Talk:Warrior Nun Areala

Fair use rationale for Image:Wna-1Ben Dunn's bad, baaad a habit.jpg
Image:Wna-1Ben Dunn's bad, baaad a habit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

B-Class
I've rated this as B-Class, but it's a weak B-Class and needs a fair bot of work to get to GA. It needs far more in the way of referencing, and the reference style used is now outdated. It also needs an infobox, and a good run through to get it better in line with WP:WAF. But it isn't a bad article, and it's got the basics right. Hiding T 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad reference or huge reference?
The article currently contains a reference to AnimeJump.com (reference 9 as I write this). This single reference contains not just one link referencing an external site but an abnormally huge amount of information, multiple paragraphs worth. It seems unlikely that this was intentional, most likely it is a malformed reference that has enveloped several paragraphs of text that were supposed to be in the article. (It is also possible but less likely that an editor thought it was a good idea to include several paragraphs worth of text in a reference.) I checked back through the article history to try and see when the change was first introduced but I don't have time to look into it further. Maybe someone else can take a look and clean this up? -- 109.76.138.86 (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)