Talk:Akira Toriyama/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article momentarily, so bear with me while I go through the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All right. Here's what I think of the sources: I will be expanding on this as I go along. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) We should maintain a consistent dating format in each of the sources.
 * 2) All dead citations must be replaced.
 * 3) If there is the original date that it was first published, add it.


 * Excellent points! I checked the article, and it seems to have working reference links, original publication dates where available, and the dates are all in a year-month-day format. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Undergoing a thorough review of the GA criteria. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2013 stacks up to the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Please file a copyedit at WP:GOCE.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Here is a couple of hints here:


 * 1) Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed per the WP:BLP policy.
 * 2) Also, all publisher/work names should at least be included in the citations.
 * 3) Please go through and make sure citations are all formatted with information filling out fields from citation templates using WP:CIT.
 * 4) Please make sure no cites are just a bare link and a title.
 * 5) Please go through and make sure cites verify WP:V, and of course please review all cites for WP:RS standards.
 * 6) Please go though WP:ANIME/RS and see if there are any unreliable sources that need to be remvoed.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:


 * 1) Biography section - well sourced
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No NPOV issues at the present, but there may need to be some wording that should be removed per WP:WTA.
 * 5. Article stability? Stability issues: No stability issues here so far.
 * 6. Images?: One image used, but that would work here.

Please address these matters here as well. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Akira Toriyama.jpg - no issues here.


 * I went and filed a copy edit request. I do not believe there is any unsourced BLP content likely to cause contention. Went through and added authors to the missing sources that supply them, all sources give their publisher/work and are now in citation templates. There were two fan sites used as sources that reproduced interviews with the subject, I went and changed them to the original source of the interview. I believe all the sources pass WP:V and WP:RS standards now, and none are listed at WP:ANIME/RS as unreliable. So it seems we are only waiting on a copy edit now. Xfansd (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll copy-edit this. AmericanLemming (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

After the copy-edit
I've now close-read the article three times (once yesterday and twice today), so I think that the prose is about as good as I can make it. Two general remarks:
 * 1. The article is quite informative and well-organized. Good job!
 * 2. There is a fine line between following the conventions of standard formal written English and imposing one's stylistic preference on the prose of the article. Feel free to change the wording, especially if the my changes don't reflect what you're trying to say.

Then, four specific remarks regarding sentences that I found confusing and didn't know how to fix:
 * 1. At the end of the "Success" section, you say "Toriyama's clean line and design sense..." I understand what design sense is, but what is a "clean line"?
 * 2. At the end of the "Recent work" section, you say that exhibit moves (and will move) around. Where was it between April 15 and April 17? Were they taking it down and setting it up? And where was it from April 23 to July 27? That is, where is it now? Back in Nihonbashi?
 * 3. Near the end of the "Style, influence and accolades" section, you have James S. Yadao mention an art shift. Essentially, was the art shift that "Dragon Ball" became more like the popular shōnen manga of the late 1980s and early 1990s, like City Hunter and Fist of the North Star?
 * 4. At the end of the "Style, influence and accolades" section, you mention "his work" as the reason that Toriyama took second in the mangaka poll. Presumably you're refering to Toriyama's work, not Tezuka's?

That's all I've got for you to look at; the rest of the prose looks good to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. This "clean line" thing was there before I did a major overhaul, so I don't know what the user who added that meant. I guess we could remove the reasoning and just say he did the work for the games.
 * 2. That exhibit info is all taken straight from the source used, during the first gap I'd assume it was moving/being taken down that type of stuff. Currently I'd say its probably just being stored somewhere until July 27, perhaps the location is booked with a different exhibit causing the large gap. But personally I don't feel the reader needs to know that, they're probably only interested in when it was on display.
 * 3. The art shift is from "round and innocent" to "sharp angles with energy and intensity". The comparison to City Hunter etc. was made by Jason Thompson in a separate review. I do not think we can intermingle the two and imply that, by Yadao's description, Toriyama's art went from unique to that of every common shōnen manga.
 * 4. Yes, "his work" refers to Toriyama's. Additionally, just want to point out that I believe the "highly influential and popular worldwide" part to be supported in the Japanese source with similar lines. Xfansd (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken out "clean line" and left the second two sentences alone, as you recommended. For the last one, you can decide whether or not to put "highly" back into the lead. I'm pretty new to this whole editing business, so I don't necessarily have the best feel for how things should be said. If you were to put it back in, I guess I would feel more comfortable if the phrase was in quotations marks. But you probably have a better idea of what you're doing than I do, so you can do as you like.

And with that, my copy-edit is finished. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The copyedit looks marvelous to me! I will take a look at it in a few days or so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Final thoughts
All right. Taking a look at the article, I think it should definitely pass as a Good Article per the GA criteria. Nice work, everyone! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)