# Talk:Blue Flag (manga)


### Blue Flag (manga)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on expanding and improving it, and I'd like to move toward GAC if possible. I'd like to know if it meets B-class article criteria at this point, and what else can be done to improve it.
Thanks! MidnightAlarm (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments by Icepinner
Interested in this. I don't have much experience with manga or literature articles in general (closest is Details Cannot Body Wants), so this should be interesting. Patience would be greatly appreciated. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  15:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

and to emphasize subjective point of view in the art I'm assuming this is POV within the art style, right?
Use ! scope="col" for the table's rows per MOS:DTAB
Also use the abbreviation template for the ISBN columns
Rebecca Silverman from Anime News Network gave the first four volumes an A− What about the other four volumes?
Likewise to Demezela
There was a sharp increase in reader interest in the series following the release of its final chapter, with its revelation that protagonist Taichi is bisexual, and many LGBTQ readers left comments on the chapter discussing how the series resonated with their personal lives. this can be reworded to Following the release of its final chapter, the series experienced a sharp increase in reader interest as its protagonist Taichi was revealed to be bisexual, with many LGBTQ readers commenting how the series resonated with their personal lives. Feel free to modify the proposal for grammar and stuff.
It would be particularly helpful to cite which page(s) of the Researchgate journal you have used. If the information it supports are on different pages, use Template:Sfn or Template:Harvard citation.
That's all I have @MidnightAlarm:. Ping me when done. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  13:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Icepinner: Thanks so much for the review, and apologies that it took me a few days to get around to seeing it. I've been a bit busy with offline stuff this week. I've made changes to incorporate the things you noted, though unfortunately it appears that Demezela only ever reviewed the first volume of the series so I wasn't able to update that. (Should the sentence about Demezela's review be removed, in that case? I'm not sure how notable that review is anyway.) MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@MidnightAlarm Probably, unless someone else brings it up (btw, notability concerns whether a topic deserves its own article or not. Don't worry, it's a common mistake. I also used "notability" when I questioned whether information should be added/removed until another editor corrected me). Icepinner  07:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner Sentence removed. And thanks for the correction about use of "notability", I appreciate that! MidnightAlarm (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@MidnightAlarm Thanks. Do you prefer if I close this review or if another editor (one who's familiar with manga or literature in general) comment on this review as well? Icepinner  14:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner You can close it! Thanks again for the review, it was much appreciated. MidnightAlarm (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
No problem! I'm going to close this review per nominator's request. Icepinner  01:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)