Talk:Frieren/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: KjjjKjjj (talk · contribs) 14:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments

It looks like there has been a thorough copy-edit since the previous review, which is very promising. I also made some edits myself. Some prose issues that I could not resolve:
- Yamada was impressed, and Ogura asked him do it, and submit the project to the editorial department. -- I'm not sure what "him" or "it" are referring to. It also feels like this sentence might be entirely redundant with the next one? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- For the animated adaptation by Madhouse, Tomohiro Suzuki said Fern's character differs depending on who she is interacting with -- this whole paragraph is not related to the production at all. It might belong in the section about the anime, if this is meant to be an explanation of how the anime differs from the manga, or it might belong in some kind of analysis section, if it's meant to be an explanation of Fern's character. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- By March 2021, over two million copies of the manga were in circulation;[1] over 5.6 million copies in circulation by February 2022;[2] by June 2022 there were six million;[3] by September 2022 over 7.2 million;[4] by March 2023 over eight million;[5] over 10 million copies in circulation by September 2023;[6] by December 2023 over 17 million;[7] by March 2024 over 20 million;[8] and by June 2024 over 22 million copies were in circulation. -- this blow-by-blow is kind of excessive. Can some of these milestones be trimmed, and/or some kind of high-level summary provided? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Done. KjjjKjjj (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tackling these comments, but I have to admit I am only more confused now by Ogura contacted Tsukasa Abe, and asked him to draw a character chart and send the work to the editorial department. Yamada was impressed, and submit the project to the editorial department after Ogura asked him to do it. I tried my own version, based on what I think it was meant to convey, but please let me know if I misunderstood. Also, it seems like a shame to just delete the paragraph about Fern's character -- it was well sourced, and one of the few bits of analysis in the article. I just think it needed to be moved somewhere else. If there was an "Analysis" section, it would definitely fit there. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Nationwide Bookstore Employees' Recommended Comics of 2021" by the website "Honya Club" really noteworthy given the other recognitions listed? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section would benefit from following the advice here. Right now, both reception sections essentially summarize individual reviews from each venue, but is a lot of potential to instead cluster their observations by topic. For example, I see a lot of comments on the premise, a few on the art, and several comparisons to other media, which could each be clustered. In fact, those details could be useful for sections like "Art", "Influences", "Major themes", etc, which would make the article feel more informative. Right now, I feel like I learn a lot about where and when the story was sold, but not very much about what it's actually like or what happens in it. How feasible does this kind of revision feel? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Hello! I have seen the comments and I’ll get to them as soon as possible! I’ll try my best to edit it since I don’t have access to a computer at this time, (I mainly use an computer when making heavy edits) but I’ll try my best! Best regards, KjjjKjjj (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can probably wait til you have some better computer access! The more I look at the article, the more I think it's quite important for the "breadth" criterion that there is more secondary analysis/description of the contents of the manga. When I read the article, I feel like I am still just guessing what the manga actually like. The article doesn't have to cover everything but some new section called "Analysis", "Art", "Influences", "Major themes", "Setting", etc, feels needed. In the mean time I will review the other GA criteria. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the source check I looked at cites 48, 71, 93, 98, 113, and 121 as numbered in this diff (using Google Translate as needed). For 71 I corrected which volumes were being reviewed, everything else verified with no close paraphrasing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cover image has an appropriate fair use rationale, image check is good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having looked through the rest of the criteria, I think it's just breadth (aka the need for some kind of analysis / contextual coverage) that the article should address. That may take some time to add, so please just ping me when you think it's ready for me to take another look! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]