This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is a little long for the article
Infobox is good; good fair use manga cover
was an enjoyable departure for him from the horror manga he typically authors seems a little too flowery for the lead; but it could be mentioned it's different to his horror in the lead, and that he enjoyed the different manga is good for the body
Could give Kodansha an introduction (i.e. "The manga publisher Kodansha compiled the ten..." or something like that)
The Style section doesn't need to open with the manga title - it can, but this might be redundant when it could also use a pronoun
The sentence According to Price, that only the everyday narrative of Junji Ito's Cat Diary delineated it from Ito's earlier works suggested that a degree of authorial humor was present in Ito's works, perhaps even that "Ito’s work was itself a kind of grand joke." is very hard to read
Style section otherwise also very well written. There's a lot of detail about the critical views on the various realistic/horrific art, which seem to be the main elements
At he liked writing manga such as Junji Ito's Cat Diary, because it, the use of the manga's name is unnecessary and unconventional, it should be changed to "...he liked writing the manga, because it..."
Some of the text about publication seems to be a direct copy of the lead - either the lead part should be shortened or the body part expanded on (rephrasing both works)
Reception section is good - a little verbose in the Lieberman part that could be rephrased, but fine
Is there anything about Japan's reception?
Question about the talk page links: are they all done, because in December it was noted that not all links had been used and so the article was not sufficiently broad in its coverage.
Hi @Kingsif:, and thank you for reviewing! To answer your question, I finished adding the all the sources listed on the talkpage after the review had been done. I wasn't able to find anything about its original reception, but I suspect it was favourable. I did remove the Polygon source, as I had originally thought it was referring to Cat Diary, and now, on a second read, I think it was actually referring to a set of short stories in another Junji Ito collection that was similar to Cat Diary in tone and content. Very confusing. RE: the textual overlap of the lead and publication. I'm a bit stumped as to how to make them different, as manga publication (as you probably know) tends to go (but not always goes) serialization > bound volume > translation. I'll definitely give it a think, and see what else I can come up with, in regards to phrasing. Other than that, I believe I have made all the changes you requested. Thank you for taking the time to review! I so appreciate it! Best, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On hold @Rapunzel-bellflower: Comments above, but a nice article that shouldn't take much work. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)