Talk:Natsu Dragneel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Will be doing this review, though this could take a few days or up to a week due to real-life matters. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, I have been busy lately due to real-life matters, but here's the preliminary review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

   The second paragraph of the lede feels too short: "critical reception on the character has generally been positive" seems pretty abrupt; maybe some discussion or summary of the reviewer comments on Natsu could be added here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Resolved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

2. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   This link is broken, please replace with an archive link if possible. I'm also not sure if OtakuKart is reliable since it seems to be run by one person. In addition, could you provide at least some Japanese character polls? I'm aware that Fairy Tail is quite popular in Japan, and there have been various character polls involving the series, so at least some mention of that has to be included. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Resolved Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwigs detects no copyright violations or plagiarism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See my comments on 2B. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Resolved Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just address the issues raised in the article and this will be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Hi and thank you for providing the review. I tried to fix everything that you had mentioned above. In the second paragraph of the lead, I briefly explained why critical reception on Natsu had been positive. That link was not written correctly - I added the correct version and now it can be accessed. I removed the OtakuKart link, and instead I added information about the rank Natsu had obtained in one of the official Fairy Tail character popularity polls published in Weekly Shōnen Magazine (sadly, this is the only official Fairy Tail popularity poll that I was able to find at the moment). Flowerpiep (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

All issues have been resolved, and so I am happy to say that this GAN is a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)