Talk:Aria (manga)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 21:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. This has been renominated after it previously did not pass the criteria. I will look at it once again and see if it now passes the criteria. Link20XX (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@0qd: I have completed my initial review, and I must say the improvements made are clear. You definitely followed my advice, just a few small things before I can promote this (you can make the changes here, I won't fail it).

Checklist

Is it well written?

1. A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Characters:

• Source 20 is still a 404 error, but since source 21 has the information, is it even needed?
  • Changed source 20 to an archive link and removed one redundant usage of it. It works for me, but I assume it's blocked due to a geo-block.
• Anime News Network's encyclopedia and Voice Actor Database are not reliable sources since anyone can edit them, so you need a different source
  • The JP voice actor database is considered reliable, but I have changed the ANN encyclopedia links. See here.
• The part about Siren Visual's license should be in the same paragraph as Nozomi's, since Australia is also an English speaking majority territory.
  • It's already in the same paragraph.
• Reference 173 needs a better archive url
  • Fixed.
• The url for the Mag Garden sources appear to be a not found error. Maybe get archive urls for them?
  • Fixed.
• Monthly Undine is as of March 2008? Maybe you should update it?
  • Updated.
• I'm also getting a 404 error for reference 214.
  • Converted to archive link. Assuming this is a geo-block again.
• 223 also needs an archive url
  • Fixed.

That is all. Once each is addressed, I will promote it. Link20XX (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Link20XX: Thanks Link. I've fixed all of them. 0qd (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@0qd: Just a couple more things (this is it I promise): One, in Reception, 4 citations are used in a row, which violates WP:CITEOVERKILL, and 2, there is an unassigned url in the The President Cat Picture books subsection of Media. Fix those and I will pass it. Side note but jeez this is the second time I have run into geo-blocking today on Wikipedia. Link20XX (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Link20XX: I've fixed those. Thanks for pointing out the unassigned URL — archiving the Mag Garden articles was a pain, haha. 0qd (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry about that. Now I've fixed it. Made an error in the last edit. 0qd (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • There is still one reference clump left ([224][230][231][232]). You can use WP:CITEBUNDLE if you want. Link20XX (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Link20XX: Thank you for being patient, very tired. I've fixed it by removing the weakest citation. 0qd (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@0qd: Alright. All of my issues have been fixed, so as promised, the article is now a GA. Congratulations! You worked very hard for this, and certainly deserve it. The result of this review is Pass. Link20XX (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Link20XX: Thanks again. Really appreciate you responding quickly and being patient with my errors there at the end. 0qd (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• • @0qd: Don't mention it, that's my job as a reviewer. You deserve all the real credit. If you would like, you can even enter for it to be featured in WP:DYK so a fact from it will appear on the main page. Link20XX (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)