Talk:Psycho-Pass/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 22:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, hi. Tezero (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• I'm uneasy about Crunchyroll being used as a source, but since its chief purpose is to immortalize a tweet, which are frequently removed from Twitter (including in batches when the account is deleted), I'll give it a pass.
• Also, "Anime News Network" is inconsistently linked and italicized, but this isn't an issue for GA.
• I had to put publishers into a few sources that lacked them; please be more careful about that.
• The FURs could be more detailed, but also not an issue for GA.
• Is there any more information about the film? I'm not keen on one-line sections.
• Is it standard to include Themes as a separate section? I'm uneasy with presenting two sources' interpretations of the work as objective fact, unless they somehow got that information directly from the creators. Otherwise, I'd rather it go as a subsection of Reception.

I'll look through the prose and come up with any further comments a bit later on. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I already gave the article a few touches based on the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's coming along. Ping me when you're done. Tezero (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is another issue to cover. Already dealed with the FUR.Tintor2 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't notice it in your edit history. Let's do this. Tezero (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)