Talk:Josei manga/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Takipoint123 (talk · contribs) 05:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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):

   The lead needs to be longer, and address more detailed information. You could start off with a summary on the themes and subgenres, or information on specific works. I also recommend adding notable examples of closely related topics to the "See Also" section if you plan on keeping it.

   Expanded the lead. I can't think of any additional pages to list under See also, but to my knowledge there is no required minimum number of articles for a see also section. Morgan695 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems good. The "See Also" section was just a recommendation, so it would be perfectly fine to keep it as it is, although I do think a few more links will just make the section look better. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Copyvio checked, seems like a few negative results. For citations, see below.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is the first time reviewing an article, so sorry if I make any mistakes in the process. As for citations, I do see that some citations are questionable, as listed below. I could not access most of the citations, but they do seem reliable, which may be a point for a second opinion. Also, I would also like to address the following issues with citations:

• There is some consensus that CBR is an unreliable or situational source; the article does seem to use it significantly.
  • My sense from glancing through the Reliable sources noticeboard is that CBR's listicle-type articles are not considered reliable, but their columns are. It has paid staff and editorial oversight, and is used in many comic/film-related GAs. Morgan695 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Noted, I will let this pass for now. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weekly Young Jump seems to have 768980 copies sold, not 729750
  • Corrected. Morgan695 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Takipoint123 (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• "...are often accompanied by articles that inform the reader about the topic"
  • I could not find the information on page 116 as listed, please find the correct page or correct it.
    • Clarified and moved to section of article discussing topic-based manga. Morgan695 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  seems good. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• If information was borrowed from the French Wikipedia, please add the appropriate {{Translated Page}}
  • This information was already included, sorry for mistakening it.

Thanks, --Takipoint123 (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I placed the article on hold so any comments or improvements could be made. Takipoint123 (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Takipoint123: Hi, response above. Morgan695 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: In my opinion, the article is good to pass the GA based on my suggestions, but I will ask a good article mentor to look over my review, as it is my first review. Best wishes, --Takipoint123 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: Hi Morgan, before I go ahead with the article's pass, I realized that I could access some of the publications in the article through the Wikipedia Library.

Checking those I did find a few things:

• "Editor Junya Yamamoto... adult protagonists." doesn't seem to have citations

• Looks like that addition was made by an IP editor that I didn't catch; I've revised and properly cited it.

• Feel Young should be 1991, not 1989

• Corrected.

• "Josei romances target both... furigana as a reading aid." I think you might want to check the page to see if its there or not.

• I believe this is supported by the cite, the original source just uses the term "rubi" rather than "furigana", which are synonymous.

• Citation 29 "Ogi 2003, p. 79." doesn't seem to be at the correct page, perhaps its missing the final digit.

• Proper reference was to Ito; I've corrected it.

I think that is all, and I'm not too sure if you always have to add ranges on citations if the page continues to the next, since I do see that on quite a bit of the citation some of the information does continue to the next page. If you think its appropriate to do so you should check the citations (at least the ones by Ito and Ogi as reviewed here). Sorry for missing this part out, I just got access to it through the Wikipedia Library. Some of my feedback may have mistakes because I'm a bit more tired than usual today, so apologies in advance. Thanks!--Takipoint123 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Takipoint123: Corrections have been made above.

@Morgan695: Seems good. I will give the article a few days just in case anyone wants to comment, or if I find anything new. Good work and I think the article could pass without major editing at this point.--Takipoint123 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: Seeing no new comments in the few days, I will the article. It seems all significant errors have been resolved, as listed above. Good work, and its been an honor to review this article as my first GAN.--Takipoint123 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)