Jump to content

Talk:Antique Bakery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anime series?

[edit]

I was hoping to find more information on the Anime series here or on IMDb, but unfortunately both sources seem to have very little useful information. I've seen several episodes of the series (which I believe has twelve 23-minute episodes total). I suspect these closely follow the storyline, style, and characters of the manga, but I don't know for certain. 24.57.205.218 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese drama series

[edit]

I'm confused about the actors for the Japanese drama series. This page conflicts with IMDb, listing a different set of actors for the main roles.

Keisuke Tachibana - Kippei Shiina OR Koichi Yamadera

Yusuke Ono - Naohito Fujiki OR Hozumi Goda

Eiji Kanda - Hideaki Takizawa OR Tomokazu Seki

Chikage Kobayakawa - ??? OR Kazuhiko Inoue

Who is right? Were there two live-action series?

24.57.239.43 (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review(s)

[edit]

--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antique Bakery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antique Bakery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Antique Bakery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article.

 

Lead

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Lead is good; it explains and links pages that unfold the Japanese terms used. A good Lead.


Synopsis

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Synopsis is clear and sharp and not overwritten.

Characters

[edit]

Primary characters

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted. All OK

Secondary characters

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted. All OK

Media

[edit]

Manga

[edit]
Main series
[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Links checked; Japanese Amazon and English release dates verified.

Spin-off dōjinshi series

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted. Links verified.
  • Good explanation of Antique Afterwards and yaoi.

Live-action television drama

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted

List of episodes

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted

Audio drama

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Do we really need a link to compact disc?
  • Who doesn't know what a CD or DVD or Blueray is?

Anime

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted

List of episodes

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted

International adaptations

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted

Reception

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Good reviews linked.

Awards

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted.

Analysis

[edit]

Portrayal of cooking and gender

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • This is an important section for understanding the reception of this anime.

Portrayal of homosexuality

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • A question comes to mind, how does this sit with portrayal of homosexuality among Japanese youth and young adults generally? Is there a context that might be included for the reader?
  • This reads well, and the citations from Tran and Aoyama are apt and balanced.

Notes

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • OK

References

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Examined. All OK, no linkrot.

Bibliography

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Examined, appropriate.

Further reading

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  • Noted. Sexual preference and food noticed.
[edit]
  • Noted.

 

End Matter

[edit]
  1. Is it is Broad in its coverage?
  • Yes, it is balanced and gives a good overview of anime, manga and associated yaoi topics (which are relevant). The genre is well explained.
  1. Is it Verifiable with no original research?
  • Yes.
  1. Does it follow WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View?
  • Yes, quite neutral, particularly in the Character / Secondary character depictions.
  1. Is it stable?
  • Yes. Page started life on 16 March 2006 and the latest edit was 31 January 2021
  • Article has had 366 edits by 183 individual editors.
  • Observable edits are addition of links, and external link corrections.
  • There is no evidence of edit-warring.
  1. Top editors are
    * TheFarix
    * Malkinann
    * Allen4names
    * Morgan695
    * JRBrown
    * AngusWOOF
  1. It is illustrated by images ?
  • Yes, there is an acceptable image in the infobox.
  • Image is a low-res DVD cover, qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States.

Overall

[edit]
  • A neat article. Lot of research has gone into this, stays on topic and does not veer into WP:FANCRUFT nor opinion. Well scribed.

Conclusion

[edit]

May we attend to questions raised above? --Whiteguru (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: I've removed the overlinking in the Audio drama section per your suggestion. Regarding your question about where Antique Bakery sits relative to other works depicting homosexuality, I've tried to clarify the "Portrayal of homosexuality" to explicate that the story does not feature sex (in contrast to BL, where sexual depictions are commonplace), and added additional prose from the Aoyama source to note that the series parodies and subverts expecations of BL narratives in this regard. Morgan695 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan695: I'm happy with that, and pleased that you picked up DVD, as well. I understand the functions of BL vis-a-vis anime and how Antique Bakery is presented. We'll take that as sorted. Thumbs up icon --Whiteguru (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Passed

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Everything looks good here. I think the original hook is the best one. Krakkos (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antique_Bakery&oldid=1204895333"