Talk:One Piece/GA1

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

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 01:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a good article to me, good info, except that some references are broken, specifically references 42-44. Several other references also have problems such as dead links, missing titles, page needed, etc.


 * GA1: The article is mostly clear and concise, and written in great detail.
 * GA2: A good list of references are listed, however some are incorrect, and need to be fixed for being selected as Good Article Status.
 * GA3: This article definitely covers the topic well, and in very great detail.
 * GA4: Neutrality appears to be stated, no obvious biasing of any kind.
 * GA5: No content disputes or edit war is currently active or applicable here.
 * GA6: Images correctly added where applicable, although this type of article does not require many pictures.

Overall, the article's content is brilliant, and once the references are properly fixed, I believe this article can be listed as Good-Article Status. Numbermaniac - T  - C  02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Those citation needed templates need to be addressed. One concerns the intent of the creator and while not specifically a BLP matter, it should be sourced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The original nominator, Eddy1988, has been inactive for over a month. I'll try asking around to see if an editor would like to take up the issues. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * After DragonZero's reminder on my talk page, I have decided to take up the issues here. We need to address the citation needed templates obviously per ChrisGualtieri. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference 136 also has two issues with title missing and page needed. Numbermaniac  - T  - C  04:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed some citation errors, where a "url=" parameter was needed in the presence of "archiveurl=" parameter.  smt cha hal  talk 04:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Smtchahal! :D Anyway, cool. There are still some ones that need fixing, with small errors. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, editors are given 7 days to fix the article for GA status. However, I do like this article, hence I am giving editors 14 days to fix all necessary issues with the article. I may extend the time later, but don't count on it. Editors now have until 2 June to address all issues, before a final reassessment of the article. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 02:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

7 days remaining. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Current references with errors: If these are fixed, I can do a final reassessment and lift this to GA-status. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 48: Dead link
 * 95: Also dead link
 * 136: Title missing, page needed
 * Please also have a look at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=One_Piece, which shows the references that need to be fixed, specifiaclly towards the bottom of the list. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think its time to fail it. You've done a lot as the reviewer, even fixing some of the issues, but there are still problems and no other editor has taken this up. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 23:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I shall wait until the 2nd of June, if they still are not fixed, then it will be failed. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried finding sources for those claims (even twice), but couldn't. Can't we just remove those claims if there are no sources available to cite them?  smt cha hal  talk 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dead links fixed, the ones I couldn't removed, unsourced and incorrectly sourced statements removed. No problems in citations at the moment.  smt cha hal  talk 04:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. I have also repaired some links myself. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is now a GA! Yay! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 09:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)