Talk:The Rose of Versailles/GA1

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

Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. Link20XX (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have completed my initial review. Just needs a few things before it can be promoted:

Checklist

 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
Sourcing:
 * Comic Natalie is published by Natasha, Inc, so that should be added to those references as the publisher.
 * Done.
 * Link to the article for Anime News Network in the references from them where it is not linked.
 * Done.
 * References 45 and 47 need an author.
 * Done.
 * Reference 59 needs to link to the article on Natalie (website) and needs an access date.
 * Done.

Images:
 * The image of François Augustin Regnier de Jarjayes is tagged with a message stating "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
 * That image seemed to be dubiously sourced, so I swapped it for a new one.

Other:
 * This article lacks even some critical reviews. You should get at least 2 or 3 in Reception.
 * Done.

Small question

 * How much of this was translated from French? I'm just curious; this won't effect the GA review and you can completely ignore this if you want.
 * Almost entirely. The bulk of the previous article was sourced primarily from fan sites; probably a consequence of the original article being written in the mid-2000s when there were few/no mainstream English-language sources on the series.

Anyway, that is all. Resolve them and I will happily pass the article. Link20XX (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Response above. Morgan695 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright. Your changes addressed my few concerns so I am closing this review as Pass. Congratulations and thanks for answering my question! Link20XX (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)