Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look this one over and post up a review later. Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to do this review? -- 1989 19:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do, will get to it soon. Read over the article, looks good. Just going to write up a post related to each of the good article criteria. Sagecandor (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 26, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Writing quality is good. Per WP:WIAGA criteria number 1, it is clear and concise. Good enough for good article. The lede is of a good size and is a good summary of the good article. The plot summary is a good size and not overly long and is a good summary of the plot. Good sourced info on production. Good job with publication and good coverage in a neutral way of controversial issues. Good use of legacy section and good overall use of citations.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Good use of citations in an inline citation format in the article. Plot summary is matter of fact and is okay as is, per WP:PLOTSUMMARY.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Good job being thorough with the article, covering all major aspects including Introduction, Plot summary, Production, Writing, Development, Characters, Publication, Japanese publication, English publication, Controversy in the United States, Spin-offs and crossovers, Reception, Popularity, Critical reception, and Legacy.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Good job being neutral with the article. The wording is written in a neutral and matter of fact way. The article satisfies WP:NPOV. In particular, the article does include both critical and controversial aspects including Controversy in the United States and in the Reception section. This demonstrate the good job with neutral point of view.
 * 5. Stable? Both article talk page and article itself are stable.
 * 6. Images?: Both the fair use image and the free licensed image are good as far as good fair use rationale and good licensing.

Good job ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)