Talk:Aniplex of America/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article but it will start probably after Christmas. Looking forward to it. I only worked in two different companies article but this one seems well. Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Link20XX: Merry Christmas. I let the archive and citation bots check the sources of this article. Everything seems well written and sourced but there are some issues that might help to make GA:

Infobox

• The 15 years ago seems unnecessary. Either remove it or simply write like "(15 years ago)" similar to real people's ages.

Lead

• For the lead. While it might be unavoidable, I would suggest reducing the times we repeat the Aniplex word in the first paragraph. Try replacing some instances with "company" or "distribution enterprise".
• Try mentioning in the lead one of the key people behind Aniplex. Maybe Asa Suehira seems the most appropiate.

Body

• "At this point, Aniplex of America licensed its titles through other distributors, such as Funimation, Bandai Visual, Geneon, ADV Films, NIS America, and Media Blasters." Seems to be lacking a citation. Was it removed accidentally?
• Similarly, avoid repeating the company's names. For example, in the second sentence from the first paragraph you can simply replace it with "It" or "They"

Catalog

• English is quite a common wikilink so there is no need to have it.

Other than that, I think this article is in good state. Solve this issues, ping me and I'll check it again to pass it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I took the feedback given and used it to improve the article. It is now ready to be reassessed whenever you get the chance. Thanks for doing this review! I promise to hold my end of the deal. Link20XX (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Link20XX: On a second read, the article looks much better. I thought it would take longer but the prose is not that big while the free image passes the crtieria.

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:

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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   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:

Tintor2 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)