Talk:One-Punch Man/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 03:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This article has waited for long enough. I'm not super familiar with the subject but I have heard of it. I'll take a look at the article and come back with comments in a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up the review. I'm currently pretty busy IRL due to COVID-19, but I'll try my best to resolve any suggestions in a timely manner. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * no worries, I'll try get my review written up soon and then it can go on hold for a bit if there are changes required. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have read through the article and have a few suggestions for things that could be improved, but first I was wondering if you could help clarify for me what the intended scope of the article is. At the moment I can't tell if it is supposed to be about all iterations of the franchise or if it is supposed to be about the original webcomic with further information about its adaptations included. Once you have cleared this up for me I'll be able to give a full review. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the scope of the article is the entire franchise, which includes the webcomic, manga, and anime. I believe that the original webcomic has been eclipsed in popularity by the manga and anime, but each one follows mostly the same plot, so separate articles might not be warranted. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think it would be a big improvement if some structural changes were made to the article to help clarify this for the reader. I suggest beginning in the lead by introducing the topic as a Japanese superhero franchise created by One, then saying the franchise began with a webcomic and talk about its creation and reception, then the same for the manga adaptation, and then again for the anime adaptation.


 * In the body, your background section is about the webcomic and the manga, and then there is a separate section about the manga which also includes the webcomic, and then there is the anime and video game sections. The reception section doesn't mention the webcomic at all. Again, I think reorganising this could help. Having the one plot section works well since it is shared by them all, then I think you should merge the "Background and production" and "Media" sections so there is just one subsection about the making of the webcomic, one about the making of the manga adaptation, one about the making of the anime adaptation, and one about the video game. A subsection about the webcomic should then be added to the "Reception" section. Once you have been able to tidy up this confusion I think the article will be a much easier read. Let me know what you think of this. I will be able to give a full review of the article once this is sorted out. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tried my best to address these comments. The article's overall organization should better now. Unfortunately, it was difficult to find any reliable information for reception of the webcomic, and any sources that could be useful are probably several years old at this point. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, can you let me know if you are going to be able to work on this review in the next week or so? I do think this is a very good article and would be a good candidate for promotion once my points have been addressed, but I understand if you are busy and can't get to it. It has been open for quite a while now so I would like to make a decision on this either way soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the hiatus. I'll try to free up some time in the next few days. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is looking way better after your response to my structural issues above, I think it makes a lot more sense laid out this way. My next step was to give this a full review and come back with a list of more nitpicky concerns for you to deal with, but having given the article another read through I have not come up with any major concerns. The writing is strong, neutral, and informative, and the only other recommendations I would have would be to consider adding another image to the article if it gets much bigger and there is one available, and hopefully you can find the sources you need to expand the reception section at some point since it is pretty strongly weighted towards season 2 of the anime at the moment. Besides those points, the structural change has done enough for me to make me happy to promote the article now, so I am going to go ahead and pass this review. Congratulations! Keep up the good work, especially as more information comes out about the subject / the new movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)