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

Reviewer: Link20XX (talk · contribs) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I will be reviewing this article, though it may take a bit cause its a long article. Link20XX (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: I have completed my initial review. Just a few things before I can promote the article. I have made a few bold edits already.

Checklist

Is it well written?

1. A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Lead:

• Link the article on "homoeroticism", as that's a word that is probably not known by the everyday person.
  • Done. Morgan695 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology and etymology:

• In the second paragraph, you shouldn't wikilink "rose", as that's something that most people know.
  • I think it's best to keep, as "rose" has several different meanings (the past tense of "rise", a color, a type of wine, etc.). It's useful to explicate that it's in reference to the flower, especially in contrast to "yuri" as "lily".
• Unless I'm missing something, neither Lezhin nor Tappytoon use the term lily in the source provided.
  • Removed, as it's not supported by the source, or seemingly any other source. Morgan695 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History:

• Reference 35 appears to just redirect to the main site. Is this intentional?
  • Repaired the archive link.
• Reference 37 has a "page needed" tag
  • Fixed.

That is all. Once they have all been addressed, ping me and I will pass it. Link20XX (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: Edits have been implemented. Morgan695 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: The changes implemented are enough. The result of this review is Pass. Congratulations and nice work! Link20XX (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX:, Great, thank you! And thank you for your diligence in taking on so many of my GANs. Morgan695 (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: Don't mention it, I was just helping out. Anyway, I hope you nominate a fact from this article now that you can. Link20XX (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]