# Talk:Mandarake

@Morgan695: I'm currently too busy to handle a GA review but I looked through the article and one thing that caught my eye is source #5, which is a matome post on Naver. Matome posts are usually user-generated so it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Source #22 is a Geocities website and does not qualify as a reliable source. The store location sections are also 1-3 sentences, and one sentence usually should not stand alone as a paragraph. I would also recommend discussing how much of an impact Mandarake has on the industry, which I can't really tell from the article. lullabying (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm a bit spread thin at the moment, but when/if this article ends up getting a GA review, I'll be sure to incorporate this feedback. Morgan695 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandarake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


#### Basic GA criteria
Well written: the prose is clear and concise. 
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. 
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. 
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
No original research. 
No copyright violations or plagiarism. 
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. 
Neutral. 
Stable. 
Illustrated, if possible. 
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. 
For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Morgan695, I see you're still doing quite a lot of work on the article so I'll set this review aside for the time being. I'll continue when you're ready but there's no rush so take your time. I picked up the review as part of the GAN backlog drive and there's still about 250 others to be done. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker: Hi, thanks for taking up this review. I was just swapping out sources for higher quality ones after a page the article referenced was flagged as being potentially unreliable a few months ago on the article talk page, and moving some content around so the article flows better. It should be ready for review now. Morgan695 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Morgan695, and sorry for not being available in the last few days. It's surprising how much there is to do even when we're in lockdown and isolated. Anyway, I've reviewed the article and, as you can see, it has ticked all of the boxes above. I'm therefore pleased to promote it to GA. You've put a lot of effort into it and it is an interesting, well-written article. I think the controversy section is a particularly good idea. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)