Talk:Samurai Champloo/GA1
Add topicGA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the big delay Proto. I had no idea you dominated this until now. I'll be reviewing this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lead
- Since it's the introduction the entire anime, I would suggest adding a genre to "Samurai Champloo (Japanese: サムライチャンプルー, Hepburn: Samurai Chanpurū) is a 2004 Japanese anime television series". Kinda helps it easier to understand for newcomers.
- Plot
- Everything seems okay. I did watched this anime but, while it was a long time ago, I understand it. Since this is English Wikipedia I would suggest adding a "town" to Ikitsuki.
- Production
- I would add studio to Madhouse since make it easier to distinguish.
- Reception
- This section could revised cover make paragraphs focus on different aspects from the series just like how we talked about Kingdom Hearts III last week.
@ProtoDrake: Other than that, the article is well written and I would gladly pass it once these issues are solved.Tintor2 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Tintor2: I've addressed the lead, plot and production issues. As to the reception, I was using the article Blood-C as a basis, which I worked on a few years ago and got passed GA. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Yeah but that was several years ago. The project started doing similar types of sections like the ones you wrote for video games. I did something similar with X (manga), Jujutsu Kaisen 0 and Darker than Black when dealing with their reception sections. One paragraph for the narrative, one for the presentation and another for any other area that might. At least try to tone done the quotes.Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Tintor2: Point taken. I've reformatted the reception, though I kept the retrospective section as was. I've also reduced the number of quotes to one, using paraphrasing elsewhere. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Passing the review. Nice work as usual.Tintor2 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)