Talk:Believers (manga)

message: This article is missing a lot, what about cultural impact? I'm sure you can write more about the plot that one paragraph, did it inspire any sequels? Is there no character depth to it? You lack Fair Use Rationales to the images, and not enough references. Also, please note the difference between references and footnotes. Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: The following points have been made against it by HighwayCello and have responded with my reasoning.
1: Missing cultural impact.</br>
Responce: There hardly was one, or none worth noting.
2: Plot summary not long enough.</br>
Responce: -Plot summary at Planetes is of similar length and is a Good Article.</br>
-See WP:FICTION #4: "the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them."</br>
-The length shouldn't matter for a good article.</br>
3: What about sequels? Was it available outside of Japan? Etc.</br>
Responce: The answer to all of such questions is no. The article doesn't need to go out of its way to say what it is not.
4: Please note the difference between references and footnotes.</br>
Responce: They are included together to cut down on clutter.
5: You lack Fair Use Rationales to the images.</br>
Responce: Fixed.
6: Not enough references.</br>
Responce: This article is short due to the massive lack of information on the subject. The few references given are all that could be found with hours of searching. This article is as broad in coverage as it can possiblely be at the given time and should, IMO, be considered a good article.
--SeizureDog 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I believe this should be a good article

message: Personally, and this is my first GA review, I think the article is almost there, but not quite. Some minor edits and I think it would qualify. Point-by-point:
#It is well written
#*I think the prose is well written; not jerky or disconnected, and it seems to follow the MoS as far as I can tell.
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#*Here I have some minor points.
#**Firstly, I am a big believer in inline citations, which is what is preferred by WP:WIAGA, although this alone would not cause me to reject it.
#**Another minor point is the non-use of wiki citation templates such as  or  found in :Category:Citation templates. I think using these are important.
#**Lastly, I agree that notes and references should be separate. Compare what I did with the article Actuary. Even if each category only has a few entries, I believe they are disticnt enough to require separate sections.
#It is broad in its coverage
#*This is somewhat difficult for me to judge, I am completly ignorant of manga. Compared to an article such as Berserk (manga), it is sparse, but the content in question may not lend itself to any more expansion. Reading the article by itself, it seems to cover the salient points of the series. If there were any videos made or spin-off's, that would be appropriate to add, but I must defer to people with more expertise in the field.
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#*I see no issues at all.
#It is stable
#*It is a relatively recent article, but I see no reason why it shouldn't, especially if the content is sufficently broad (see above).
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#*It does, and they are tagged, so that is a plus.
Overall, I think addressing the citations and ensuring that the content is sufficently complete would push this into Good Article status. -- Avi 16:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review: Barely Fail: June 7, 2006 

message: *I'm not sure if I am supposed to do this, but I made some cosmetic changes, nothing substantive, including linking the asterisk to your note about spelling. I think it should suffice.
:*Sugoi ^_^ Thanks. I didn't know about that asterisk trick, I applied it to the daggers as well for good measure. And I'm sure it's fine. The important thing is to bring the articles quality up. Thanks for bearing with me :) --SeizureDog 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: As the title says, the first reference no longer exists. I can't find it anywhere. Bstone (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference no longer exists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Believers (manga). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pulp-mag.com/archives/6.04/naokiyamamoto_01.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified