Wikipedia:Peer review/Kamiya Kaoru/archive1

Kamiya Kaoru

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to nominate this article to GA. I know it requires copyedit but I would like to find more issues

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes

So first of, thanks for the review over at my open peer review. I've reviewed my fair share of GA noms so I'll give you my two cents on how close it is to GA.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The creation and conception section could be written better. It has a lot of quotes mixed in with the prose which hurts the quality of writing (see WP:QUOTEFARM) particularly when it can be paraphrased. (criteria 1a and b)
That same section also feels like it spends a lot of time talking about the manga itself rather than the character which is not focused or concise (criteria 1a and 3b)
I feel like some major aspects of the character are missing like her personality or traits, her actions in the manga, various information about her. It seems largely focused on her creation and appearances in other work but gives me very little about her as a charcter (criterion 3a)
I'm not sure the fair use rationale for the image is sufficient. Particularly "Low resolution" is simply "No" without any further explanation. If a low resolution image isn't being used, you should explain why, namely, a lower resolution image would harm understanding of the material while not reducing possibility of infringement as it is only a part of the work.

Final thoughts: I think this is actually a very well done article. It needs more work before being a GA in my opinion, but it's not impossible, just try to cover a bit more on the character and tighten up the prose and it should do very well. Wugapodes (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]