Wikipedia

Talk:Arina Tanemura/GA1

< Talk:Arina Tanemura
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Vanamonde93 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago37 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    All issues addressd
    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:  
    Sources seem to be appropriately formatted.
    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:  
    All concerns addressed
    C. It contains no original research:  
    AGF on Japanese sources
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks clear.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    It's a bit thin on biographical detail, but not to the point of failing it.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    Conversely, not too pleased with entire list of works; but not
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    Issues with use of interviews addressed; no other substantive concerns
  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:  
    An image would be nice, but PD images are hard to come by for less well-known people
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Passing shortly.

Comments

edit
  • The second sentence of "early life", as written, seems self-contradictory; if the television had anime, that was still surely a form of entertainment?
  • "magazines aimed at an older female demographic"; can we be more specific about what types of magazines these were?
    • See shojo manga and josei manga for differences. In the interview she states that she was reading comics about "adult" topics such as extramarital affairs from a young age. lullabying (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes, but at the moment, they could be sports magazines, for all the reader knows. You need to clarify that they are manga, at the very least.
  • "from that time"; which time? This is ambiguous.
  • "she had passed the first round of submissions" I'm uncertain as to what this means; I think you're saying she passed the first round of selection, but it's a bit unclear.
  • "she began practicing by drawing four pages of yonkoma" I think you mean to say four pages a day, or something similar; otherwise this is confusing.
    • I meant to write that she started drawing yonkoma and then increased the number of pages as she continued. lullabying (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • That's still unclear. If I were to draw every day, the number of pages I draw would increase. Unless you're talking about daily practice, the second part of that sentence is redundant.
        • This is the original text from her interview: でも、「まずはつけペンに慣れなきゃ」「修行しなきゃ」と思って、長いストーリーではなく、4コマを投稿し始めたんですよ。そしたら賞をいただいて。4コマ部門は5ページくらいで投稿できるんですけど、最初に投稿した作品で結構な賞金をもらえちゃったんです。「5ページでこんなに賞金をもらうわけにはいかない」と思って、16ページ・32本くらいの4コマを投稿していました。そこでギャグを描くのが楽しくなりましたね。 I decided to remove the text as it does seem unclear. lullabying (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Despite being published in a separate edition" does "edition" have a specific meaning with respect to manga? Otherwise, I think "supplement" or "special issue" is the term you are looking for.
  • The first paragraph of "career" also sounds somewhat inconsistent; if "The Style of the Second Love" brought her early fame, why is it that the ION is referred to as her breakthrough work? If ION was a bigger breakthrough, then surely there ought to be more details substantiating that?
  • "but she was forced to cut the series short"; do we know why? Otherwise, it's an odd thing to say.
  • What is it about "Full Moon o Sagashite" that allowed Tanemura to write lyrics? It is unclear at the moment.
  • "intentionally gave the story a different tone compared to The Gentlemen's Alliance Cross" Unless you have information about how the tone was different, I'd omit this; it doesn't really tell the reader anything.
  • "In November 2011, Tanemura departed from Ribon" At no point has the article made it clear she worked for Ribon; if this is the default model for manga, it's still unclear to people unfamiliar with the industry.
  • An interview isn't good enough for the statement "and she drew according to trends she believes are fashionably popular at that time, resulting in her unique art style". Unless you can find a source saying that directly, I would paraphrase this to something like "she tries to reflect contemporary styles in her drawing", or something similar, but simple.
  • The list of works is rather long; it's taking up more space than the prose section of the article. I would recommend either splitting this off into a "list of works" article, or just pruning this down to her best known works. The full list doesn't really belong here. This is the case for most prolific authors, just so you know; see, for instance, Ursula K. Le Guin, which I brought to FA some months ago.
    • I tried modeling on Akira Toriyama, which was a GA and lists all of his works. Aside from that, her published works are notable and do deserve a mention. lullabying (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • All her works are not notable, that's my point. A very small fraction of authors are notable enough that all their works meet WP:N. The list is notable, but it belongs as a standalone. This is particularly true because Tanemura is young, and her list will presumably grow. If you don't, someone else is likely to split the list off; if not, I would expect the article would fail criterion 3b fairly soon. I'm not going to fail it over this now, but please take this point seriously. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead, at the moment, is too much of a list of her publications, and not really a summary of the article. I'd suggest trimming it a little, since the article is also short, and then adding a sentence or two about her style and characters. You could also replace some of the stuff about her publications with a sentence about other activities she has done.
    •   Done I tried to remove info about less notable series and included one more source/feedback about the main themes of her work, which I had also integrated into the lead. lullabying (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Substance-wise, the lead is a lot better now. I'm still a little concerned that its language is on the flowery side. Your reworking of the artistry section was great; could you take another look at the lead?
  • I'm a little concerned about the heavy use of interviews in the early part of the article. Interviews are essentially primary sources; they are okay for strictly non-contentious material; but for things like the school competition, they're a little questionable. At the very least, you need to make an effort to find better sources; if they are not available, the wording may have to be adjusted to make it clear that Tanemura is the only source for that information.
  • In general, the article is a little thin on details besides when she published which title. It isn't low enough to fail it; but I'd be a lot happier if you could look through sources again to see if you've really included all the biographical information you can. Even basic things like where she lives, where she went to school, and whether she went to college, are currently missing. I will let you work on these comments, and return when you've finished with them; please ping me when you've done so.
    • Japanese people are kind of touchy about keeping their privacy so they usually won't reveal information about where they went to school and such. Even then, most Japanese manga artists use pseudonyms and do not disclose private information about themselves. lullabying (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The last sentence of "artistry and themes" seems out of place to me. I'd omit it altogether; it really belongs in the article about that artist, as it's only tangentially about Tanemura.

@Vanamonde93: I've tried rephrasing and fixing up some statements. Please feel free to give me feedback. lullabying (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arina_Tanemura/GA1&oldid=952700898"