Talk:Nanohana (manga)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey I will be reviewing this article shortly. Link20XX (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Morgan695: I have completed my initial review. Great work with the article, just a couple small changes are needed:
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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- The lead should be expanded a bit, specifically with information as far as reviews and the play adaptation.
- In the first paragraph of the Synopsis section, the article says that Fukushima Drive was added in the tankōbon edition, but later parts of the article and the Infobox says it was released in Big Comic. This should be clarified a bit.
- The title Nanohana is restated multiple times in each section, but that's unnecessary. You should replace them with something like "the manga", "the series", etc.
That is all. Address the issues above and I will pass it. Link20XX (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Link20XX: I've implemented your edits. I attempted to cut down on overuse of "Nanohana", but the article has to distinguish between "Nanohana" as the name of the collective series and the specific "Nanohana" one-shot comic, so there is inevitably going to be a bit of repeated use. Morgan695 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Morgan695: The changes are sufficient. The result of this review is Pass. Congratulations! Link20XX (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)