Talk:Musashi Miyamoto (Vagabond)

Latest comment: 4 hours ago by TechnoSquirrel69 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Musashi Miyamoto (Vagabond)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 23:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments coming in the next couple of days! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I got through most of my prose review, but had to stop short as the number of issues started increasing. I have serious concerns with the sourcing, prose quality, and copyright hygiene in this article — please see the points below for further information. I will unfortunately be   quick-failing the nominee as a result. Let me know if you have any questions. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Lead

edit
  • Italicize (doubly) "Vagabond" in the hatnote.
  • The article's title is Musashi Miyamoto but the infobox caption uses Miyamoto Musashi. To prevent confusion with the historical figure, I'd recommend that this article refer to the character with his full name throughout.
  • "Now, as an adult" Don't use an in-universe timeframe.
  • "Inoue wrote pages in the form of an exhibition" could be said more clearly.
  • Link "historical figure with the same name".
  • "... media for his growth" It's ambiguous whether this pronoun refers to the character or the writer; rephrase.
  • "does several activities" This reads slightly awkwardly; it wouldn't hurt to elaborate on this statement a little bit.

Role in Vagabond

edit
  • For the record, I'm largely assuming good faith on the accuracy and verifiability of the parts of this section citing offline primary sources. Though I wish I did, I don't have the time to read a whole manga series for one review.
  • ""Invincible Under The Heavens" (天下無双, Tenka Musō)" The quotes, capitalization, and Japanese translations seem out of place here. I'm assuming this is a term used in the manga, but since the article never mentions it again, I'd recommend paraphrasing this and relegating the extra information to a footnote at most.
  • The use of diacritics on names like "Takezō" is inconsistent. I would prefer removing most of them, especially for things like "Kyōto" which are commonly used in English without diacritics.
  • "Musashi is rescued ... and treated" Mention in the previous sentence that he was injured.
  • "This angers Musashi and leaves ..." is ungrammatical.
  • In the aftermath of Musashi's solo battle
  • "he is offered him the chance"?
  • Musashi wanders against and question ..."?
  • "... dealing with a village with poor fields" needs to be rephrased. In what way are they dealing with it?
  • "After the manga went on hiatus" When?
  • "Vagabond: The LAST Manga Exhibition" No all caps.

Creation

edit
  • Link "Edo period" and maybe even "Miyamoto Musashi" in the image caption, as media is exempt from MOS:REPEATLINK.
  • This first sentence is phrased rather awkwardly and I'm not sure what it's trying to say.
  • Add a couple of words to contextualize what Musashi is.
  • This is related to my other comment; it's unclear in several places whether the prose is referring to the historical figure or the character. Decide upon and stick to a consistent way to refer to each one.
  • "... the main character would die"? Unclear what this means and should be taken out of Wikipedia's voice. If this is a quote from Inoue, attribute it to him.
  • Several verbs should be in past tense instead of present, such as "Inoue wants to" and "Inoue tries to".
  • Italicize Japanese terms like "bushido" and "ronin", preferably using {{lang}}.
  • "that he finds realistic" Another ambiguous pronoun.
  • You could take a couple of words to contextualize what a ronin is.
  • "Other changes Inoue made ... in the novel." This creates the implication that Inoue is adapting Musashi in some sense, which should be avoided. If this is actually the case, however, it's not at all evident in the preceding text.
  • "which took a lot of energy to properly make" Another comment not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice.

Reception

edit

References

edit

Citation numbers from this revision.

  • Citations 1–9 can be linked to Viz Media, and highly optionally to Takehiko Inoue.
  • Citation 7 is missing a |publisher=.
  • Something's funky with citation 13, and it needs additional information to be verifiable.
  • I would appreciate a |trans-title= on citations 15 and 24.
  • Citations 18–20 need |url-status=dead.
  • Since IABot seems reluctant to do so, add archives to citations 21, 24, 27, and 33.
  • Citation 22 is a master's thesis, which is not considered reliable unless it has a demonstrable impact or it was republished in a peer-reviewed journal. Neither appear to be the case here.
  • Citation 23 is publication by the National University of Córdoba, which is not listed as an accredited institution by the Argentinian National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation, and I believe the publication is unreliable as a result.
  • Citation 24 is an undergraduate paper, which is unreliable for the same reasons as above.

Images

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.