Wikipedia:Peer review/Kiyo Takamine and Zatch Bell/archive1

Kiyo Takamine and Zatch Bell

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 want to improve the article so it may reach B class and hopefully, if possible, Good Article.

Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has two major cleanup banners, at least one of which has been in place since July. Peer review rules state that articles must be free of such banners before being presented for review. Can you briefly say what efforts have been made to deal with the issues raised by these banners, and also whether you have discussed these questions with the editors who posted the banners? Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put them there myself. Since people say my grammar is bad, I was searching for where my mistakes are, but they sound normal to me. The expand one, I placed it there since I feel the reception should be longer but am unable to find anymore information on reception. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review closed. Since there seems to be a huge back log, I figured it shouldn't waste other user's time with this article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not read this manga, though it sounds interesting. Here are some suggestions for improvement of the article.

Per WP:LEAD: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] I think the current first sentence of the article is a bit too complex, could the original names go later in the lead, for example?
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but several of the sections seems under represented in the lead.
There are several places where the article needs to provide more context to the reader - for example in the Creation and conception section, could the years be given? See WP:PCR too
Another place where the article needs to provide more context is in some basic background on the story and characters - for example it is never clearly explained what a Mamado is (the lead says "lit. demon"). I think a lot of this is more writing from an in-universe perspective, when the article should b e written from a neutral out of universe perspective. See WP:IN-U
File:Kiyo Takamine Answer Talker.png has a good fair use rationale, but both File:Gashbell3.jpg and File:GashKiyomaro.jpg need a better one
An awful lot of the references cited seem to be primary (directly from the manga itself). While this is sometimes OK, the article could be improved if more sources from reliable third-party sources could be found and used.
I understand from reading this that Zatch is a magical creature and that Kiyo is somehow needed to allow Zatch to do his magic (book keeper), but exactly how this works is not clear to me.
Agree this could use a copyedit - sometimes it helps to not look at something for a few days, print it out and read it out loud slowly.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Jabba the Hutt is an FA on a character and may be a useful model article here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]