Talk:Zombiepowder.

Zombiepowder. has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Review: January 9, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Westerns Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zombiepowder./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one, should have this in a day or two and will mainly focus on copyediting issues. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"Zombiepowder. was published in Japan in 1999" - not required, but is there any information with a precise date?

Probably not. Serialization dates of manga (specially minors like this one) are usually "forgotten" by the time in contrast with tankobon release dates. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Zombiepowder. sold unremarkably in Japan, but has been commercially successful in the United States" - seems like things were different in Japan, so this can be mentioned in the lead rather than just in the reception section?

I consider it's pretty fair. Added. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The story begins with young pickpocket John Elwood Shepherd" - is his name just Elwood Shepherd or is his first name John?

His full name is John Elwood Shepherd. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Alexander Gorban of the Russian-language Animemaniacs Magazine" - why not just Russian?

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviewers of Zombiepowder. found Elwood's character mostly unremarkable, due to his similarity to numerous other tag-along/protégé characters found in manga" - I didn't understand this part, did they find his character unremarkable because he was common or too similar to non-significant characters?

For what I understood, they find him unremarkable because he was a clichéd character as is in "due to his similarity to numerous other tag-along/protégé characters found in manga". Any suggestion? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Zombiepowder. sold unremarkably in Japan" - would consider changing this to something like modestly?

Reworded. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 20 is dead, this is a slight concern because this ref is prominent in the article

Archived. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However all other references are fine, and the citations are in the correct places so this meets the GA criteria

On hold

I like the way this article is written, so not many problems regarding the prose. I noted a few things that could be improved/clarified, so I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. This does look like GA material, and as with 90% of my reviews I put it on hold to ensure that not only everything is addressed, but perfected in the article. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jaguar, I'm not the user who nominated it for GA, Erachima (but that's probably obvious), however, as he is absent since August 2014 (Check) I'll handle it. I feel it would be a pity if it fails when it's too close for being promoted. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for tending to this review, Gabriel Yuji, and I'm grateful this has happened because it is a well written article as it as and would have hated to fail it due to inactivity. Well done, not much work to put in but now it meets the GA criteria ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]