Talk:Battle Royale (novel)/GA1

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

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 23:47, 15 December 2016 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Still need to look at sources (for criterion 2b), but there were enough issues to address in other areas that I wanted to go ahead and post the review so the editors can react. Comments:
 * Prose is a little stilted in places, but the only item bad enough to endanger GA criterion 1a is in the "Plot" section: "In some cases, instead of a weapon, the student receives a tool." It is already stated earlier that they get a "weapon or tool" and the examples include a fork, so this sentence seems redundant and awkwardly placed.✅
 * A dissertation about the novel is mentioned in the "Background and publication" section. I'm not clear on what this has to do with background or publication -- it seems like something that should be under "Reception" or "Legacy".✅
 * The character table is presented with no prose explaining what the table shows. Even with a sub-article about the characters, there should be some brief summary in this article for criterion 3a.✅
 * Reception: "It was also critically acclaimed abroad." 'Also' suggests a comparison to reception in Japan, but there is no discussion of critics' reaction in Japan. To be "broad in coverage" (criterion 3a), something about critical reaction in Japan should be provided.✅
 * Lead contains information about the film (high grossing, condemned by Diet) that is not mentioned in the article. The lead should summarize information found in the body. (This is the source of the "hold" for 1b; other MoS items look OK.)✅
 * Infbox lists "Alternative history" as a genre. The other two genres mentioned seem to be supported in the text, but I don't see anything to support alternative history as a genre.✅
 * File:Battle Royale 2009 ediiton.jpg does not have a valid fair use rationale -- the FUR is incomplete and says (inaccurately) that it is used in the infobox. Since there are already two other covers (first Japanese and first English) in the article, I think it will be hard to justify a third, so most likely it should be removed.✅
 * File:Battle royale novel map.JPG has a FUR that suggests it depicts a character. That should be updated to reflect its actual content and use.✅

Placing on hold for seven days so issues can be addressed; will also post any comments about sourcing during that time. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I addressed several of these issues and therefore marked them as "done" above. Xfansd (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe all of these have now been addressed. Xfansd (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those; I've moved all non-sourcing criteria to 'pass'. Now that I've reviewed the sources, I do have some concerns on that point: If we can clear up the sourcing, I think this will be good to go. --RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Using Amazon sales pages as a source for basic publication information, such as dates and publisher name, is fine. But using them for background information, such as the author's previous career, is not ideal. If the same information is available from a review, interview, etc., that would be preferable.✅
 * The Barnes and Noble user ratings link does not work, and typically user reviews and ratings are not good sources.✅
 * From a quick Google search, I suspect the dead link to Fangoria about Kill Theory could probably be replaced with a non-dead source.✅
 * I'm not sure if the dead link about The Tournament will be as easily replaced, and the source provided appears to be an anonymous blog, which doesn't seem to meet WP:RS standards.✅
 * The background info on Amazon is taken straight from the "About the author" section on one of the last pages of the first English edition, which I own. Should I change it to cite the actual book? Xfansd (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, citing the book would be just fine. --RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the remaining issues.  Blue sphere  04:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're good here -- congrats on your new GA. --RL0919 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)