Talk:Shonen Jump (magazine)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is quite close to being a good article. Below are the issues I found.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • The lead summarizes the article adequately, however, it would be nice to see the "notable" qualities described in the 2nd paragraph appear earlier. The last 2 sentences in the lead could be moved to just after the first sentence, with other minor rearrangement for flow.
   • Also, for new readers, it would be helpful to explain that "shonen manga" means "Japanese comics for teen boys" without forcing a reader to look up the words.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Surely there are related subjects not described in this article that can be listed in a "See also" section? List of manga magazines and possibly List of series run in Shōnen Book would be appropriate for "See also".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   There's a bit of OR present in the History section here: "...little success in North America to this point, Viz was determined to have Shonen Jump succeed, desiring it to have...". That statement seems to be synthesized from the reference cited. It's enough to substitute "...little success in North America, Viz desired Shonen Jump to have..." - now fixed.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   One major aspect of any magazine is the type of advertising it attracts. I am unfamiliar with this publication so I don't know if that's relevant here, so I'm marking this item as as "pass" although consider including something on this topic.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   ON HOLD for a week for improvements. Overall, this is excellent work, and the issues I identified above are minor. It should be easy to fix everything up. =Axlq 01:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

   PASSED - good job. =Axlq 02:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the lead up some (and expanded it as well, as it was missing some summary). Does that fix the problem there? None of the anime/manga articles defines shōnen/shōjo nor manga/anime in them, including FAs, so not sure that's really needed here? I did note the target audience in the lead, though, which should address part of that? I fixed the OR sentence as well. I would disagree on the need for a see also section. It isn't a requirement for the MoS, and none of the other magazine articles have them. List of manga magazines used to be linked to from the term "manga anthology" but it was felt that wasn't a necessary nor appropriate link. And really, that list rather, uh, sucks. :P List of series run in Shōnen Book isn't related at all. That is a different Japanese magazine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)