Talk:Revolutionary Girl Utena/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 19:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna review this. Stay tuned.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• It's not stringent for the purpose of promotion, but can't the two articles be created for Hasegawa and Oguro? Even a few lines would be fine. They are definitely encyclopedic because they have participated in and written successful and relevant works beyond Utena.
  • I'll look into seeing if I can't make at least stub articles for them both.
• I would suggest adding a summary of the Reception section in the lead.
  • Done.
• I know what gyaru are, but can you make it more explicit by explaining it?
  • I'm not sure how to best approach this one. I don't think gyaru in this context requires any more explanation than "a boisterous woman", but that just seems repetitious with the context the quote already gives.
• I would suggest explaining who said "influenced by idiosyncrasies."
  • Done
• I would avoid explicit references to other sections, such as "See Soundtrack and music below."
  • Done.
• "Saito ultimately expressed an affirmative position on how the series presented the relationship between the characters." Can you explain further? I'm not sure I understand.
  • That she ultimately has spoken positively of the decision to depict them as a couple; I've rephrased the section.
• Soukatsu shite. Can you add the Japanese text with the Nihongo template and translation?
  • Done.

@Morgan695: That's all for now. Good work.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Then:

• Perhaps capitalization for "for western audiences" would be better?
  • Done.
• Perhaps "Animerica described" is better than "Animerica characterized."
  • Done.
• "patcicipating." Probably a typo.
  • Done.
• Ikuhara's comment in Reception seems superfluous to me.
  • I disagree; a creator specifically acknowledging that a series continues to have a following two decades-plus after its release specifically because of its LGBT fans feels relevant to a section on its impact and legacy.
• I would suggest moving the content regarding Evangelion to the Themes section, perhaps creating a separate subsection.
  • Giving it its own section under Themes feels like it would be WP:UNDUE to me, but I'm not sure the paragraph makes sense anywhere other than under Reception.

@Morgan695: That's all I can find. The rest seems to me to be not only from GA, but perhaps also from FA. As a long-time Utena fan somewhat upset by the anime's poor recognition on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I am pleased. Great job.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Brief summa. The entire article is verifiable and full of reliable sources. The prose is excellent, like an AF. Exposition practically flawless. Editing was timely and appropriate. Great job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)