Talk:Death Note/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
On the whole, the prose is okay, but there are several basic punctuation errors and several places that are written in a confusing fashion. For example "For each chapter the creative process began with Ohba and moved to Obata; both took advice from the editor." isn't a very good sentence. Almost every paragraph in production starts with "Ohba said/did/etc", which makes for monotonous reading. In the manga section, "Death Note was eventually licensed for North American publication by Viz Media", eventually is unneeded and implies a lengthy wait time/impatience where there was none. A fresh copyedit would be a good idea. For the MoS, as a whole it follows WP:MOS-AM, but fails from of the general WP:MOS guidelines regarding headers. The header names of the production section are too long. General creative process should be part of the main section, no idea why its split at all. Ditto "Conception and design of the Death Notes" and "Intent with the series". "Production and intent in the anime" should be shortened (maybe just "Adaptation"), and fixed to be a subsection under production. Also, the references are using a mix of styles, some using templates, some using manual formatting. For consistency it needs to be one or the other (I recommend all templates). Also, some, like some of the BookNavi titles need clean up. The second disambig at the top seems unnecessary since all the links at Death Note (disambiguation) are to the same series except suicide note, which is already linked.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are some unsourced statements, which I've tagged, that need to be taken care of. Ref 46 and 64 are missing their publisher info. Ref 68, to breitbart, comes up with a blank page. What makes shanghaiist.com a reliable source? It appears to be a blog site. MyAnimeList is not a reliable source and violates WP:COPYRIGHT as it promotes fansubs. The sinchew-i.com link is dead.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The production section seems a little rambly and could use some prose tightening (as noted above) to make it more focused. The anime section is overly detailed with airtimes and schedules. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, and what times it aired is a bit excessive, particularly all the times on the US airings. The manga section seems outdated/short compared to its list; missing some details on the releases and basic details. When did it end? According to the manga list, its English release is also done, but section implies its still on-going. The light novel section neglects to mention when the light novel was published in Japan and by who. It also states "Viz released the novel in English on February 19, 2008.[21] however many retailers began selling the books as early as February 7, 2008.[22]" however there is only one source, for Barnes and Noble. How is that "many retailers"? Appears to be ORish. The soundtracks section is far too brief. Are the Yonkoma notable? Many manga series have similar shorts like this, and none appear that notable. Why are these relevant/important enough for a separate section? The live-action films section is too brief a summary of its main article, with only apparently the first two lines actually being about that article, and the rest being on a coming remake? The reception section appears very brief, and almost entirely focused on the anime. Surely there are manga reviews available as well? "Copycat crimes and imitations" should be redone in a prose format and given a better name. Also not sure that the first see also link is that relevant.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
The video game cover is an unnecessary WP:NONFREE image as the art is not significantly different from the series, nor is it introducing/showing any new characters. The cover image should be using the book cover rather than comic cover license, but is otherwise fine.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Quite a few fixes to do, though except for the copyedit, I think most of these will be fairly quick. I will have both the article and this page on my watch list, so any questions/comments can be posted here. This GAR is scheduled to end on June 14, 2009.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the refs issues is solved. Collectian, do you mean that the video game image should be replaced with another image?Tintor2 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it should be removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, done.Tintor2 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]