Wikipedia:Peer review/Togari (manga)/archive1

Togari (manga)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how this article can be improved to GA-class.

Thanks, Extremepro (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any development information? --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any. Extremepro (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Started development section from the info at the back of the first volume of the manga. Extremepro (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Should I split the chapter listing into another article? Extremepro (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I tend to wait to split until I've added in the plot summaries, (which makes the parent article too large). --Malkinann (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I think it needs a fair amount of work before GA - here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be 2 or 3 paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but The series ceased production at volume 8 with no solid ending. is only in the lead (and critical response - why it ended there does not seem to be addressed). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Expanded the lead and fleshed out the other paragraphs. Extremepro (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazon is not generally seen as a reliable source but 16 of the 26 refs are from Amazon
 * Replaced all Amazon refs with the publisher's.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems very sparse - the level of material presented is not great. I think for GA it will have to be expanded.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are three FAs and a bunch of GAs at WikiProject_Anime_and_manga that might be good model articles.

What makes the following sources reliable?
 * Comments by
 * All three websites above are on the list of WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources
 * You may trust it to list only reliable sources, I don't. If a source is reliable depends on whether it meets WP:RS, not on whether some wikiproject placed it on some page. Good raise  18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, each of those listings has been heavily discussed, with most already being tested in FA/FL reviews, or where questionable at the RS/N (as noted). "Comics Worth Reading" is the website of a long time comic industry professional and a reviewer for Publishers Weekly, making it usable for reviews as a self-publisher source as it is "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". PopCultureShock is an online magazine that has been around since 1999 and has the appropriate history for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They are quoted by other reliable sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can "ahem" as long as you want. Project discussions, project maintained source lists, RS/N threads, or FA/FL reviews are not what determines the reliability of sources, they are merely places where that can be done. Saying that "it was discussed here" or "it is used in this ...-class article" just isn't enough. Good raise  19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the whole point to have an online ressouces sub-page then? I mean if that goes all that way, people would have the re-prove the RS nature off every review single source during every single peer & external review. I just would love to create ready to use copy-paste blurbs to justify why this or that website is RS. Using a wheel is great recreating it over and over not much. --KrebMarkt 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "What's the whole point to have an online ressouces sub-page then?" Don't ask me, I didn't create it. "I just would love to create ready to use copy-paste blurbs to justify why this or that website is RS." What's stopping you? :) Good raise  00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can "ahem" as long as you want. Project discussions, project maintained source lists, RS/N threads, or FA/FL reviews are not what determines the reliability of sources, they are merely places where that can be done. Saying that "it was discussed here" or "it is used in this ...-class article" just isn't enough. Good raise </tt> 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the whole point to have an online ressouces sub-page then? I mean if that goes all that way, people would have the re-prove the RS nature off every review single source during every single peer & external review. I just would love to create ready to use copy-paste blurbs to justify why this or that website is RS. Using a wheel is great recreating it over and over not much. --KrebMarkt 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "What's the whole point to have an online ressouces sub-page then?" Don't ask me, I didn't create it. "I just would love to create ready to use copy-paste blurbs to justify why this or that website is RS." What's stopping you? :) <tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) <tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Comic Book Bin's Leroy Douresseaux and Pop Shock Culture's Ken Haley commends Yoshinori Natsume's art, which features 'heavy inks, lots of crosshatching, and copious amounts of shading'." - Which one of them is being quoted here?
 * Rewrote sentence so that both reviews can be cited. Extremepro (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 06:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * - In this, the publisher should be "Manga Life".
 * Done Extremepro (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * - In this, the publisher should be "Coolstreak Cartoons".