Talk:Japanese idol/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello lullabying, I'll take up the review for this nomination and present it to you, shortly. I hope you will find my feedback to be useful and that I will learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Lullabying, I have completed the review and it appears to be to meet the good article criteria on nomination. I couldn't find any significant issues so I'm going to promote it, though I have left some comments below, mostly suggestions. Excellent work on the article and congratulations on your successful nomination! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I would suggest bundling citations when a line needs a lot of citations (3+). There are a lot of these cases in the article.
• Suggest renaming the section on sub-categories to "sub-category markets" otherwise it gives an impression that it is a section on "types" encompasses all idols and without overlaps. The section should also come somewhere after "History", generally articles tend to have "Definition" or an equivalent followed by "History".
• The sources listed in the "Sources" section don't appear to be used in the article itself? They should be incorporated into the article if they aren't, and if they already are, they need to be present as in-line citations.
  • Thank you! I have done all three. lullabying (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The article is very well written.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article is complaint with the manual of style requirements.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all content in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used appear to be reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copright violation or plagiarism found, Earwig reports some false positives.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article broadly covers all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains on topic without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The artice is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing edit warring or content disputes present.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is very well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issues found.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and captions are suitable and illustrative.	Pass