Talk:Mandarake

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Yoninah in topic Did you know nomination

Question about sources edit

@Morgan695: I'm currently too busy to handle a GA review but I looked through the article and one thing that caught my eye is source #5, which is a matome post on Naver. Matome posts are usually user-generated so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Source #22 is a Geocities website and does not qualify as a reliable source. The store location sections are also 1-3 sentences, and one sentence usually should not stand alone as a paragraph. I would also recommend discussing how much of an impact Mandarake has on the industry, which I can't really tell from the article. lullabying (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm a bit spread thin at the moment, but when/if this article ends up getting a GA review, I'll be sure to incorporate this feedback. Morgan695 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandarake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Basic GA criteria edit

  1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.  
  2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.  
  3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.  
  4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.  
  5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.  
  6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
  7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
  8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
  9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.  
  10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.  
  11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.  
  12. No original research.  
  13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.  
  14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.  
  15. Neutral.  
  16. Stable.  
  17. Illustrated, if possible.  
  18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.  

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Morgan695, I see you're still doing quite a lot of work on the article so I'll set this review aside for the time being. I'll continue when you're ready but there's no rush so take your time. I picked up the review as part of the GAN backlog drive and there's still about 250 others to be done. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

No Great Shaker: Hi, thanks for taking up this review. I was just swapping out sources for higher quality ones after a page the article referenced was flagged as being potentially unreliable a few months ago on the article talk page, and moving some content around so the article flows better. It should be ready for review now. Morgan695 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Morgan695, and sorry for not being available in the last few days. It's surprising how much there is to do even when we're in lockdown and isolated. Anyway, I've reviewed the article and, as you can see, it has ticked all of the boxes above. I'm therefore pleased to promote it to GA. You've put a lot of effort into it and it is an interesting, well-written article. I think the controversy section is a particularly good idea. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination edit

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 
Mandarake store in Fukuoka, Japan
  • ... that Mandarake (pictured) is is the largest secondhand comics retailer in the world? Source: Japan Company Handbook, Summer 2019
    • ALT1:... that Mandarake (pictured) sells and purchases roughly ten thousand items per day, and has a point of sale system that includes over 20 million items? Source: 1
    • ALT2:... that the decision by Mandarake (pictured) to publish a censored image of a shoplifter prompted a public debate over whether their actions constituted an illegal threat of intimidation? Source: 2
    • ALT3:... that an original illustration from Ai to Makoto, one of a series of fifteen believed lost in 1974, was discovered after being listed in an online auction by Mandarake (pictured) in 2018? Source: 3
  • Reviewed: Cecilia Suárez
  • Comment: If the hook needs to be clarified with what Mandarake is, "Japanese retail corporation" or just "retail corporation" can be added (ie. that the Japanese retail corporation Mandarake...)

Improved to Good Article status by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

  •   Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. I think ALT3 is probably the most fascinating in comparison to the others. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply