Talk:Gintama/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsonal (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There are no major problems with prose or grammar. Article appears to be in compliance with the anime and manga manual of style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All disputable statements are referenced with inline citations. However, I would like to question the reliability of ComiPress and Tokyograph as I don't see them on the projects list of online reliable sources. The Tokyograph link can be replaced with the Oricon link it references to. The "Production" section largely references primary sources, and I'm wondering if these references could be clarified a bit with additional notes. I am uncertain about the content of Viz's licensed volumes, but I previously haven't seen authors include side comments among the panels that provide these types of commentary. If a reader of the manga requires additional interpretation other than a retelling of the plot, additional notes within the inline citation will provide more clarity. Reference 78 and the Sunrise external link are dead according to Checklinks.
 * Removed external link and ref 78. The About page of Comipress shows that some its contributors are also from reliable sources like Manga Life and Comic Book Kin. One of them also writes the series Rhysmyth from TokyoPop. However, I'll try to replace some sources.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but I think only articles written by those contributors specifically would be considered reliable. The ones that are currently used cite websites that I would not consider reliable sources, e.g. a 2channel off-shoot website and the Japanese Weekly Shōnen Jump article. If you can obtain the data from the publisher directly, it would be better. Some of the articles note that parts of them have been translated from Japanese, but we cannot ascertain the translator's reliability as she goes by a semi-anonymous handle. Arsonal (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. Should also ref 68 be removed?Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an archive of the original news source, so use that instead. Arsonal (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm not quite sure if others will think the ranking is notable as a poll by one magazine is only representative of that magazine's readership. However, I'm willing to let it stay in the article if the archived source is used. Chuosha appears to be a well-established Japanese publishing company, so I have no reason to doubt its reliability. Arsonal (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced TokyoGraph.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am temporarily placing the review on hold to allow for my concerns to be answered. I am also including a few things that do not affect the review:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major media adaptations covered with an appropriate amount of detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Appropriate tone with professional approach. Fair representation in reception.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some content addition was conducted in the past month by Tintor2, but it was mainly constructive. No major edit wars have occurred recently.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * One image is used and meets its criteria for usage. Lack of images within main prose does not affect consideration for Good Article status.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article does not meet all criteria as of . Following after the initial review, the article has met all the criteria for Good Article status.
 * Comments
 * Is serialization in the Thai magazine in English? I believe that parameter is only used for English serializations.
 * Where's such information?Tintor2 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the infobox. Sorry for not being clear. Arsonal (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the magazine C-Kids? Should it be removed or moved?Tintor2 (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it can be sourced, move it into the prose. If not, remove the information. The Shonen Jump magazine should also be moved into a field called . Arsonal (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "...during the manga' second year of serialization..." Missing "s" in the possessive.
 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Add comma after "Gintoki replies" and remove period after "One page is a long time for a manga artist!"
 * Done (I think).Tintor2 (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Missing space in prose after ref 24.
 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reviewer Carlos Santos is correctly written as Carlo Santos. His first name is frequently misspelled as Carlos.
 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Comicbookbin" should be rendered as "Comic Book Bin". "Comicsvillage" should be rendered as "Comics Village". "Mangalife" should be rendered as "Manga Life". "Popcultureshock" should be rendered as "PopCultureShock".
 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gin Tama volumes do contain extensive author commentary on 'spare' pages between chapters. Doceirias (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Andrew. I will accept them as good faith that the commentary has been transcribed correctly. Arsonal (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amanto and Tennin
The word Amanto was written in Kanji as "天人". This word has another pronunciation: Tennin, which is a Japanese Buddhist word for Gandharva. See Goo dictionary