Talk:Idol × Warrior Miracle Tunes!

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review
Good articleIdol × Warrior Miracle Tunes! has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 25, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
October 31, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Transliteration of ポップン?

edit

Usually I see ポップン transliterated not as "Poppun" as I see here on this page, but rather as "Pop'n" so I'm wondering if perhaps it should also be the case for this series; is there is any official information on the series that says ポップン must be transliterated "Poppun" and not "Pop'n"? 69.126.157.131 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Idol × Warrior Miracle Tunes!/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit
If it's not traditional, it's fine. My best knowledge is from Japanese video games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

General Comments

edit

Notes & References

edit

GA Review

edit
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.
    a (reference section):   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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Comments

edit
  • Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)
  • Sorry you had such a poor time of the reviewing for this one. I've added my comments. I don't think there is all that much. If you can clear them up, it's a good chance of the pass. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • There's a couple things outstanding, but looking back, they seem like my own preference, than actually wrong with the article. I'll pass for now. Let me know if you would still like me to explain the issues I had above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply