Talk:FLCL/GA1

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

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 02:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are some problems with the article.
 * 1. There are three citation needed tags in the Release section.
 * ✅ - Go the citations for the releases, one for the DVDs and one for the Bluray for Madman Entertainment and one source for MVM Films. I axed out the G4 run as I could not get a source.
 * 2. The first two paragraphs in the Manga section have no citations. The information might be in the next two citations, but it would be beneficial to readers to have those paragraphs sourced, due to the sources being in Japanese.
 * ✅ I removed some of the more primary observations and added a citation for its unusual artstyle. Not too many RSes cover the manga in proper detail. I could use the primary source information if you want additional information. I have my copies somewhere in the attic.
 * 3. "The manga were re-released in Bunkoban format..." should have "The manga was re-released" rather than "The manga were re-released".
 * 4. I can tell that the last two sentences of the Novels section are not referenced to anything.
 * The books themselves contain this information, as well as their summary, but if you want an online one then I could be stuck using a wordpress or an Amazon review for their content. It is faithful adaption with some added insight. Though the two Japanese sources with plot summaries hint the same thing. Suggestions on what to do?
 * 5. "All the theme songs" should be "All of the theme songs".
 * ✅ Reworded it a bit.
 * 6. "Director Kazuya Tsurumaki, responded to criticism of the FLCL as one of the most incomprehensible shows in anime, stating "comprehension should not be an important factor in FLCL." should be "Director Kazuya Tsuramaki responded to criticism of FLCL as one of the most incomprehensible shows in anime, stating that "comprehension should not be an important factor in FLCL".
 * 7. The seventh reference is not formatted.
 * 8. Anime.com appears to be a fansite, with no indication of it being a reliable source.
 * ✅ Removed it. Replaced IMDB reference with two others for the 2003 Fantasia festival win, since Fantasia does not list their past winners. I find this to be more appropriate given the circumstances.
 * 8. Anime.com appears to be a fansite, with no indication of it being a reliable source.
 * ✅ Removed it. Replaced IMDB reference with two others for the 2003 Fantasia festival win, since Fantasia does not list their past winners. I find this to be more appropriate given the circumstances.
 * ✅ Removed it. Replaced IMDB reference with two others for the 2003 Fantasia festival win, since Fantasia does not list their past winners. I find this to be more appropriate given the circumstances.

I am placing this on hold. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the book issue remains on the list now, and want your input on dealing with that particular problem. Sorry, I can't believe I let the citation needed tags slip by me before nominating it for GAN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I can say that I can't believe I missed the IMDb reference. I tried to at least reference the release dates of the Tokyopop novels myself, but I can only reference the first novel with the Barnes & Noble website. I'm not concerned with that issue anymore. I'm passing this. SL93 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try and track down more about the novels, but they were a flop because of the high price and the short length. All three should have been released as a single volume. I got a major book store about an hour from me that might have a copy or two. They have over half a million books... but no catalog! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you place the tag since you passed it. I see you added it to the milestones. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I added it. SL93 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)