Talk:Land of the Lustrous (TV series)

Aniway

I own a copy of the Aniway magazine article used as a source in this article, and am the one who had provided Alexandra a translation. I am happy to send this translation for confirmation or further use to other editors (such as far GA and FA reviews). ~Mable (chat) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Whats the official translation on the manga and anime? both manga and anime are out in English.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Unsure what you mean here? Mable is talking about how she translated an article from a Dutch magazine for me to use in this article.--Alexandra IDV^talk 22:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought there was a translation that referred to a character "Alexandrite" as "Alexandra". I didn't see the ping. I'm stupid.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha, no worries!--Alexandra IDV^talk 22:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

amazon prime release dates

Do we not include Amazon prime release dates in the episode list or do we wait for the actual dub? I'm not familiar with anime pages yet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• It was simulcast, meaning it went up the same day on Amazon Prime as it aired in Japan.--Alexandra IDV^talk 23:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ok. that makes sense then. no point repeating the same release dates then.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Land of the Lustrous (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Will be doing this, may take up to a week due to real-life matters. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The premise/synopsis section seems too short. I'm aware there's a plot section in the main series article, but perhaps at least an overview of the series' events could be added here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

   @Narutolovehinata5: Per MOS:TVPLOT, an article should not both contain a prose summary of the plot and a table of episode summaries. Basically, if the episode list were to be spun out into its own article (which might happen if the show gets renewed for a second season), then yes, the plot section should be expanded, but as it is right now it should not.--Alexandra IDV^talk 06:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Though if the series' episode list is split off, please make sure to write a more detailed synopsis. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course.--Alexandra IDV^talk 06:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Really appreciate the discussion of Japanese reception here, particularly on the awards it won. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Once the issue with the premise section is resolved, this will be a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are no more outstanding issues, so this is now a pass. Good work as always. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--Alexandra IDV^talk 06:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Way too many references in a single place?

I am not sure we need to have that many references for this article in a row. I counted places where there were at least 4 references in a row one string. I cannot find it now, but I do know there were guidelines about this when I was more actively interested in editing. From what I recall, if you have one verifiable reference for a piece of information, stick to it, and don't try to further give a piece of information credence by bombing it with countless references.

The Reception segment could also use some work. For most TV shows and movies, these sections use direct quotes from reviews and other sources, since it cuts down on the amount of references needed and the likelihood you may incidentally augment or change the meaning of someone else's work.

EDIT: And there it is - WP:OVERCITE and WP:BOMBARD Austinuity (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• (as the person who wrote this article,) I do not believe this was the case, but rather that not one single source covered the entire statement, so I cited all the ones that together covered the entire thing. For the reception section in particular, this is due to how I cannot cite just one source and say "the animation was well received" as a general statement - but I am also aware that reception sections are one of my weak points, and that it definitely can be improved.--Alexandra IDV^talk 02:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• I think the current usage is fine myself. Outside of the Reception section, there are only two instances of triple citations, and both for good reasons. The Reception section itself looks slightly messy because of the citations, but I think it is much preferred like this, unless we want to use single footnotes to refer to multiple citations. The very last sentence, regarding the first five Japanese Blu-ray volumes, could maybe have its citations laid out a bit differently: placing the footnote right after the number rather than at the end of the sentence. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Producers

The series was not produced by Katsuhiro Takei and Kiyotaka Waki (despite the ANN citation); Katsuhiro is credited with "produce" (プロデュース) and Kiyotaka is credited with "production generalization" (制作プロデューサー; this can also be called the "work producer" based on the literal translation), neither of which being the correct "producer" credit that should be listed within the infoboxes. The actual producer credits go to nine other individuals who can all be confirmed by looking at the opening or ending credits, or by simply heading over to the Japanese wiki (screenshot of the opening credits at about 1 minute and 50 seconds on episode 2: http://prntscr.com/n0w6sp | JP Wiki link: [1]). As can be seen, neither Katsuhiro or Kiyotaka's names are listed as "producers" (プロデューサー). Instead, the names of Youko Baba (馬場楊子), Maya Fujino (藤野麻耶), Hiroshi Kamei (亀井博司), Tomoyo Kamiji (上治知世), Hirotaka Kaneko (金子広孝), Mika Shimizu (清水美佳), Yuuichi Tada (多田祐一), Yoshihiko Yamazaki (山崎慶彦), and Kento Yoshida (吉田健人) appear. Kiyotaka and Katsuhiro can be seen with their aformentioned credits, however, at around 2:03 on the same episode's OP (http://prntscr.com/n0wc8m). On a side note, ANN Encyclopedia, despite the ANN article mentioning Katsuhiro and Kiyotaka as producers, doesn't list them as such. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification!--Alexandra IDV^talk 19:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing context?

Who is Yoichi Nishikawa? Why did he make concept art for this? He is getting name dropped into the article without any context. He also doesn't seem to have a Wikipadia entry. If he is relevant I think his role should be expanded upon, otherwise those parts should probably be removed. 24.203.63.40 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand, do you want some kind of "Nishikawa, known for his work on [...]"? As the article explains, his concept art "greatly influenced Kyogoku's vision for what he wanted to accomplish with the series" so I really do not get the idea that we should strike him from the article or that he is irrelevant?--Alexandra^IDV 02:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)