A script has been used to generate a semi-
automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
house style; it can be found on the
automated peer review page for January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
And another Peer Review request from me... I recently happened upon this page and it definitely looks ready for a FLC, though I'd like to run it through here first. The main spot for my concern, as with many other Anime episode lists, would be the episode summaries themselves. Thanks,
NOCTURNENOIR(
t •
c )03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk·contribs) General comments before FLC. The article needs another copy-edit, I stiil find prose issues easily:
Just a note that you have to be the primary contrubutor to nominate the article for FLC; alternatively, you have to have the primary contributor's permission.
Just a note to watch for needed commas: Here, to set off non-essential clauses: "Kraft Lawrence, a twenty-five-year-old traveling peddler" Comma after "peddler".
"who tells Lawrence of a plan regarding" Read through the entire article for instances of this noun + -ing sentence structure. "plan regarding"-->plan that regards
"While traveling, Lawrence recounts how he was attacked by wolves eight times before in the forest, but Holo defends wolves too much and Lawrence snaps back at her." Awkward phrasing.
Changed it a bit... I made it a bit colloquial, so see if it still needs improvement.
Why is episode 07 a different color (and out of chronological order)?
It's an OVA. If you look at
[1], the series skips right over episode 7. As the
refs in the lead show, the episode us numbered as seven. I can remove the color if you'd like, but I feel it brings out the fact that it is out of place and that it is an OVA.
NOCTURNENOIR(
t •
c )19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
The "it's used in other FLs/FAs" argument doesn't fly, those were promoted in 2007 and I doubt that the sources were checked like they are now. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
19:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Wow, thanks for noticing that. I went back and found a couple issues that I hadn't noticed before. Also, could you provide the reference numbers from the Bleach list?
Dabomb87 (
talk)
21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
It's just the first bulleted reference under General. I'd still argue that the site is a reliable source however, so I don't think it is an issue.
NOCTURNENOIR(
t •
c )21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply