Talk:Toshiko Ueda/GA1

GA Review

Passed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article carefully. It looks well written and complete. Analysis per criteria ~~pending~~ done.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Pass

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Is written in a way that is easy to comprehend. Fits the over all style of similar good articles.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
As far as I can tell everything is reliable, I am not familiar with Japanese sources. Determination if there is Copyvio or plagiarism is inconclusive because the article has been translated into English and I can not judge its similarity with the japanese text.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Nothing included seems out of place.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There may be too much emphasis on the opinion that she is less popular and less successful than Machiko Hasegawa
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image of soviet troops may be too general. Image of Harbin is ok, but what is missing is any images or examples of her work.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall good. The section on Toshiko Ueda#Style#Visual_style can use a better explanation of what is meant by the 'dynamic traits' in her work, possibly by footnote, linking to another article, or explanation in the article.

@Gazozlu: Thanks for taking up this review. I've clarified what is meant by "dynamic traits" and rearranged the images of the article, replacing the image of Soviet troops with a non-free licensed image from one of Ueda's manga series. Morgan695 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification looks good. Although do you mean bold (thick) lines vs lighter (thinner) lines. If so, this is a common understanding for fonts and (printed)text, but maybe some people will not understand that you are talking about the outlines and general main lines of the manga.

The page from her manga series image looks good, maybe you can include the date of that specific publication in the caption. Gazozlu (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazozlu: I've further clarified that section. I'm not certain of the exact date of the comic page. Morgan695 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, it is written clearer now, but also seems to have lost depth. Before it was suggesting a visual discriptive aspect that made Uedas manga distinct from Tezukas. But now only states that Uedas mangas are distinct but does not go into in what visual way. If Ishida, Kanta (June 16, 2017) does not go into further disctiptive detail of what charactarises her work in contrast Tezukas then i suppose more can't be said. However Ishida, Kanta (June 16, 2017) might have more descriptive content that you can reference if you have access to that source.

On the photo of the manga, perhaps including that the manga of which that photo is taken ran from (1957-1962) is useful. I have added it but you can revert it if you think it clutters the description too much. Maybe the phrase "A page from Ueda's manga series" in that description can also be shortened to "A page from" given that the reader already is reading the article about Ueda it might not be too necessary. Gazozlu (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazozlu: Looks good to me. Do you have any additional notes? Morgan695 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe including the cause of death in the main paragraph is not a necessary detail. Maybe it can be something like "At the time of her death at the age of 90, Ueda was still actively..."

Other than that it looks good and I think its ready for being listed as a GA. Gazozlu (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]