Talk:Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be picking this up for review. It's been a while since I did one of these things so it may take some time, so I apologize if it takes a while. Right now I have three immediate concerns: the lede is a bit short, making no mention about the manga's creation or reception, as well as other media it inspired such as video games. In addition, the creation section is a bit on the short side too, having no mention about the anime's production (i.e. how and when it was greenlit, and any differences from the manga, if applicable). Finally, the reception section itself is quite short, making no mention about Japanese or English reviews, as well as if inspired anything (i.e. legacy). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you need guides on how to further improve the article, articles such as Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Sword Art Online, and Clannad (video game) can serve as guides. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
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:
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:
A copyright check detected a match with this link, but it appears to be a false positive as it was in fact copying from Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
As mentioned earlier, the article still needs to be fleshed out. The lede needs to mention more about the series' creation, the anime, other related media such as video games, and critical reception. The critical reception section also needs to include more information about reviews, mainly for the manga but also for the anime if applicable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article still needs a bit of work before reaching GA status, but it shouldn't be too difficult to reach. I would suggest that you could collaborate with other editors of the article, such as Link20XX, AngusWOOF, Xexerss and Smeagol 17 when it comes to addressing the remaining concerns. Overall, the article isn't quite ready for GA status yet, but I'm not going to fail the nomination now and I will give maybe a week or two for any remaining issues to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I've made a start. I think it likely just needs a better reception, and some mention of how it came to be. Let me do a little research. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for holding on with me - I have made some changes, let me know if you need more. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harushiga

Lead should have one or two sentences describing the premise of the story.
Some items in the infobox are barely/not mentioned in the article at all. These should be mentioned in the lead as well.
- The anime has five OVAs, but the article only mentions the first one released in 2016. There should be information on the remaining four.
- The two light novels are not mentioned outside of the infobox. Harushiga (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the feedback - I've added mentions of the light novels and OVAs to the prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits to the article. Most of my concerns have been resolved. However, the lede section still says nothing about the critical reception. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a pretty thorough sentence to the lede about it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits. @Harushiga: Do you have any remaining concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! All of my concerns have been resolved as well. Harushiga (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article is now approved as a GA. Good job to everyone involved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]