doesn't seem to be that much Japanese commentary on the character, including from the voice actor, so the English discussion is acceptable. This is balanced by the Japanese reception discussion.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
See 3a comment
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This will be passed once the issues with the dead sources are addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the dead sources.

@Flowerpiep: You might also want to know about archive bot. It's useful to rescue dead links.Tintor2 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I think the ping didn't work Flowerpiep and Narutolovehinata5 .Tintor2 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be any more issues. For content cited to offline sources, they are accepted AGF. I've also checked the sources I can check and the content seems to be verified. This should be good to go as there are no more outstanding issues. This GAN is now a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]