From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 12:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

  • Chiwa Saito is missing an accent Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Madoka from making contract with the messenger of magic - something is wrong here "Madoka from making a contract with the messenger of magic" or Madoka from making contact with the messenger of magic"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Do we need to link surreal? Seems like a common enough word. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I feel the first para on the conception and such is probably the more notable stuff than her canon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Chiwa Saito voices her in the Japanese version of the series, while Cristina Vee voices her in the English version. - repeat "voices her", but there should be a better way to say this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • remains popular among fans - do we really care about this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Well, she still tops anime character polls in Japan so I thought it's worth mentioning. If you feel it's unnecessary then I will remove it! NotEnglishSpeaker ( talk) 13:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • For voicing Homura, Saito won the 2011 Newtype Anime Award for Best Supporting Actress. - move to the section on voice acting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

General

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.