Talk:Boruto/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Wikilink "prequel" and "sequel" even if many readers might have heard of the terms.
 * "Unlike the manga, which began as a retelling of the film Boruto: Naruto the Movie," — Add the year of release for the film.
 * "to make a sequel to the famous manga" — "famous" sounds like a Puff phrases. Just write it as "Boruto originated from Shueisha's proposal to Kishimoto on making a sequel to Naruto."
 * "following his marriage." — Write it as "following his marriage to Hinata Hyuga."
 * "Kishimoto advised Ikemoto not to imitate his own art style and instead make his own. While noting long-time fans might be disappointed Kishimoto is not drawing Boruto, Ikemoto stated he would do his best in making the manga. Ikemoto said he remained optimistic about his art style. Kishimoto also revises the manga's scenario." — These sentence sound pretty staccato-like. How about "Despite Kishimoto revising the manga's scenario, he advised Ikemoto to make his own art style instead of imitating his. Ikemoto agreed and felt optimistic about his art style. While noting long-time fans might be disappointed Kishimoto is not drawing Boruto, Ikemoto stated he would do his best in making the manga."
 * "A spin-off manga titled Boruto: Saikyo Dash Generations (BORUTO-ボルト- SAIKYO DASH GENERATIONS) was written by Kenji Taira and has been serialised in Saikyō Jump since the May 2017 issue." — Source?
 * No source is there for the "Chapters not yet in tankōbon format" subsection.
 * "The television anime series, supervised by series creator Ukyō Kodachi, would be co-directed by Noriyuki Abe and Hiroyuki Yamashita" — Shouldn't it be "The television anime series, supervised by series creator Ukyō Kodachi, is co-directed by Noriyuki Abe and Hiroyuki Yamashita" as the series is already underway?

I'll look at the sources tomorrow.....

Hi and thank you for providing the review! I tried to fix every issue pointed out above. I will be waiting for the rest of the comments. Flowerpiep (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Flowerpiep

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thank you for addressing my comments, . Congratulations, the article has passed. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 06:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)