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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues

• "Plot" section: As they travel, they learn that the feathers have special powers and can bestow often supernatural abilities to those who possess them. → Are the abilities often supernatural, or are they often bestowed while being supernatural?
  • Fixed. Every feather I've seen has magical traits.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The group departs to rescue the two Sakuras learning from Yūko that Fei-Wang is in a Kingdom of Clow whose time has been halted. → Could that be explained a bit more of what exactly the underlined portion means, because it wasn't absolutely clear to me when I first read that part.
  • Tried to fix that.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would remove the mentioning of the ISBN numbers in the "Art and fanbooks" subsection, or at least move them into a "Further reading" section (see WP:LAYOUT for details on how and where to set one up) if need be. I just think it's not that relevant and may be distracting to readers to see all those ISBN numbers there in the open.
  • Removed.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Your expression of the rankings of the manga, anime, etc. are inconsistent. Sometimes you have number 3, and other times you have 29th. Stick to one type of expression for that.
  • Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Anime reception" subsection: Active Anime's Christopher Seaman had mixed feelings, finding the romantic themes mature, while some of the magical themes would appeal to younger audiences; → The second part of that sentence doesn't fit well structurally with the first part, and I think it's just the wording. Try something like finding the romantic themes mature and the magical themes appealing to younger audiences or similar.
  • Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

In progress – I still need to over the sources and make sure everything I can verify is verified in the article. Otherwise, so far, the prose and structure are decent, and everything seems well-sourced from what I can see. More will come, if anything else, within the next couple of days, as I am a bit busy the beginning of this week IRL. –MuZemike 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll try an eye on any issue and I think I will not be very busy.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Looking at the referencing last night, it looks good, and I couldn't find any major problems as far as any significant gaps in verifiability is concerned. Good work. –MuZemike 15:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Tintor2 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]