Talk:My Hero Academia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Deku link (talk · contribs) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Given changes to the article, I would now consider it compliant with good article criteria due to the verifiability of the sourcing and the addition of a new image. I would consider this article to be only partially compliant with the good article criteria based on verifiability of sources and use of images.


 * Well written?... I would consider this article to be competently written. There is a good flow between different adaptations of the media as well as a well structured reception section.
 * Verifiable?... This is where I take the most issue with the article. More than half the sources come from Anime News Network, which is largely promotional and fan oriented in nature. Beyond that, many of the citations appear to also be from promotional sources or blogs. While this does not immediately discredit the information, I don't think it can quite yet be considered a good article without better secondary sourcing.


 * All of the sources I used in the article are listed at WP:A&M/ORS for being reliable for various reasons, which you can read about for yourself. As for Anime News Network, unfortunately they have a virtual monopoly on anime news. I'm not sure how many of them can be replaced.
 * Broad in coverage?... Absolutely, covers the bases of each adaptation as well as various forms of reception quite well.
 * Neutral point of view?... Yes, the article maintains a neutral point of view overall. Topics such as controversy are covered in a neutral light and are reported on objectively.
 * Article stability?... I'm a bit conflicted on this, but I would consider the stability as of late to be very good, even with some hiccups in the past.
 * Images?... The page image of the first volume cover is nice, but I question why the only other image used on the page is of a seemingly random group of cosplayers. I would prefer more variety be present in the images.


 * Is there any kind of images in specific you want?
 * I have to apologize because that's frankly more of a nitpick (I understand how difficult it can be to get images for copyrighted topics) and there are plenty of good and featured articles that don't include more than a couple images, but I think that since the reception section provides a good amount of meat to the article, images related to specific fan events beyond just one cosplay photo would help illustrate the significant positive reception to the manga and anime. A mix of japanese and American cosplayers (and maybe other countries) could also show how widespread the popularity of the topic is. Deku link (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't apologize for being nitpicky. Anyway, I tried to get another image of cosplayers from the commons category. Unfortunately there isn't much. Link20XX (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If and when cons become a thing again I'd be more than happy to help you get some photographs (with cosplayer permission of course) Deku link (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think two is enough images personally. Is that all or is there is something else I should do before this review is closed?
 * Thanks for the review! I provided responses above. Link20XX (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * is there anything you want me to do or has my changes made it satisfy the GA criteria? Link20XX (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still cautious on the sourcing but considering what I've since learned about the reliability of most ANN pieces and the general lack of other citations for A&M topics, I'd say the article satisfies the GA criteria. Deku link (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it meets the criteria, can you promote the article? Link20XX (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will do so now. Congratulations, I figure a page on such a popular topic involved plenty of work and preventing vandalism, so I applaud the quality and stability. Deku link (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)