Talk:Yu Narukami/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 02:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I've made a number of grammatical and stylistic tweaks.
"with his tone and expressions changing the most" - what do you mean by "expressions"?
"There he awakens his initial Persona, Izanagi (イザナギ), a swordsman wearing a black coat, which he uses to fight embodiements of humans' negative feelings, the Shadows. Yu exclusively wields two-handed sword-type weapons." - Source?
"Writers from GiantBomb named the character "Charlie Tunoku" in their original videos of the game. For the release of Persona 4 Arena, GiantBomb joked to an Atlus member about how the name of the character, Yu Narukami, was incorrect and addressed how Charlie Tunoku became popular within their site's readers." - Is this relevant to the character's reception?
"besides being entertaining to watch, by the series' end all of Yu's actions have allowed him "become a character in his own right."" - Which is entertaining to watch: Yu or his actions?
I don't think Gematsu is a reliable source. Are replacements available from ones listed at WP:VG/RS or a WP:ANIME equivalent?
I also don't know about The Fandom Post (I genuinely don't know). Is it acknowledged by WP:ANIME?

Tezero (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made tweaks to all concerns. Also, Fandom Post is Chris Beveridge's latest website. The writer has been in RS for a long time but he changed website.Tintor2 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've read it over again and everything looks solid. Good work. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]