Wikipedia:Peer review/Summer Wars/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A decent article on a feature anime from 2009, which looks close to GA level at this point.
Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Shimeru: I'll do a quick overview according to the GA criteria.
1. Well-written: Somewhat. The Production and Release sections are particularly well-written. They're easy to follow and well-referenced. The article as a whole could use a copyediting pass, though. In particular, the Plot section is difficult to follow. After the first paragraph, it becomes very disjointed. (Perhaps this wouldn't be the case had I seen the movie -- but the article shouldn't assume the reader has seen the movie.) It should likely be split into more paragraphs, too.
The lead is a bit short, considering the length of the article. It should probably be a little more comprehensive as a summary of the article.
Double-check that the article conforms to WP:MOS, if you haven't already. I didn't notice anything that stood out, but since you'll be copy editing anyway, it's a good time to make sure everything's in order.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Very much so. This article's referencing is impressive. I did come across two small dead-link problems: Reference #4 leads to a 403 Forbidden error, and reference #5 appears to no longer exist.
3. Broad in its coverage: Indeed. It does an excellent job of covering the real-world aspects of the production and release, including tie-ins.
4. Neutral: No problems.
5. Stable: No problems.
6. Images: It's unfortunate that there aren't free-use images to use in the article, but we can't do anything about that. The one image in the article, the theatrical poster, is appropriately tagged. It might be appropriate to use a photo of the director in the production section, but I see that his article doesn't contain any free images. The critical reception section talks a lot about the look of the OZ sequences; if an image could be found that illustrates those points particularly well, that might be worth including as a fair-use image. I don't think that's necessary for GA, though; more something to keep in mind for future article development.
In short: I think the article will be set for GA once a little copyediting is performed. Shimeru (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)